Monday, Oct. 13, 1997 | 10:20 a.m.
I WENT TO LONDON to visit the queen. But she wasn't there.
So, instead, I attended the International Association of Gaming Attorneys conference. The conference first met in London earlier this decade with a gathering, I am told, that was quite modest in number. When Las Vegan Mike Sloan took on the task of assembling the world's experts and expert wannabes in the field of gambling law, it was with a roll of the dice and a great deal of hope that he anxiously awaited to see just how many people would show up in the land of the common law.
More than three dozen lawyers made that first trip to London and from that meeting IAGA has grown to be the single most powerful source of legal expertise in the world for matters having to do with games of chance and the chances of growing that industry globally. Last week, I was but one of almost 500 attendees who included not only members of the legal profession but regulators and soon-to-be regulators from gaming jurisdictions across the planet.
While I wanted to learn the latest news about the industry that drives practically everything that happens in Nevada, I must confess that the opportunity to earn a large number of CLE credits didn't elude me. CLE credits are required for Nevada lawyers to maintain their standing as members of the state bar. I will not bore you with what tended to bore me -- such as the latest in audit requirements and the legal application of those regulations -- but I will share a few highlights, some of which occurred outside the meeting rooms.
I don't remember exactly when the conversation turned to the hottest news of the day -- Hilton's attempt to take over ITT -- but it was shortly after Hilton gaming boss Arthur Goldberg came into the opening night's reception. While Arthur didn't say much about Hilton's next step in its legal and public relations strategy, the broad smile across his face told us all our inquiring minds wanted to know.
Something, however, tells me that ITT Chairman Rand Araskog isn't giving up and going home, so there will be plenty more to come as the intrigue heightens and the votes begin to fly. One area of concern that kept coming up, though, is what the Nevada Gaming Commission might do if it ever has to pass judgment on a merger between the two gaming companies.
Almost 30 years ago, Howard Hughes was in a buying mood in Las Vegas. He had already purchased six hotels and was zeroing in on a seventh, the Stardust. Knowing that Hughes had helped the state clear out possible and probable mob-associated joints with his earlier purchases, the gamers were encouraging him to continue his winning ways.
Of course, there are at least two sides to that story. The downside of the Hughes buying spree was a concentration of ownership to the point that his hotels had garnered too much power over the marketplace. His hotels had banded together into buying co-ops, which put the purveyors in town at a disadvantage and the competitors at unreasonable risk. Also, the employment opportunities for workers who, for whatever reasons, left a Hughes-owned hotel became virtually nonexistent.
Policy-makers determined that there was too much power forming under the Hughes umbrella so the decision was made to stop Hughes at six hotels. He was refused the chance to own a seventh. What the gaming regulators are hoping not to have to decide on is whether a similar concentration of hotels under a Hilton banner might create a similar concern as the one we faced 30 years ago. It won't help the problem any to report that the lawyers who sought a solution to this issue over cocktails came away scratching their heads with most of them glad they wouldn't have to make the decision.
The next matter of interest took place in the meeting room with my friend Lloyd Levenson chairing a discussion about the growth of Internet gaming. I don't remember the names of the participants but I do remember clearly their message.
The state of Minnesota was represented by the attorney general's office because it is suing an Internet provider for falsely advertising to Minnesota residents that gambling on the Internet in that state is legal. Her position is a very popular one that maintains that states should have control over gambling even if it occurs on the World Wide Web. It is, after all, quite natural for a state to want to have the final say over what happens within its borders. The problem, of course, is that the Internet knows no borders and the task of enforcement is large indeed!
Enter the bloke from Australia who is responsible for writing the rules under which gambling on the Internet will be legal. It will emanate from Australia but, given the nature of www.gambling.com, it is easy to understand that wagering around the world will be slowed only by the speed of light. When asked if his country would pay attention to a valid court order from a state in America demanding that gambling cease in that state, the fellow who is going to be in charge from Australia just laughed. And why not? The Internet is bigger than any country, and we are quickly learning that things like borders and individual proscriptions are meaningless and practically unenforceable gestures.
Look for the spread of gambling into homes around the world to soon become the boogeyman the industry will fear most. A few Bible-thumping politicians in Washington will be welcome trouble compared with the problems that will soon be sent through the Internet to a gambler near you.
And just so you don't think there isn't a place for gossip at a meeting of lawyers far from home, this little gem should tantalize even the dullest among us. Word has it that a law firm in town has managed to do the ethically and, perhaps, legally impossible. The scuttlebutt has one partner in the firm representing the shareholders of a bankrupt hotel while the other partner represents the owner of the bonds issued by that hotel. That means that both sides to a fight over a lot of money are represented by the same firm. Now, if the gossipers are right, that is as big a conflict as can exist in the legal world.
Whether the gossip is right, of course, is a question that will soon be answered. That's why I am not mentioning any names yet. Suffice it to say that this is the kind of story that can create fireworks that will shoot into the stratosphere.
archive
