Springfield Massachusetts sues MGM
The Massachusetts city filed suit over jobs, gaming-floor size and a stalled downtown building.
US.- The City of Springfield, Massachusetts, has sued MGM Resorts International and Blue Tarp Redevelopment at Hampden Superior Court for allegedly violating the 2013 Host Community Agreement that oversees MGM Springfield. It accuses them of not adhering to their commitments concerning employment levels, the gaming floor’s size, and the refurbishment of 101 State Street, a building located next to the complex.
Springfield says the agreement required employment of at least 3,000 people, between 2,800 and 3,000 slot and video gaming machines, and 75 to 100 table games. According to the city’s complaint, as reported by WAMC, the casino has delivered roughly half of the workforce target and half of the gaming equipment.
MGM claims the lawsuit is being used to postpone a planned sale of the casino. It said in a statement: “Today, Mayor Sarno and the City of Springfield initiated frivolous litigation to continue to delay its consideration of MGM’s request to approve the proposed sale of its interest in MGM Springfield to a well-qualified casino operator.”
The company said it notified Domenic Sarno, Springfield mayor, and other city representatives in early 2024 of the proposed transfer, provided information on the buyer and its plans, and gave assurances that the Host Community Agreement would continue to be honoured after a sale. MGM has not publicly named the prospective buyer. Local reports have mentioned a Canadian investment firm.
Stephen Buoniconti, Springfield city solicitor, said: “The City’s discussions with MGM and Blue Tarp have been conducted in good faith over an extended period. Still, MGM and Blue Tarp remain in breach of their contractual obligations, and the City is compelled to file suit to enforce the terms of the HCA.”
MGM said: “This lawsuit is just another tactic to delay and obstruct the process, jeopardising the significant investments and long-term benefits the sale would deliver to the community.” The operator and Blue Tarp have sought private arbitration. Springfield argues the claims fall outside the agreement’s “narrow arbitration clauses” and should be heard in court.
