CCC prohibited from releasing IPI financial statements
In response to an emergency motion by Imperial Pacific International (CNMI) LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit temporarily blocked the Commonwealth Casino Commission last Friday from releasing IPI’s financial information until the appeals judges have a chance to look over the case.
According to the order by Ninth Circuit judges A. Wallace Tashima and Milan D. Smith Jr., CCC is temporarily enjoined from disclosing the information that IPI argues is “confidential” while a resolution to IPI’s recent emergency motion is under discussion.
CCC was ordered to submit a response to the emergency motion by 5pm on Aug. 13. A reply in support of the emergency motion, if there is any, is due by Aug. 14.
IPI lawyer Viola Alepuyo said the litigation between IPI and CCC involves serious and unresolved issues of Commonwealth law regarding public dissemination of income tax information of corporate and business taxpayers.
“Because of the important issues presented in the litigation, IPI appealed the district court’s decision denying its motion for a preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and filed an emergency motion with the Ninth Circuit,” she said.
The Ninth Circuit temporarily stayed or suspended the order of U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona that denied the petition of IPI and its two subsidiaries for a preliminary injunction.
The Ninth Circuit issued the order last Friday after IPI filed an emergency motion requesting the appellate court to stay Manglona’s order while its appeal is pending.
According to Saipan Tribune archives, Manglona denied IPI’s request for a preliminary injunction las Tuesday because IPI and its subsidiaries—Grand Marianas (CNMI) LLC and Imperial Pacific Properties LLC—did not meet their burden for a preliminary injunction.
“They have not shown that irreparable harm is likely without an injunction, that the balance of equities tips in their favor, or that an injunction is in the public interest,” the judge said.
Manglona said IPI has not even made a threshold showing that serious questions exist, let alone that they are likely to succeed on the merits.