Opinion ID: 3189627
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appeal of Market East at 176 EM 2014, J-60-2015

Text: 1. Whether, in awarding the license to Stadium, the Board failed to consider the alleged monopolization of the gaming market and/or undue concentration of economic opportunities and licensed gaming facilities, which purportedly would result? In its first issue, Market East contends that, in awarding the license to Stadium, the Board failed to consider the alleged monopolization of the gaming market or the undue concentration of economic opportunities and licensed gaming facilities which purportedly would result. Before considering this question, however, we must address the Board’s argument that this issue was waived under Pa.R.A.P. 1551 due to Market East’s failure to raise it before the Board. Market East denies that this issue was waived under this rule based on its contention that the Board had the independent duty under Section 1102(5), and its own regulations, 58 Pa. Code § 421a.5, to consider whether undue economic concentration would result from its issuance of a slot machine license. Market East further asserts that it could not have raised this issue until the Board issued its Adjudication, in which Market East contends that the Board failed to analyze this question. [J-59-2015 and J-60-2015] - 20 Pa.R.A.P. 1551, which governs petitions for review from administrative tribunals, provides, in relevant part, that “[n]o question shall be heard or considered by the court which was not raised before the government unit except: . . . (3) Questions which the court is satisfied that the petitioner could not by the exercise of due diligence have raised before the government unit.” Pa.R.A.P. 1551(a). As we noted in our decision in Station Square Gaming L.P. v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Bd., 927 A.2d 232, 240-41 (Pa. 2007), proceedings before the Gaming Board are “sui generis” and unlike either a conventional trial in the court of common pleas, or proceedings conducted before other administrative tribunals such as unemployment or workers’ compensation hearings. Thus, we stressed that, given the Board’s unique procedures, in circumstances where a party did not have the opportunity to identify or raise issues to the Board, such issues will not be waived if they are raised for the first time in a petition for review. Id. at 241. Here, the nature of Market East’s claim, i.e., that the Board “did not consider the likelihood of possible monopolization and/or undue concentration of economic opportunities and control of licensed gaming facilities,” as required by statute and regulation, Market East Brief (J-60-2015) at 9-10, is a challenge to the Board’s Adjudication in which it explicated its rationale for making its ultimate licensing decision. The Board’s regulations do not permit a party to file either exceptions, or a motion for reconsideration or rehearing, after the Board’s final order in licensing proceedings. See 58 Pa. Code § 494a.8(f) (expressly exempting a final order of the Board in licensing proceedings from being subject to an application for rehearing or reconsideration, and providing that challenges to a Board denial of a license are governed by 4 Pa.C.S. § 1204). As a result, the earliest possible opportunity for Market East to raise this challenge was through its petition for review; thus, we find the issue is not waived. [J-59-2015 and J-60-2015] - 21 On the merits, Market East asserts that 58 Pa. Code § 421a.5(c) specifies that the Board, in determining whether undue concentration of economic opportunities exists, “will consider” the 11 factors enumerated therein.22 Market East Brief (J-60- 22 Section 421a.5(c) provides: In determining whether the issuance or holding of a license by a person will result in undue concentration of economic opportunities and control of the licensed gaming facilities in this Commonwealth, the Board will consider the following criteria: (1) The percentage share of the market presently controlled by the person in each of the following categories: (i) Total number of slot machine licenses available under section 1307 of the act (relating to number of slot machine licenses). (ii) Total gaming floor square footage. (iii) Number of slot machines and table games. (iv) Gross terminal and table game revenue. (v) Net terminal and table game revenue. (vi) Number of persons employed by the licensee. (2) The estimated increase in the market share in the categories in paragraph (1) if the person is issued or permitted to hold the license. (3) The relative position of other persons who hold licenses, as evidenced by the market share of each person in the categories in paragraph (1). (4) The current and projected financial condition of the industry. (5) Current