Court allows firm to maintain suit vs. HKE
Superior Court Judge Juan T. Lizama has allowed a Vanuatu corporation to maintain its lawsuit against the operator of Tinian Dynasty Hotel and Casino for non-payment of management services worth more than $1.3 million.
Lizama said the statutory language of 4 CMC 4642(a) does not require Pacific Management Limited’s action be dismissed on the grounds that it did not possess a certification when it instituted the civil action back in Aug. 28, 1998.
Hongkong Entertainment (Overseas) Investments Ltd., through its lawyer G. Anthony Long, requested the court to dismiss PML’s complaint because it did not have a certificate of authority to transact business as a foreign corporation in the CNMI.
But the court said PML was only prohibited from continuing or “maintaining” its action until it obtained the requisite certificate of authority from the Registrar of Corporations.
PML obtained the certificate of authority in Oct. 22, 1998 and may now “maintain” the present action against HKE, the court said.
In May 1996, PML entered into a management contract with HKE to provide casino management services for the Tinian Casino Hotel.
The Tinian Casino Gaming Control Commission approved the agreement and PML as the casino management company.
Subsequently, HKE requested that PML create a local corporation to perform the casino management services and assign the management agreement responsibilities to the new NMI corporation.
In the early part of 1997, PML and HKE requested Long to form an NMI corporation that could take over PML’s management responsibilities under the management agreement.
As such, International Casino Management Ltd. was incorporated pursuant to the NMI laws.
PML and HKE learned after ICM’s incorporation that neither the casino license held by HKE nor the management agreement could be transferred or assigned.
Accordingly, PML and HKE canceled their attempt to have ICM perform pursuant to the management agreement. PML then assigned the right to receive income from its management services to ICM.
In yesterday’s order, Lizama also denied PML’s motion to strike HKE’s reply to PML’s opposition to the motion to dismiss and PML’s motion for Rule 11 sanction against HKE.
