State: There is no public interest in ensuring Sanborn sells his casino

Administrative Law Judge Gregory Albert (lower left) held a virtual hearing Wednesday in Andy Sanborn's casino licensing case with the Attorney General's Office and Sanborn's attorneys. (Annmarie Timmins | New Hampshire Bulletin)

During a hearing Wednesday on the state’s forced sale of Andy Sanborn’s Concord Casino, the state refused several demands from Sanborn’s attorneys. A sale, Assistant Attorney General Mark Dell’Orfano explained, would benefit Sanborn but is “not in the public’s interest.”

“It’s in Mr. Sanborn’s commercial interests to sell his business to someone, if he wishes,” Dell’Orfano said. “It’s not in the public’s interest that that sale happened and closed. It just isn’t.”

State budget writers and New Hampshire charities would likely disagree.

In May alone , the state’s casinos generated nearly $3 million for public education and almost $3.4 million for charities. If Sanborn manages to close a deal by the state’s Sept. 30 deadline, Concord Casino would continue generating money for the state and charities.

If Sanborn doesn’t, the gaming license that brings in the real money – the one that allows historic horse racing – disappears for the foreseeable future and with it revenue to the state and charities. Lawmakers passed a moratorium this year that prohibits new historic horse racing licenses until 2028.

Sanborn’s attorneys, who have accused the state of trying to thwart a sale out of spite against Sanborn, immediately disputed Dell’Orfano statement.

“I think it’s worth zooming out here and remembering what’s at stake,” said Adam Katz, during an hour-long hearing. “Yes, obviously it’s in Mr. Sanborn’s interest to sell. … But what’s actually at stake here is hundreds of thousands of dollars or more likely millions of dollars that won’t be going to the state and not going to charities.”

Sen. Tim Lang, a Sanbornton Republican who sponsored gaming legislation this year, described the revenue from casinos as significant in an interview following the hearing. Lang did not attend and did not comment on Sanborn’s case in particular, but said gaming and the state’s oversight of it is in the public’s interest.

He cited the money for education and commented specifically on the millions given to charities.

“That’s a huge help,” he said. “Without that, the state would pick up a portion of (services charities provide). This is a way to help the charities of New Hampshire without direct state involvement.”

The Attorney General’s Office did not respond to a message seeking clarification of Dell’Orfano’s comment.

The state moved nearly a year ago to revoke Sanborn’s gaming license after Attorney General John Formella announced he was investigating Sanborn, his wife, Rep. Laurie Sanborn, and his gaming company for alleged pandemic fraud. The couple deny Formella’s allegations that they spent nearly $844,000 on race cars and other illegal uses. They have not been charged.

Sanborn’s legal team succeeded in turning the proposed license revocation into a suspension by agreeing that Sanborn would close and sell his casino. The outcome was a win for Sanborn because his access to a gaming license is his casino’s most valuable asset.

But, the possibility that Sanborn’s gaming company could be criminally charged has led some potential buyers to walk away , according to documents the Bulletin obtained through a right-to-know request. That sale has been further complicated by disagreements over how much input the state, which must approve a buyer, should have in the terms of a sale.

The parties met with an administrative law judge again Monday with hopes of reaching agreement on some of those issues. It was the fourth hearing in less than a month, and it appeared to bring the parties no closer to agreement.

Though, the administrative judge, Gregory Albert, encouraged the parties to find agreement where they can.

“I really do genuinely believe that there’s an awful lot of agreement and there’s also an awful lot of bad blood,” he said. “And there is history and there are all sorts of things that cloud that. … But these commercial transactions are challenging, especially when there’s a regulatory authority above and beyond just kind of like a private contract. There’s a lot happening here.”

Asked about Dell’Orfano’s comments following the hearing, Sanborn’s legal team responded via email.

“It was a complete shock to hear the (Attorney General’s) Office admit on the record that the AG thinks a sale to a new suitable operator – which would generate many millions in revenue for New Hampshire and its charities – is not in the public interest,” said attorney Zachary Hafer, who also represents Sanborn. “The AG’s position is directly contrary to the Legislature’s adoption of charity gaming, (the ruling allowing Sanborn to sell), and the entire mission of the Lottery Commission. In fact, it suggests that the AG would rather injure Mr. Sanborn personally than facilitate substantial additional revenue for NH and its charities.”

Lottery Director Charlie McIntyre drew a distinction between gaming and the sale of a business, when asked about the public’s interest in the sale of Concord Casino.

“New Hampshire’s charitable gaming system has made and is continuing to make a tremendous positive impact throughout New Hampshire, generating vital revenue for hundreds of nonprofits performing meaningful work in all corners of the state, while also supporting the New Hampshire Lottery’s mission of driving maximum revenue in support of public education in the Granite State,” McIntyre said in an email. “The New Hampshire Lottery makes a distinction that, while a successful charitable gaming system is very much in the public interest here in New Hampshire, a potential private sale of any commercial gaming establishment is of a private commercial interest.”

The post State: There is no public interest in ensuring Sanborn sells his casino appeared first on New Hampshire Bulletin .