Gaming and Hospitality Practice

Select Page

Author: gamingandhospitalitypracticeblog

NEVADA’S GAMING POLICY COMMITTEE PASSES A RESOLUTION REGARDING MARIJUANA AND THE GAMING INDUSTRY

by Jennifer Gaynor, Kate Lowenhar-Fisher, Greg Gemignani, and Jeff Silver On March 5, 2018, Nevada’s Gaming Policy Committee convened briefly to pass a resolution that provides clarity for Nevada gaming licensees regarding the interactions they may and may not have with the state-legal marijuana industry. This meeting followed from the discussion and testimony received at the last Gaming Policy Committee meeting in November 2017. As discussed in our article “Nevada’s Gaming Policy Committee Convenes to Discuss Marijuana and the Gaming Industry,” at that meeting it was made clear that gaming licensees have a sometimes-tricky line to walk in order to remain in strict compliance with state and federal law in a state where both medical and recreational marijuana are legal. The three key issues discussed in the November meeting and dealt with in the Resolution include: The propriety of events on the premises of a licensed gaming establishment that cater to or promote the use, sale, and cultivation or distribution of marijuana; The propriety of a licensee contracting or maintaining a business relationship with an individual or entity engaged in the sale, cultivation, or distribution of marijuana; and The propriety of a licensee receiving financing from or providing financing to an individual, entity or establishment that sells, cultivates, or distributes marijuana. The resolutions adopted on March 5 include that Nevada gaming licensees: shall not directly “participate in the marijuana...

Read More

THE MORE THINGS CHANGE, THE MORE THEY … CHANGE: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TRADE SECRETS PROTECTION AND NON-COMPETITION LAW

By: David J. Houston and Angelina Irvine, with contributions by Sara H. Jodka, Kenneth K. Ching, and David G. Bray Executive Summary and Takeaway: Trade secrets and confidential information are receiving increasing protection in many states, and as more states perceive this as a “business friendly” issue, this trend will continue and expand. Non-competition provisions, while generally enforceable, are being scrutinized more closely by state legislatures and courts. The best way to ensure that your enterprise is in as strong a position as possible is to review relevant policies and contracts to this specific end. Specifics of these changes are outlined for all states in which Dickinson Wright has offices. If you have questions, please contact your Dickinson Wright lawyer or the authors. Introduction – Why Do You Care? “There are only two categories of companies affected by trade-secret theft: those that know they’ve been compromised and those that don’t know yet ….” —Eric Holder, former U.S. Attorney General “Uber and Waymo Settle Trade Secrets Suit [for $245M]” – New York Times, Feb. 9, 2018 Trade secret and non-competition laws are closely related, and those tools may work synergistically for the enterprise seeking maximum protection from unfair trade or business practices. Establishing a protectable interest in a “trade secret” typically requires a high proof threshold involving the business significance of the information or material and its consistent treatment by...

Read More

Dickinson Wright Attorneys Have Written a Chapter in the Chambers Global Practice Guide 2018

Kate Lowenhar-Fisher (Member, Las Vegas), Jacob Frenkel (Member, Washington, D.C.), Leighton Koehler (Of Counsel, Las Vegas), and Seth Waxman (Member, Washington, D.C.) also co-authored a chapter in the Chambers Global Practice Guide; Gaming, Gambling and Licensing Trends and Development 2018. The chapter is titled, “Marijuana Money Challenges Nevada Casinos’ Anti-Money Laundering Compliance”.   About the Authors: Kate Lowenhar-Fisher is a member partner in the Las Vegas office. She is a leading Nevada gaming attorney who counsels many of the world’s premier gaming companies on regulatory issues in connection with mergers and acquisitions, corporate restructuring, reorganizations and financings. Kate has extensive experience advising clients on issues related to Internet gaming, social gaming, fantasy sports, liquor licensing, nightclubs, restaurants, sweepstakes, contests, and promotions. She regularly represents individuals and businesses before regulatory agencies, including the Nevada State Gaming Control Board, the Nevada Gaming Commission, the Clark County Liquor and Gaming Licensing Board and the Las Vegas City Council. Kate may be reached at 702-550-4459. Jacob Frenkel is a member partner in our Washington, D.C. office. Clients hire Jacob because his aggressive, tenacious, creative and proactive strategies often put the other side on its heels, and because he gets successful results in investigations and litigation. Jacob has secured superior results for his securities enforcement, white-collar criminal defense, FCPA and internal and government investigations clients. Jacob brings his experience and outstanding reputation, including for...

Read More

INDIGENOUS GAMING ISSUES IN CANADA

by: Michael D. Lipton, Q.C., Kevin J. Weber and Chantal Cipriano The current division of jurisdiction over gaming in Canada came about as a result of a Federal-Provincial Agreement that was entered into in 1985, intended to address differences that had arisen between those governments since the introduction of a liberalized regime for gaming and betting in 1967. The legacy of this 1985 Federal-Provincial Agreement is that the Canadian Criminal Code provides that only provincial governments have the full authority to govern (“conduct and manage”) gaming in Canada. Charitable and religious organizations can also conduct and manage gaming, but the right of any charitable or religious entity to do so exists at the whim of the provincial governments. During the negotiations over this 1985 Federal-Provincial Agreement, gaming was being carried out on the reserves of Indigenous people throughout Canada, but this fact did not earn them a seat at the negotiating table. The new division of powers was dictated to Indigenous people without consultation. Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 extends protections over what it refers to as “Aboriginal rights,” which is generally understood to include a right to self-government. However, this has been of little assistance to Indigenous governments seeking to regulate gaming on their territories. In 1996, the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Pamajewon held that because neither gaming nor the regulation of gaming...

Read More

Newsletter Subscription

Disclaimer

The Gaming and Hospitality Practice blog is published by Dickinson Wright PLLC to inform the public of important developments within the firm and practice areas. The content is informational only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. We encourage you to consult a Dickinson Wright attorney if you have specific questions or concerns relating to any of the topics covered in this blog.

Categories