Legal battle drags on Rosemont casino, settlement talks haven’t worked

James Webb

Thursday, May 4, 2000 | 3:48 a.m.

ELGIN, Ill. - A seven-month court battle over a proposed floating casino in Rosemont has prompted settlement discussions between competing developers, but the dispute seemed far from over at a court hearing Thursday.

William Quinlan, an attorney for Rosemont, confirmed the settlement talks after a hearing before the 2nd District Appellate Court, which is trying to decide whether the case should be heard in Lake County or Cook County.

"I understand from time to time there have been some discussions," Quinlan said. "I know of nothing that has come to fruition."

Quinlan said he hoped the court case could be completely resolved by sometime in the fall, clearing the way for the project. But Michael Dockterman, an attorney for rival developers suing to stop the casino, predicted court appeals could last into 2001.

The seemingly endless delays have frustrated Rosemont Mayor Donald Stephens, who hoped to see the casino open late this summer but is now questioning whether it will ever be finished.

"There is a point in time that we are going to say enough of this," Stephens said Wednesday.

The owners of a defunct East Dubuque riverboat, aided by Stephens' substantial lobbying efforts, persuaded state lawmakers last year to include a change in gambling laws that essentially required the Illinois Gaming Board to allow the owners to build a new casino in Rosemont. But a group of developers known as Lake County Riverboat L.P. sued the Gaming Board in a bid to overturn the amendments and get a chance to win the license for themselves. That has kept regulators from considering the renewal and relocation of the license.

An extended fight ensued over where the case should be heard. The appellate court could issue its decision in the next two months.

The Rosemont developers, now known as Emerald Casino Inc., were trying to build their floating gambling hall during the court fight. But they suspended construction earlier this year after the Gaming Board criticized them for moving forward without the regulators' approval.

Stephens said he is talking with developers of a nightclub and antique car museum who could use the space if the casino does not become part of the entertainment complex at the site.

Michael Ficaro, an attorney for Emerald, declined to comment after the court hearing Thursday, other than to say he is confident the Lake County developers will lose their fight.

Dockterman declined to comment on the settlement discussions but predicted he would prove the gambling amendments violated the state constitution by giving Emerald special treatment.

It's unclear what type of settlement would satisfy Emerald and Lake County developers, although speculation has focused on a cash payment or ownership interest in a Rosemont casino.

Quinlan said one problem with any settlement negotiations is that regulators must ultimately approve the casino license, so the parties would be unlikely to agree to any deal unless the Gaming Board signed off on it.

Gaming Board Administrator Sergio Acosta said the board is not engaged in any settlement discussions.

If a settlement was proposed, "certainly we would look at it and the board would decide what, if any, aspects of any settlement the board would need to approve," Acosta said.

Quinlan said he was not aware of any current settlement discussions.