market conditions, including level of competition, consumer demand, market concentration, any consolidation trends in the industry and other relevant characteristics of the market. (6) Whether the gaming facilities held or to be held by the person have separate organizational structures or other independent obligations. (7) The potential impact of licensure on the projected future growth and development of the gaming industry in this Commonwealth and the growth and development of the host communities. (continuedR) [J-59-2015 and J-60-2015] - 22 2015) at 21. It reasons that, because the Board failed to either refer to these factors, or discuss them in its Adjudication, its decision should be reversed; according to Market East, this failure evidences the Board’s disregard for the legislative intent to avoid monopolization and undue economic concentration in the award of a slot machine license. Market East claims that the Board’s failure to conduct such an explicit analysis is “troubling” based on what it contends are “anti[-]competitive effects” of the award of the license. Market East Brief (J-60-2015) at 22. Market East cites, as support for this contention: first, the proximity of Stadium’s proposed casino to the site of the Parx Casino, which it contends are both owned by Manoukian and, thus, would have no incentive to compete against one another in the same market; and, second, the alleged competitive advantage Stadium would have over other casinos, by virtue of the access (Rcontinued) (8) The barriers to entry into the gaming industry, including the licensure requirements of the act, and whether the issuance or holding of a license by the person will operate as a barrier to new companies and individuals desiring to enter the market. (9) Whether the issuance or holding of the license by the person will adversely impact consumer interests, or whether the issuance or holding is likely to result in enhancing the quality and customer appeal of products and services offered by slot machine licensees to maintain or increase their respective market shares. (10) Whether a restriction on the issuance or holding of an additional license by the person is necessary to encourage and preserve competition and to prevent undue concentration of economic opportunities and control of the licensed gaming facilities. (11) Other evidence related to concentration of economic opportunities and control of the licensed gaming facilities in this Commonwealth. 58 Pa. Code § 421a.5(c). [J-59-2015 and J-60-2015] - 23 it would have to a combined list of customers from both casinos, which it would use for marketing purposes. The Board responds23 by focusing on the fact that 58 Pa. Code § 421a.5(c) did not require it to engage in a protracted discussion in its Adjudication of each of the factors set forth therein; rather, in the Board’s view, it is required by the text of the regulation only to consider them in its licensing decision. It contends that the evidentiary record and its Adjudication both demonstrate that it was presented with, and did, in fact, consider evidence relating to the issue of concentration of economic opportunities during the process of deciding to award the license to Stadium. The Board rejects Market East’s assertion that Stadium is “another Manoukian casino,” because that conclusion disregards the fact that the Cordish Group, which owns 50% of Stadium, is a new entrant into the Pennsylvania gaming market, and that it will have the greatest share of control over the Stadium casino. Board Brief (J-60-2015) at 26. Consequently, according to the Board, it is the Cordish Group, not Manoukian, that will realize the majority of the benefits of this control over the facility, its slot machines, table games, and the attendant revenue and employment opportunities which will be generated. The Board points out that, prior to its award of a license to Stadium, SugarHouse had a slot machine monopoly in Philadelphia, even though the Gaming Act expressly contemplated that there be two such licensees, and that the mere use of the same mailing list for marketing purposes by both casinos does not, by itself, rise to the level of a violation of the regulations, particularly where other casino management companies 23 While we have considered Stadium’s arguments as an intervenor with respect to this and the remaining issues in these appeals, since it is the Board’s adjudication of these issues that is being challenged by Market East, we focus on the Board’s appellate arguments as they elucidate its rationale for its decision. [J-59-2015 and J-60-2015] - 24 routinely employ such practices, such as the Mohegan Sun, which would manage Market East’s casino, and which currently manages a Pennsylvania casino at Pocono Downs, as well as a casino in Connecticut that purportedly