DOCSLIB.ORG

IEB Report for Penn National Gaming 9.18.13

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
IEB Report for Penn National Gaming 9.18.13 INVESTIGATIVE REPORT FOR THE MASSACHUSETTS GAMING COMMISSION APPLICANT: SPRINGFIELD GAMING & REDEVELOPMENT, LLC PRINCIPALS: Peter Carlino Timothy Wilmott Et al August 26, 2013 1 Executive Summary On January 3, 2013, Springfield Gaming and Redevelopment, LLC (“Springfield Gaming”), a subsidiary and affiliated entity of Penn National Gaming, filed an application for a gaming license. The application sought a category 1 gaming license for a site located in Springfield, MA. At the time of its application, Springfield Gaming had two members: Western Mass Gaming Ventures, LLC (“Western MA”) (a wholly owned subsidiary of Penn National Gaming) and Picknelly Gaming. Picknelly Gaming had a ownership interest in Springfield Gaming, with an option to increase to . Western MA held the remaining interest. Springfield Gaming was one of two applicants vying to build a category 1 gaming establishment in Springfield. On April 30, 2013, the City of Springfield notified the Applicant that it had selected Blue Tarp, a subsidiary of MGM Resorts International, as the proposed applicant from Springfield. Following that decision, Western MA and Picknelly Gaming decided to rescind their joint venture agreement and Picknelly Gaming, along with its individual qualifiers, asked to withdraw as a qualifier on the applicant’s application. Since this withdrawal occurred prior to any action taken on the application, it was allowed without Commission action pursuant to Commission regulations. Springfield Gaming remained as the applicant and Western MA remained as a qualifier. In June, 2013 Penn National advised the Commission that the Applicant wished to continue in the suitability process because it was considering applying for a category 2 slots license. On July 11, 2013, the Applicant announced plans for a slots facility in Tewksbury, MA. The facility would be located at 300 Ames Pond Drive, near the intersection of Interstate 495 and State Route 133. The applicant’s proposal for the 30 acre site will include its Hollywood casino brand, multiple dining options and other amenities. On July 18, 2013, Western MA entered into a host community agreement with Tewksbury. Tewksbury approved the host community agreement and took the necessary steps to call for the required election. On August 20, 2013, a special town meeting vote was held in Tewksbury which defeated a proposed zoning change which would have been necessary for the proposed slots parlor. As of the submission of this report, the Applicant does not have a site for the proposed facility. 2 Springfield Gaming and its affiliated entities submitted the requisite entity disclosure forms. A table of organization for the Applicant and its various affiliates relating to the casino project is attached as an exhibit to this report . In addition, numerous individuals submitted Personal History Disclosure Forms as qualifiers of the Applicant and were subject to a thorough background investigation. The reports on their individual qualifications are included herein. Springfield Gaming, Tewksbury Gaming and Western Mass are relatively new companies, created to facilitate the entry of Penn National into Massachusetts. As such, there is no meaningful history for these entities, and the level of investigation reflects that practical reality. Similarly, Delvest is the holding company generally utilized by Penn National for its gaming ventures, but has no operational responsibilities for any of Penn National’s gaming operations in general or the Massachusetts project in particular. By contrast, the parent company, Penn National, is an experienced gaming facility owner and operator in a myriad of jurisdictions throughout the United States and one in Canada. Therefore, the license investigation necessarily focused on the qualifications of Penn National, the ultimate parent company. We emphasize that it is the responsibility of the applicant for a gaming license to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it and all of its qualifiers are suitable pursuant to Massachusetts’s statutory standards. In essence, the suitability of the Applicant is inextricably linked to a determination of suitability of Penn National. On November 15, 2012, Penn National announced plans for a major restructuring, with the formation of a publicly traded real estate investment trust (“REIT”), which subsequently was named Gaming & Leisure Properties Inc. (“GLPI”). This new entity will hold the company’s vast real estate interests while Penn National will continue separately and independently as a gaming operating company. Penn National received a private letter ruling from the Internal Revenue Service related to the treatment of the separation and the qualification of GLPI as a REIT, which is subject to certain qualifications and based on certain representations and statements made by Penn National. On May 16, 2013, GLPI filed an initial registration statement on Form S-11 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Penn National expects completion of the restructuring, with all necessary regulatory approvals, by January 2014. The 3 restructuring is designed to enhance the long-term prospects for the Company as it copes with an increasingly saturated casino marketplace. In the course of this license investigation, investigators requested the production of voluminous records and documents from Penn National and its affiliates. Such requests for relevant information were necessary in order to conduct the requisite, thorough background review. In all respects, Penn National was cooperative and compliant, dutifully providing updated information upon request as the investigation progressed. Notably, the