Embattled casino owner Andy Sanborn has escalated his fight with the New Hampshire Lottery Commission and the Attorney General’s Office to the state Supreme Court. Sanborn has asked the court to determine whether the state acted unlawfully by preventing him from selling his business, Concord Casino.
The lawyers allege the state thwarted a sale by wrongfully revoking Sanborn’s license over allegations of pandemic fraud and denying Sanborn’s buyer his own license.
Sanborn needs that revocation reversed in order to sell the casino.
The commission revoked Concord Casino’s license in November, following a prolonged administrative fight. In new court filings, Sanborn’s attorneys argue that without that license, the business is worthless.
Sanborn’s legal team told the court that failing to sell will hurt not just Sanborn but also the state and charities, which receive some gaming revenue. The state puts its take toward public education.
“The public interest of this matter is beyond question,” Sanborn’s attorneys wrote.
The Attorney General’s Office, which represents the Lottery Commission, has not filed a response and did not return a request for comment Thursday. It’s likely the office, which first sought to revoke Sanborn’s license more than a year ago, will object.
At issue is the state’s allegation that Sanborn misled the federal government to get $844,000 in federal pandemic loans and then misappropriated the money, some of it on race cars. Sanborn has not been charged in that case but was arrested in October for alleged theft from a different pandemic assistance program.
Sanborn was initially successful in saving his license. A year ago, a judge denied the state’s revocation request in favor of a suspension if Sanborn sold his casino within six months or had a sale pending within nine months.
Sanborn found a buyer in time. But he hasn’t closed the deal because the state denied the buyer’s application for a license in October. According to Sanborn’s attorneys, the state’s concerns centered on the financing of the deal, not the buyer, who hasn’t been named publicly.
In November, an administrative law judge concluded Sanborn had run out of time and gave the Lottery Commission permission to revoke his gaming license.
Sanborn's arguments to the state Supreme Court largely reiterate the case they’ve made to lower courts and the administrative law judges who oversaw the licensing case: The state has engaged in a months-long campaign to eliminate Sanborn from charitable gaming in the state and ensure he suffers financially.
The appeal to the high court adds a new argument. Sanborn’s attorneys have pointed to an administrative law judge’s order in which he indicated there was good reason to give Sanborn more time to sell.
Judge Gregory Albert concluded, however, that he didn’t have the authority to give Sanborn the extension he needed. Albert also said he lacked the authority to determine whether the Lottery Commission and Attorney General's Office had acted improperly in denying the buyer a license.
“The equities in this matter strongly favor an extension given the positive tax revenue and support of charitable organizations,” Albert wrote in November. The dispute over the buyer’s suitability “is a question for the courts.”
The court must still decide whether to accept the case.