is the highest grossing casino in the Western Hemisphere with the largest database of customers. Finally, the Board points out that the Gaming Act contemplates some degree of economic concentration, and 58 Pa. Code § 421a.5(c) prohibits only “undue concentration of economic opportunities” which stifles competition, something it maintains Stadium’s casino will not do. Board Brief (J-60-2015) at 28 (emphasis added). Applying our circumscribed standard of review to this question, we discern no error of law, or arbitrary or capricious disregard of competent evidence, which would justify overturning the Board’s decision on this basis. The Gaming Act, by its legislative design, does not, as a matter of law, regard multiple ownership interests in and of themselves as creating either a monopoly or undue economic concentration on the part of the possessor of such interests. Indeed, the Gaming Act specifically allows parties to possess multiple ownership interests, provided they do not exceed the statutory limits set by the legislature on such interests. See 4 Pa.C.S. §§ 1304, 1330. Moreover, and importantly, neither 58 Pa. Code § 421a.5(c), nor the statute which this regulation was promulgated to effectuate, Section 1102(5) of the Gaming Act,24 requires that the Board engage in an extended or in-depth discussion in a licensing adjudication of each separate factor that it considered in determining that an 24 This statutory subsection provides: The authorization of limited gaming is intended to provide broad economic opportunities to the citizens of this Commonwealth and shall be implemented in such a manner as to prevent possible monopolization by establishing reasonable restrictions on the control of multiple licensed gaming facilities in this Commonwealth. 4 Pa.C.S. § 1102(5). [J-59-2015 and J-60-2015] - 25 award of a slot machine license would not result in “undue concentration of economic opportunities” or “possible monopolization.” Thus, the mere fact that the Board in this case did not engage in a formulaic, checklist style consideration of the criteria listed in 58 Pa. Code § 421a.5(c) in its Adjudication does not indicate that it failed to consider these criteria as part of its decision-making process. Indeed, it is evident from its Adjudication that the Board evaluated and judiciously weighed evidence regarding these factors in arriving at its decision, even though it did not formally announce that it was doing so. See Adjudication at 76-85; 118-120 (discussing physical capacity for gaming offerings currently offered by SugarHouse, the projected physical gaming capacity of Stadium, current revenues generated by SugarHouse, and the projected revenues for Stadium); 79-82 (detailing respective ownership structures of Parx Casino and Stadium); 113 (discussing geographical proximity of Stadium’s proposed facility to existing casinos, and observing that it was far enough away from those facilities to create a “buffer” between them); 114-16 (discussing how the ownership structure of Stadium affected its ability to compete in the Philadelphia gaming market); 120, 122-23 (recognizing the effect of existing competition among casinos in the Philadelphia area for customers as undergirding Board’s decision to select the “right sized” casino for the market, not the largest casino); 124 (analyzing the degree of “cannibalization” of revenues from all existing casinos by the opening of each of the proposed casinos); 126-28 (discussing how SugarHouse has “substantially benefited” from being the only Philadelphia area slot machine licensee to date, the legislature’s considered judgment that Philadelphia was able to sustain two such facilities, the general market conditions extant in the Philadelphia gaming market at the time of the licensing proceedings, the effect of casino closures in nearby Atlantic City on customer demand, and how competition in the Philadelphia area gaming market would be enhanced by the opening [J-59-2015 and J-60-2015] - 26 of a second casino); 155 (discussing the number of permanent casino jobs which each project would create). We, therefore, find no merit to this claim. 