examination of the Company’s books and records revealed no irregularities or improprieties that could potentially impact adversely upon this license application. Moreover, all of the natural person qualifiers were cooperative during this investigative process. The following report is the result of the investigation of Penn National and its directors, officers and other qualifiers. The review encompassed an evaluation of the statutory licensing criteria, including good character, honesty and integrity of the Applicant and the various qualifiers, as well as an evaluation of their financial stability, integrity and responsibility. Ronald Naples was recently elected to the Board of Directors of Penn National. On July 11, 2013, Naples filed his application as a qualifier of the Applicant. The report on his qualifications will be filed under separate cover after completion of the background investigation. 4 Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 2 Contents .............................................................................................................................. 5 I. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 16 II. Scope and Methodology ............................................................................................... 18 III. General Information .................................................................................................... 21 A. Applicant and Entity Qualifiers ........................................................................... 21 1. Springfield Gaming ......................................................................................... 21 2. Western Mass Gaming..................................................................................... 21 3. Delvest Corp. ................................................................................................... 22 B. Penn National ...................................................................................................... 22 1. Corporate History ............................................................................................ 22 2. Current Stockholders and Natural Person Qualifiers ...................................... 23 3. Gaming Facilities ............................................................................................. 26 IV. Applicant Suitability ................................................................................................... 35 A. Compliance Plan ................................................................................................. 35 B. Compliance History ............................................................................................. 38 1. Compliance Matters, 2010-13 ......................................................................... 39 C. Significant Corporate Events since 2009 ............................................................ 51 1. Massachusetts .................................................................................................. 51 2. Ohio ................................................................................................................. 54 3. Iowa ................................................................................................................. 55 4. Maryland .......................................................................................................... 56 5. Kansas .............................................................................................................. 59 6. Pennsylvania .................................................................................................... 60 7. Colorado .........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • December 22, 2016 RE: Table Game Rules MGL C
    TO: Massachusetts Gaming Commission FROM: Carrie Torrisi, Staff Attorney DATE: December 22, 2016 RE: Table Game Rules M.G.L. c. 23K, § 2, defines “table game” as “a game, other than a slot machine, which is authorized by the commission to be played in a gaming establishment.” Table games include “standard” games such as poker, roulette, craps, and baccarat, as well as any number of more obscure games or game variations. Before Category 1 licensees begin operating casinos in the Commonwealth, it is important that the rules of each and every table game that is authorized for play are clearly defined. To that end, the Commission should establish a process by which it approves and authorizes the rules to be followed in the conduct of table games and a process by which those rules are made available to the public. The Commission should consider (1) how to proceed with respect to the initial promulgation of regulations governing table game rules; and (2) how to proceed with respect to proposed new games or game variations following the initial promulgation of the regulations. Following is a survey of processes followed with respect to table game rules in five jurisdictions: Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Maryland. I. Authorization of Games for Play All states but Ohio authorize several “standard” games (e.g., poker, blackjack, craps, roulette) by way of a statutory definition of table game.1 1 Nevada: “Game” or “gambling game” means any game played with cards, dice, equipment or any mechanical, electromechanical or electronic device or machine for money, property, checks, credit or any representative of value, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, faro, monte, roulette, keno, bingo, fan-tan, twenty-one, blackjack, seven-and-a-half, big injun, klondike, craps, poker, chuck-a-luck, Chinese chuck-a-luck (dai shu), wheel of fortune, chemin de fer, baccarat, pai gow, beat the banker, panguingui, slot machine, any banking or percentage game or any other game or device approved by the Commission..
