IPI sues CCC, Palacios anew

Casino operator Imperial Pacific International (CNMI) LLC has filed anew its lawsuit against the Commonwealth Casino Commission, its officials, and Gov. Arnold I. Palacios.

IPI refiled last Friday its two lawsuits against Palacios, the CCC, and its officials regarding the regulatory fee statute under the Casino License Agreement that IPI claims are “excessive and unlawful fees.”

The lawsuits are the same ones IPI had asked to be dismissed last Jan. 30.

The plaintiff did not mention why they initially decided to drop their case, but a Saipan Tribune article about a previous Commonwealth Casino Commission meeting quoted CCC executive director Andrew Yeom as saying that IPI had agreed to drop its lawsuits as they are in the middle of settlement talks. The recently refiled lawsuits did not mention why the two cases have been brought to court again.

The refiled lawsuit is suing Palacios, CCC chair Edward C. Deleon Guerrero, vice chair Rafael S. Demapan, CCC commissioners Mariano Taitano, Martin Mendiola, and Ramon M. Dela Cruz, and CCC executive director Andrew Yeom in their official and personal capacities.

In it, IPI alleges that CCC and the CNMI administration deprived the casino investor of its constitutional rights by requiring it to pay “excessive and unlawful fees.”

IPI claimed in its complaint that, acting under the color of Commonwealth law, the defendants caused it to suffer a substantial deprivation of its contract rights, in violation of U.S. and Commonwealth constitutions.

“The regulatory fee statute imposed additional fees for doing business in the CNMI, which constitutes a substantial and unconstitutional impairment of the Casino License Agreement. IPI was and is still required to pay the $3-million annual regulatory fee as a prerequisite to exercising its existing contractual and property rights set forth explicitly in the CLA, rights for which it already has compensated [the] CNMI. In essence, defendants are double-charging IPI. The annual regulatory fees are substantial, and the impairment to the express and implied terms of the CLA is direct. The latter imposed regulatory fees, Commission Order 2021-002, and the most recent demand for immediate payment by defendants effectively nullify the explicit terms of the CLA and impose completely unexpected and new liabilities and limitations on the operation of IPI. IPI has incurred and will continue to incur attorney’s fees and costs because of these proceedings, in amounts that cannot yet be ascertained,” IPI argued.

As relief, IPI wants the court to issue a declaration that IPI is exempt from the regulatory fee because of the express terms of the CLA entered into by IPI and CNMI prior to the enactment of the annual regulatory fees statute.

IPI also wants for the court to prevent the defendants from enforcing the regulatory fee statute and collecting the annual regulatory fee from IPI, or at least mandate the defendants to exempt IPI from the annual regulatory fee.

In addition, IPI wants the regulatory fee statute be declared unconstitutional, and the court order the defendants pay IPI restitution of all regulatory fees paid by IPI in the past.