2. Whether Stadium was ineligible to apply for a Category 2 license under Section 1304(a) of the Gaming Act because one of its owners could be considered an affiliate “eligible to apply” for a Category 1 license at the time of Stadium’s application? In its next issue, Market East contends that Stadium was ineligible to apply for a Category 2 license under Section 1304(a) of the Gaming Act because one of its owners could be considered an affiliate “eligible to apply” for a Category 1 license at the time of Stadium’s application. Market East argues that, under the plain language of Section 1304(a), if a person or entity, or any affiliate of the person or entity, is eligible to apply for a Category 1 license, then the person, entity or affiliate is, “per se,” ineligible to apply for a Category 2 license. Market East assails what it considers the Board’s disregard of this statutory restriction when it issued the Category 2 license to Stadium based on the Board’s alleged failure to consider Manoukian’s role in the ownership structures of both Stadium and Parx Casino. Market East claims that, at the time of Stadium’s initial application, Stadium was ineligible to apply because Manoukian, as one of Stadium’s “affiliates,” was “eligible to apply” for a Category 1 license by virtue of his ownership interest in Parx Casino, through Greenwood — a Category 1 license holder. Market East contends that, even under Stadium’s revised post-licensing structure, it was still ineligible to apply for the Category 2 license, since, in its view, Manoukian retained a controlling interest in Stadium, through what it regards as Manoukian’s continuing control of Sterling Fiduciary. Market East claims that Greenwood can be considered eligible to apply for a Category 1 license since it is a current Category 1 license holder and, thus, it had to have been eligible to apply for such a license in order to get it. Further, Market East [J-59-2015 and J-60-2015] - 27 asserts that Greenwood continues to be eligible to apply since it is required under the Gaming Act to submit a renewal application for its Category 1 license every three years. Market East additionally assails what it considers to be the Board’s overall failure to address the issue of the licensing requirements of Section 1304(a)(1) in its Adjudication, which omission it contends is reversible error. Market East Brief (J-60-2015) at 30. The Board first responds that Market East’s interpretation contravenes the purpose of Section 1304(a), as it has consistently interpreted that section since the Gaming Act was enacted. The Board notes that, under Section 1304(a), a holder of a Category 1 license is required to be a racetrack facility which conducts racing on a specified number of days during the year, and which otherwise maintains an active role in the racing business. The Board regards Section 1304(a)’s prohibitions against a Category 1 license holder also holding a Category 2 license as designed to ensure that the holder of a Category 1 license would not also be eligible to acquire a Category 2 license for the same racetrack facility, as this would enable the Category 1 license holder to operate a casino without having to continue to conduct live racing, thereby subverting one of the primary legislative goals of the Gaming Act — the enhancement of the sport of live horse racing in the Commonwealth. The Board also observes that Section 1301 of the Gaming Act requires that all Category 1, 2, and 3 slot machine licenses be awarded “collectively and together in a comprehensive Statewide manner” within 12 months of the date set by the Board for the receipt of completed applications by the Board. Board Brief (J-60-2015) at 31 (citing 4 Pa.C.S. § 1301). The Board suggests that this legislative focus on expediting the approval process to get slot machine facilities operational as quickly as possible supports the conclusion that Section 1304(a)’s terms relating to the application process [J-59-2015 and J-60-2015] - 28 refer to first-time applications for licenses after the Gaming Act took effect, not their subsequent renewal. Further, the Board stresses that the plain language of the Gaming Act itself supports its interpretation. The Board notes that, when it conducted the initial licensing process contemplated by Section 1304(a) in 2006, Greenwood applied for, and was awarded, one of the six Category 1 licenses which were initially made available. The Board asserts that, once it acquired this license, Greenwood’s status changed from that of an applicant to a license holder. As such, according to the Board, once Greenwood was awarded the Category 1 license for Parx Casino it was no longer eligible to apply for that license. The Board rejects Market East’s claim that, because a license holder must apply for renewal of a license every three years, the license holder can always be considered eligible to apply during the three year period covered by the license. The Board contends that this would create an absurd result where a Category 1 license holder would be considered eligible to apply during the three-year period that his or her license is active, and would only be out of “eligible to apply” status for the period of time his or her renewal application is pending before the Board. Consequently, the Board considers Greenwood, at the time of Stadium’s application, to have been a Category 1 license holder, which was no longer eligible to apply for a Category 1 license. The Board considers Market East’s arguments regarding the ownership structure of Stadium to be irrelevant to our interpretation of the requirements of Section 1304(a) and, instead, more salient to the question of whether the requirements of Section 1330 were met. Since our review of the Board’s interpretation of Section 1304(a) involves a question of law, our review is de novo. Mason-Dixon Resorts, LP v. Pennsylvania [J-59-2015 and J-60-2015] - 29 Gaming Control Board, 52 A.3d 1087, 1093 (Pa. 2012). Section 1304(a) of the Gaming Act provides:
(1) A person may be eligible to apply for a Category 2 license if the applicant, its affiliate, intermediary, subsidiary or holding company is not otherwise eligible to apply for a Category 1 license and the person is seeking to locate a licensed facility in a city of the first class, a city of the second class or a revenue- or tourism-enhanced location. It shall not be a condition of eligibility to apply for a Category 2 license to obtain a license from either the State Horse Racing Commission or the State Harness Racing Commission to conduct thoroughbred or harness race meetings respectively with pari-mutuel wagering. 4 Pa.C.S. § 1304 (emphasis added). In interpreting a provision of the Gaming Act we are guided by the principles embodied in our Statutory Construction Act. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Bd. v. City Council of Philadelphia, 928 A.2d 1255, 1263 (Pa. 2007). The principally relevant provisions of the Statutory Construction Act applicable to this matter are: Section 1921(a), which specifies that “[t]he object of all interpretation and construction of statutes is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the General Assembly”, and that “[e]very statute shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions,” 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a); and Section 1921(b), which instructs: “When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit,” id. § 1921(b). The Statutory Construction Act also sets forth certain presumptions regarding the General Assembly's enactment of statutes which guide our interpretation in this instance, particularly that: “[w]ords and phrases shall be construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage,” 1 Pa.C.S. § 1903(a); the legislature “does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable,” 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922(1); and the legislature intends the entirety of the [J-59-2015 and J-60-2015] - 30 statute to be certain, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922(2). Additionally, if the General Assembly defines words that are used in a statute, those definitions are binding. Young’s Sales and Service v. Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Board, 70 A.3d 795, 801 (Pa. 2013). We note also that, when interpreting a statute, which has already been interpreted by an administrative agency tasked by the General Assembly with enforcing it, we accord deference to the agency’s interpretation if the statute is ambiguous. Seeton v. Pennsylvania Game Commission, 937 A.2d 1028, 1037 (Pa. 2007). However, by contrast, if the statutory language is unambiguous, or the agency’s interpretation has been developed in anticipation of litigation, then deference is not required, and our Court treats the question of interpretation as purely a matter of law. Malt Beverages Distributors Association v. Pa. Liquor Control Board, 974 A.2d 1144, 1154 (Pa. 2009). Applying these principles to Section 1304(a) of the Gaming Act, and giving the terms of Section 1304(a) their ordinary and accepted meaning, a “person” is eligible to apply for a Category 2 license if it, as “the applicant” (or “its affiliate, intermediary, subsidiary, or holding company”), is “not otherwise eligible to apply for a Category 1 license.” 4 Pa.C.S. § 1304(a). Utilizing the definitions for these terms set forth in the Gaming Act, we first conclude that Stadium, as a limited liability corporation, is a “person” as that term is used in this section. See 4 Pa.C.S. § 1103 (defining “person” as “[a]ny natural person, corporation, foundation, organization, business trust, estate, limited liability company, licensed corporation, trust, partnership, limited liability partnership, association or any other form of legal business entity”). Thus, in order for Stadium to have been eligible “to apply for” the Category 2 license with the Board — i.e., to commence the application process with the Board — at the time of its [J-59-2015 and J-60-2015] - 31 application, neither it, nor “its affiliate, intermediary, subsidiary or holding company,” could be “otherwise eligible to apply for a Category 1 license.” As the parties seemingly agree, Manoukian qualifies as an “affiliate” of Stadium since Stadium is under