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Beyond Counting
    Review of Beyond Counting http://www.jetcafe.org/npc/reviews/gambling/beyond_counting.html Review of Beyond Counting Title: Beyond Counting Author: James Grosjean Publisher: RGE Publishing Date: 2000 ISBN: 0-910575-17-7 Pages: 223 Price: $39.95 Reviewed by Nick Christenson, [email protected] November 5, 2000 There are several well known ways a player can gamble in a casino with a positive expectation. Certainly, Blackjack card counting, skilled Poker play, some full pay Video Poker, and sports betting are the most familiar. Others may know about more esoteric methods like Blackjack shuffle tracking, Roulette wheel clocking, and advantageous slot play. There are even those who go further, looking for house mistakes in calculating payoffs in games like Keno or Sic Bo. In Beyond Counting , James Grosjean pursues this topic further than anyone I have yet encountered, looking for edges in such strongly negative expectation games as the Big Six Wheel and Three Card Poker, as well as classical games like Blackjack and Craps. After various introductions to the author and the book, we told about the strange hierarchy of casino advantage players. Grosjean tells us how the Blackjack basic strategy player won't understand what a card counter is doing, how a card counter won't see how a shuffle tracker is playing an advantage, and a shuffle tracker won't understand many of the actions of a hole card player. We come to understand the casino as a series of layers of potentially strange behavior. Who is doing what, and why? Grosjean then performs some interesting mathematical analysis surrounding card counting.
    [Show full text]
  • 5. DIAMOND DUAL ROULETTE Diamond Dual Roulette Offers Multi-Game and Multi-Play Functionality
    1. UNIVERSAL CABINET The Universal Cabinet represents a new and unique segment of electronic table games. It provides the casino with a variety of electronic table games, but in a smaller, flexible footprint. To the operator, the Universal Cabinet offers complete configuration flexibility. For the player, it provides an intimate tactile ETG experience that flows at the pace of the player. Each Cabinet consists of a classical slant top Diamond Play Station and game topper. The Play Station hosts an automatic result generator. The game toppers, in contrast, create a more analog and realistic experience. They vary depending on the game: Roulette Wheel, Dice and Card. Only with Dice the topper also acts as an RNG. UC Dice (Sic Bo and Craps) The Universal Cabinet with a Dice generator provides the classic Sic Bo and Craps experience in its simplest form. The player controls the game through a touch screen display. The Dice shaker is also the only one in the UC family that actually generates results and not serve only as a mechanical result display. The player triggers the dice shaker by using the mechanical buttons located in the center of the UC. Here, a simple rule of force is valid – the stronger you press the button, the higher the dice will jump. UC Baccarat, Punto-Banco, Dai Bacc The Universal Cabinet with a Card generator offers a realistic single player card-playing experience. The game toppers are straightforward. One (Single Decker) or two (Double Decker) Card shufflers enable players to play one or two games at a time (available for Dai Bacc and Baccarat).
    [Show full text]
  • CY 1998 Annual Report
    Annual Report to the Governor STATE OF INDIANA INDIANA GAMING COMMISSION February 26, 1999 ANNUAL REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR 1998 STATE OF INDIANA INDIANA GAMING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 26, 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE OVERVIEW..................................................................... 1 I. Indiana Gaming Commission Members...................... 4 II. Indiana Gaming Commission Staff………………….... 5 III. Revenues and Expenditures…………………………….. 8 IV. Actions Taken by the Commission....…………………. 10 V. Legislation............................……………………………… 23 VI. Admission & Wagering Tax…………………………….… 24 VII. General Riverboat Information...................................…. 35 INDIANA GAMING COMMISSION OVERVIEW OF THE 1998 ANNUAL REPORT On July 1, 1993, the RIVERBOAT GAMBLING ACT (ACT), enacted by Public Law 277-1993 and codified at Indiana Code 4-33, et. seq., became effective, legalizing casino gaming on riverboats. In general, the ACT established the Indiana Gaming Commission (IGC) and vested it with the authority both to issue not more than 11 riverboat licenses in specified areas of the State of Indiana and to regulate the operation of the riverboats along with related businesses, occupations and schools. The ACT authorized the Governor to appoint the bipartisan seven-member commission and directed that the initial commission be appointed by September 1, 1993. The first meeting of the IGC was held September 7, 1993. The ACT requires the IGC to hold at least one meeting each quarter of the fiscal year. The sixth Annual Report chronicles a year during which the IGC completed the selection process for the last riverboat owner’s license can be awarded in the State based upon present legislation. In addition, the IGC opened the fourth (4th) riverboat on the Ohio River, continued to issue additional occupational and supplier licenses and began to experience the consolidation of the gaming industry.
