Managing Editor
Maverick Gaming, Washington State’s poker room operator, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and announced that it will close four of its casinos. The company has blamed lawmakers for declining its petition to be allowed to use centralized surveillance systems.
Washington poker players may not feel much of an impact. The state’s major poker destinations, such as the Ace’s Poker chain and Caribbean Cardroom, remain open.
Maverick owner Eric Persson also personally confirmed on X that the bankruptcy will not affect the company’s deal with Bally’s in Rhode Island. The latter’s Twin River Lincoln casino recently revamped and rebranded its poker room with Maverick’s help.
The affected properties are:
- Dragon Tiger Casino in Mountlake
- Palace Casino in Lakewood
- Silver Dollar in Renton
- Roman Casino in Seattle
All four are already listed as permanently closed on Google.
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protections allow businesses to remain open while finding solutions to repay creditors and regain solvency. In the best case, customers may not notice much change, though that depends largely on whether the underlying financial problems can be rectified.
S&P Global issued a warning in 2023 that such a situation for Maverick was likely.
Maverick Blames Surveillance Restrictions
The explanation Maverick gives for its bankruptcy on its website reads as follows:
This decision follows the Washington Gaming Commissioners’ choice to shut down the centralized surveillance petition, which was intended to support Washington Cardrooms.
In the decision considerations, the gaming board compared Washington cardroom casinos (15 tables) to mega casinos that attract higher volumes of traffic, impacting our operations. The lack of centralized and advanced surveillance technology, in contrast to what is available in larger establishments, has further hindered our ability to compete effectively.
The issue for Maverick is that Washington’s regulations limit it to 15 tables per property, but also require closed-circuit video monitoring of each location by security. Having a separate security room and staff for every 15 tables presents a great deal of overhead compared to, say, a larger casino with 150 tables under a single roof and with a single security team.
Since 2021, Maverick has been petitioning the state to change the rules to allow centralized surveillance. Maverick proposed transmitting the camera feeds from most or all of its properties to a single off-site location in the name of cost efficiency.
In January, the Washington State Gambling Commission voted not to proceed with the rules change. According to Maverick’s explanation, the cost of decentralized security appears to be the difference between solvency and bankruptcy.
Failed Lawsuit Over Sports Betting
Maverick also recently lost a long court battle over Washington sports betting. Although not mentioned in the bankruptcy announcement, the legal expenses and failure to secure the rights to offer betting may have also factored into the company’s financial difficulties.
Washington lawmakers legalized retail sports betting in 2020, but granted exclusivity to tribal casino operators in the state. The first sportsbooks opened the following year.
Maverick sued the state and federal governments, trying to block the launch, presumably in the hopes that it would force a new model of sports betting that would include its properties. Its argument was twofold. Firstly, it claimed that a tribal monopoly amounts to preferential treatment based on race. Secondly, it challenged the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act itself, arguing that the provisions requiring states to negotiate in good faith with tribes violated the anti-commandeering clause of the Tenth Amendment.
More simply put, Maverick argued that forcing such negotiations was a violation of states’ rights. Had the case proceeded, it would have been an argument with the potential to radically alter the landscape of tribal gaming throughout the US.
Caught in a Legal Catch-22
However, courts never considered the case on its merits. Instead, the Shoalwater Bay Tribe successfully killed the case using a sort of tribal immunity “catch-22.” Tribes can’t be sued without their consent, which is why Maverick didn’t name any Washington tribes in its suit. Yet US law also prohibits a lawsuit from proceeding if a party with a vested interest in its outcome isn’t included among either the plaintiffs or the defendants.
Since the case couldn’t proceed with or without the Shoalwater Bay Tribe, the District and Circuit courts found no choice but to discard it. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