the “common control” of Manoukian and other persons through intermediate business entities.25 See 4 Pa.C.S. § 1103 (defining “affiliate” as “[a] person that directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controls, is controlled by or is under common control with a specified person.”). The dispositive question, then, as to whether Stadium was eligible to apply for a Category 2 license under Section 1304(a) is, as contested by the parties, whether Manoukian was “otherwise eligible to apply for a Category 1 license” at the time Stadium was applying for its Category 2 license.26 We agree with the Board that, generally, the Gaming Act differentiates between the legal requirements a person must meet when first applying for a slot machine license for a particular facility, and for the renewal of said license. See 4 Pa.C.S. § 1325(a) (governing issuance of slot machine licenses); Id. § 1326(a) (governing renewal of such licenses). This lends support to the Board’s contention that, once an initial applicant for a Category 1 license for a particular facility is successful, the application process has come to an end, and the applicant is, thereafter, a license holder for that facility subject to the Act’s license renewal requirements. See 4 Pa.C.S. § 1103 (defining “applicant” as “[a]ny person who, on his own behalf or on behalf of another, is applying for permission to engage in any act or activity which is regulated under the provisions of this part.”). Thus, we reject Market East’s assertion that a person seeking renewal of an already-issued Category 1 gaming license must be regarded as “applying for” that license. However, Sections 1325 and 1326 are not 25 In this regard, we do not interpret the term “common control” to mean sole or majority control, as Section 1103 separately utilizes the terms “controls” and “common control.” 26 In this context, we construe “otherwise” to mean “additionally.” [J-59-2015 and J-60-2015] - 32 dispositive of this question, as they do not establish the criteria which make a person “eligible to apply for a Category 1 license.” These criteria are, instead, established by Section 1302(a) of the Act which provides “[a] person may be eligible to apply for a Category 1 license to place and operate slot machines at a licensed racetrack facility” if the person meets any of four criteria set forth therein regarding that facility’s licensure for the conduct of live racing and wagering thereon. 4 Pa.C.S. § 1302. While Section 1302 prohibits the issuance of more than one slot machine license for a particular licensed racetrack facility, it does not, on its face, prohibit a Category 1 license holder such as Manoukian from being eligible to apply for another Category 1 license for a separate racetrack facility. We conclude that, so long as a person holding a Category 1 license for one facility meets the criteria set forth in Section 1302 with respect to another facility, the person continues to be “eligible to apply for a Category 1 license” for the other facility.27 We cannot determine from this record, however, whether Manoukian was “eligible to apply for a Category 1 license” for another facility at the time Stadium filed its application for the Category 2 license, since, as Market East points out, the Board failed to address the issue of the licensing requirements of Section 1304(a)(1) in its Adjudication. As resolution of this question requires additional findings of fact by the Board, and as our Court does not engage in fact-finding in the first instance, we must remand to the Board for further proceedings on this issue. See Greenwood Gaming, supra (remanding to the Board for it to consider factual issue not addressed in licensing proceeding). 3. Whether Stadium was precluded from holding a Category 2 license under Section 1330 of the Gaming Act because an individual holding an ownership 27 To be issued the license, such an applicant must, of course, also meet the requirements of Section 1303 and not be otherwise barred by the provisions of Section 1330. [J-59-2015 and J-60-2015] - 33 interest in Stadium allegedly possessed a greater than 33.3 percent ownership interest in a racetrack/casino that is a Category 1 licensed facility? Market East next argues that the Board, in granting the license to Stadium, violated Section 1330 of the Gaming Act because an individual holding an ownership interest in Stadium possessed a greater than 33.3% ownership interest in a racetrack/casino that is a Category 1 licensed facility.28 Market East argues that the Board engaged in only a “cursory” analysis of the issue of Stadium’s compliance with Section 1330, and did no “in-depth analysis on this point” in its Adjudication, despite the putative existence of myriad “red flags” in the evidentiary record pertaining to this