    [Show full text]
  • 317 Problem Gamblers (6.4%)
    MASSACHUSETTS GAMING COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING #209 February 2, 2017 10:00 a.m. Massachusetts Gaming Commission 101 Federal Street, 12th Floor Boston, MA Meeting Minutes Date/Time: January 19, 2017 – 10:00 a.m. Place: Massachusetts Gaming Commission 101 Federal Street, 12th Floor Boston, Massachusetts Present: Chairman Stephen P. Crosby Commissioner Gayle Cameron Commissioner Lloyd Macdonald Commissioner Bruce Stebbins Commissioner Enrique Zuniga Time entries are linked to corresponding section in Commission meeting video Call to Order See transcript page 2 10:01 a.m. Chairman Crosby called to order the 208th Commission meeting. Approval of Minutes See transcript pages 2-4 10:02 a.m. Commissioner Macdonald moved for the approval of the January 5, 2017 Commission meeting minutes subject to any corrections, typographical errors, or other nonmaterial matters. Motion seconded by Commissioner Cameron. Motion passed unanimously. Chairman Crosby inquired about the table games rules and General Counsel Catherine Blue responded that they’ll be on for the next Commission meeting. Chairman Crosby inquired about the PlayMyWay schedule and Executive Director Bedrosian responded that they are working on it. Research and Responsible Gaming See transcript pages 4-59 10:03 a.m. Director Mark Vander Linden stated that the Expanded Gaming Act seeks to protect the lottery from adverse impacts due to casino gaming. He stated that he is joined by Dr. Rachel Volberg and Dr. Mark Nichols (via telephone) to present on the 12- month lottery analysis. The study presented today is an analysis of the lottery sales before and after Plainridge Park Casino opened in 2015. Director Vander Linden stated that the collaboration with the Lottery is unprecedented and access to the lottery data has been instrumental to conduct the study being presented today.
    [Show full text]
  • In: New Jersey Bets on Online Gambling Matthew .J Stankiewicz
    Seton Hall University eRepository @ Seton Hall Law School Student Scholarship Seton Hall Law 5-1-2013 All In: New Jersey Bets on Online Gambling Matthew .J Stankiewicz Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.shu.edu/student_scholarship Recommended Citation Stankiewicz, Matthew J., "All In: New Jersey Bets on Online Gambling" (2013). Law School Student Scholarship. 310. https://scholarship.shu.edu/student_scholarship/310 ALL IN: NEW JERSEY BETS ON ONLINE GAMBLING By: Matt Stankiewicz I. Introduction Hurting for new streams of revenue to aid the state and rejuvenate a struggling Atlantic City, New Jersey is on the cusp of legalizing online gambling within the boundaries of the State. This intrastate gambling network would do well to aid the state in its goals. This paper will address those goals, discuss the law and its basic framework, and explain how it came to be. Finally, the paper will discuss the positives and negatives of such legislation and explain how, ultimately, the bill will do far more good than harm. Online gambling will be a boon for the state. Section II of this paper will lay out the basic framework of the bill. It will pull directly from the draft and briefly discuss the impact of the language. Section III will delve into the world of online gambling, beginning at its very roots in 1998. The section will explore its history up until the present time. Section IV evaluates the United State's (US) federal attempts to restrict online gambling. This section notes the preeminent legislation and notes how the country has wielded those weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • The Definition, Dimensionalization, and Assessment of Gambling Participation
    1 2017Gambling Participation Instrument (GPI) March 14, 2014 Dr. Robert Williams & Dr. Rachel Introduction THE DEFINITION, It is typical for gambling research surveys to assess peoples’ participation level in gambling and to then examine the intensity of gamblingDIMENSIONALIZATION, participation as it relates to things such as demographic AND characteristics, gambling availability, gambling attitudes, gambling motivations, gambling fallacies, and problem gambling status. However, despite the frequency of this practice, there is: 1. No universally accepted definition of whatASSESSMENT constitutes gambling; 2. No standard OF way GAMBLING of measuring gambling participation across researchers and across jurisdictions, and 3. Very little research investigating the most reliable and valid wayPARTICIPATION of assessing gambling participation (especially relative to the amount of research that has been devoted to assessing problem gambling) (Rogers, Caldwell & Butterworth, 2009). Moreover, current participation measures are based on certain underlying assumptions that give good reason to question their reliability and validity; namely, that respondents interpret the questions being asked of them in the sameRobert way as the J. researchers Williams, intended, Ph.D. and that respondents are willing and ab le to divulge accurate informationProfessor, about stigmatizedFaculty of behavioursHealth Sciences, such as gambling. and Cognitive distortions, faulty memories and repressionCoordinator, of losses mayAlberta combine Gambling to lead toResearch response Institute errors, and issues of survey design may further impede accurate reporting of past behaviour. University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada There are two significant problems that derive from this state of affairs. First, it produces a range of different ways of measuringRachel gambling A. participation, Volberg, which Ph.D. makes comparisons between studies and jurisdictions very difficult.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyrighted Material
    34_75286x bindex.qxp 6/13/06 3:18 PM Page 343 Index overview, 92 • Numerics • Three Card poker, 185 any craps, 145, 331 6/5 blackjack, 113 any 7 bet, 144 6/5 Jacks or Better (video poker game), 217 Atlantic City (NJ) casino, 18–19, 148, 310–311 7/5 Jacks or Better (video poker game), 217 Atlantis casino (Caribbean casino), 315 9/6 Double Bonus (video poker game), 217 ATM, 61 9/6 Jacks or Better (video poker game), 217, attitude, toward gambling, 17, 81, 322 219–224 audit, 289 10/7 Double Bonus (video poker game), 217 Australia casino, 316 21. See blackjack averages, law of, 319 30-bet rule, 107 • A • • B • baccarat account, online, 284, 285 basic process, 162–163 ace bets, 167–168 baccarat values, 163 dealing process, 168 blackjack values, 111 definition, 331 splitting strategies, 119 drawing rules, 168–171 video poker versus poker, 213 formal, 163–165 Acey Deucy game, 188 history, 163 action, 60, 331 house edge, 43 active player, 91, 96, 331 minibaccarat, 165–167 addiction. See compulsive gambling natural, 162, 168 advice, 75, 124 odds, 162, 168 aggressive play, 104, 106 overview, 14, 161–162 alcohol poor moves, 171–172 etiquette, 72–73 position at table, 167 laws, 29 standing, 170 money management, 64 table layout, 164, 166, 167 ordering tips, 30 types, 163 poker table, 94 variations, 169 risk taking, 73 vigorish, 43, 162 All In magazine, 340 COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL back hand, 183 All-American Poker (video poker game), 217 back-line bet, 137–138 all-in bet, 302, 331 bad beat, 104, 331 allowance race, 275 ball, bingo, 238–239 American wheel,
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Impacts
    MASSACHUSETTS GAMING COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING #226 October 12, 2017 10:00 a.m. Massachusetts Gaming Commission 101 Federal Street, 12th Floor Boston, MA DRAFT Massachusetts Gaming Commission Meeting Minutes Date/Time: September 28, 2017– 9:30 a.m. Place: Mass Mutual Center 1277 Main Street – Meeting Rooms 1 & 2 Springfield, MA Present: Chairman Stephen P. Crosby Commissioner Gayle Cameron Commissioner Lloyd Macdonald Commissioner Bruce Stebbins Commissioner Enrique Zuniga Time entries are linked to corresponding section in Commission meeting video Call to Order See transcript page 2 9:30 a.m. Chairman Crosby called to order the 225th Commission meeting. Approval of Minutes See transcript pages 2-3 Commissioner Macdonald moved for the approval of the Commission meeting minutes of September 14, 2017, subject to corrections for typographical errors and other nonmaterial matters. Motion seconded by Commissioner Cameron. Motion passed unanimously. Ombudsman See transcript pages 3-100 Ombudsman Ziemba presented on the Northampton Community Mitigation Fund Reserve Request. The City of Northampton would like to use its Community Mitigation Fund Reserve to develop a marketing and advertising plan to attract patrons of MGM Springfield to the City of Northampton. Mr. Ziemba stated that the Commission could approve $35,000 of the $100,000 reserve to create the plan and have the City of Northampton return for approval of the balance of the reserve 1 DRAFT ($65,000) for implementation of the plan, or the Commission can approve the entire award now. The Commission discussed the options and decided that it was preferable to award the entire amount now to expedite the plan and its implementation.