question. Market East Brief (J-60-2015) at 31-32. Market East reminds that, during the licensing process, the Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement and the Board itself had serious concerns about whether Manoukian’s interests in both Greenwood and Stadium violated Section 1330, and that Stadium specifically developed and entered into the record its proposed post-licensing structure as a deliberate “work around,” to ensure that the equity interests of Manoukian would be within the statutorily mandated proportions after the license was granted. Id. at 36. With respect to Stadium’s proposed post-licensing structure, as it pertains to ownership of the corporate trustee, Sterling Fiduciary, Market East argues that Manoukian did not relinquish any actual ownership or control of this corporation, but rather, ceded only what it terms “paper power” over this entity, due to the fact that, when Manoukian resigned his position as president and treasurer of Sterling Fiduciary, a longtime business associate of his was installed in those positions, and other family 28 The Board argues this issue is waived due to Market East’s failure to raise the issue before the Board. Board Brief (J-60-2015) at 39 n.17. However, we reject this claim for the same reasons we rejected the Board’s similar claim that Market East’s first issue was waived. See supra Part II.B.1. [J-59-2015 and J-60-2015] - 34 members continue to be shareholders in Sterling Fiduciary. Market East Brief at 35. Market East contends that these factors, as well as certain financial transactions and arrangements made by Manoukian, the full details of which are outlined in the sealed record in this matter, collectively establish that these transfers were a “sham,” as Manoukian yielded no actual ownership or control of Sterling Fiduciary. Market East claims that the nature of these transactions raises a legitimate presumption that Manoukian continues to hold the controlling interest in Sterling Fiduciary and that this arrangement contravenes Section 1330. Market East decries the Board’s failure to address these matters in its Adjudication, as well as its lack of discussion as to whether its consideration of Stadium’s post-licensing structure was appropriate under the Act. It contends that the Board committed an error of law through its failure to engage in any reasoned legal analysis of these questions.29 The Board responds that, under the plain language of Section 1330, the relevant ownership structure that must be considered is that which existed at the time the license was issued; hence, the Board contends that it properly considered the revised ownership structure, which Stadium submitted after the record was re-opened. The Board points out there is nothing in either the text of the Gaming Act or its own regulations which prohibits its consideration of that structure. The Board further asserts that, because the corporate documents pertaining to the formation of the corporate trustee — Sterling Fiduciary — show that it is controlled by a board of directors that Manoukian does not sit on, he has no control over its decisions. Thus, the Board considers the assets, which Sterling Fiduciary possesses in the capacity of trustee, to be held for the benefit of others, and, thus, that Sterling 29 Amicus Chester Downs aligns with Market East’s contention that Stadium’s ownership structure violates Section 1330. [J-59-2015 and J-60-2015] - 35 Fiduciary cannot be regarded as either owning or having a financial interest in those assets. Hence, the Board reiterates its contention, advanced in its Adjudication, that none of the assets Sterling Fiduciary holds in the Sterling Investors Trust can be considered to be owned by Manoukian and, thus, that the only share of Stadium properly attributed to Manoukian is derived from his ownership interest in Greenwood multiplied by Greenwood’s ownership interest in Stadium — yielding a total ownership interest of 28%. The Board maintains that, even if Manoukian somehow controlled Sterling Fiduciary, that control would be irrelevant for purposes of a Section 1330 analysis, since that section only establishes restrictions on a slot machine licensee’s possession of an “ownership” or “financial interest” in another slot machine licensee, but does not contain any prohibitions on the licensee’s ability to control another licensee. The relevant portion of Section 1330 provides: No slot machine licensee, its affiliate, intermediary, subsidiary or holding company may possess an ownership or financial interest that is greater than 33.3% of another slot machine licensee or person eligible to apply for a Category 1 license, its affiliate, intermediary, subsidiary or holding company. The board shall approve the terms and conditions of any divestiture under this section.