    [Show full text]
  • TABLE GAMES HEARING APRIL 7, 2010 Sands History in Pennsylvania
    TABLE GAMES HEARING APRIL 7, 2010 Sands History in Pennsylvania • December 20, 2006 – Las Vegas Sands Corp. awarded PA gaming license • May 14, 2007 – Ground Breaking in Bethlehem, PA • May 22, 2009 – Sands opened Phase 1 – 3,000 slot machines and electronic table games – 4 restaurants including Emeril Lagasse’s first restaurant in the Northeast – 2 bars, including an entertainment lounge • November 22, 2009 – 2 additional restaurants including Emeril Lagasse’s first gourmet hamburger restaurant and the legendary Carnegie Deli – 1 Ultra lounge – 250 additional slot machines 2 Overview of Table Games Expansion 3 Number and Types of Table Games Banking Non-Banking/Poker 41 Blackjack 12 Poker 4 Craps 4 Roulette 5 Mini Baccarat 4 Midi Baccarat 4 Pai Gow Poker 1 Big Six Wheel 2 Let it Ride 2 Caribbean Stud 4 Three Card Poker 4 Texas Hold’em Bonus Poker 1 Casino War 1 Sic Bo 77 Total 4 Table Games Related Jobs • Approximately 393 Full Time Equivalent Team Members Table Games FTE Casino Accounting Operations FTE Dealer 275.4 Supervisor – Cashier Cage 2.0 Supervisor Casino Games 39.5 Cage Cashier 3.0 Assistant Shift Manager – Table Games 4.2 Marker Bank Cashier 4.2 Shift Manager – Table Games 4.2 Fill Bank Cashier 4.2 323.3 Count Room/Drop Team 5.6 19.0 Casino Credit Casino Back of House Adminisration Clerk – Casino Credit 2.0 Table Revenue Auditor 3.0 Manager - Casino Credit 1.0 Casino Compliance Specialist 1.0 Collections Manager 1.0 Payroll Supervisor 1.0 Casino Credit Executive 1.0 5.0 5.0 Marketing Services Casino Administration Director
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Casino Mathematics Robert C
    Casino Math Guide A Guide to Casino Mathematics Robert C. Hannum University of Denver This guide contains a brief, non-technical discussion of the basic mathematics governing casino games and shows how casinos make money from these games. The article addresses a variety of topics, including house advantage, confusion about win rates, game volatility, player value and comp policies, casino pricing mistakes, and regulatory issues. Statistical advantages associated with the major games are also provided. Introduction At its core the business of casino gaming is pretty simple. Casinos make money on their games because of the mathematics behind the games. As Nico Zographos, dealer-extraordinaire for the ‘Greek Syndicate’ in Deauville, Cannes, and Monte Carlo in the 1920s observed about casino gaming: “There is no such thing as luck. It is all mathematics.” With a few notable exceptions, the house always wins – in the long run – because of the mathematical advantage the casino enjoys over the player. That is what Mario Puzo was referring to in his famous novel Fools Die when his fictional casino boss character, Gronevelt, commented: “Percentages never lie. We built all these hotels on percentages. We stay rich on the percentage. You can lose faith in everything, religion and God, women and love, good and evil, war and peace. You name it. But the percentage will always stand fast.” Puzo is, of course, right on the money about casino gaming. Without the “edge,” casinos would not exist. With this edge, and because of a famous mathematical result called the law of large numbers, a casino is guaranteed to win in the long run.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Treatise
    BLOCKCHAIN THROUGH A LEGAL LENS Abstract Blockchain technology is one of the most promising new technologies since the advent of the Internet. With blockchain’s decentralized, immutable, and anonymous features, it has the capability of changing the way we interact, how digital information is stored and retrieved, and who has access to such information. As companies of all sizes, along with a robust development community, are devoting substantial resources to blockchain applications, legal practitioners need to become acquainted with the technology. Practitioners not only need to understand how blockchain technology may be governed by existing laws and regulations, but also be participants in the creation of, and advocacy for, new laws and regulations that protect individuals while also encouraging innovation in the blockchain ecosystem. As is common with emerging technologies, blockchain development is far outpacing efforts by regulators and courts to address the myriad of unique issues that the technology raises. Blockchain Through A Legal Lens provides a comprehensive overview of current federal, state, and select international laws governing blockchain technology. Where laws or regulations do not exist, or potentially relevant laws or regulations have not yet been applied, the treatise aims to provide thoughtful analysis of how the existing U.S. legal framework and jurisprudence may apply to the intersection of blockchain technology and a variety of practice areas, such as intellectual property, anti-money laundering, consumer protection,
    [Show full text]