The roughly $2.5 billion resort casino rising from the banks of the Mystic River in Everett, Massachusetts, will no longer carry the Wynn name. The change was announced Friday by the chief executive of Wynn Resorts as the company argued that disgraced founder Steve Wynn no longer has any ties to the project or company.
CEO Matt Maddox told the Massachusetts Gaming Commission that the company is changing the name of its partially-built Wynn Boston Harbor resort casino to Encore Boston Harbor, using the brand name of casinos Wynn Resorts operates in Las Vegas and Macau.
Maddox, who took over from Steve Wynn after allegations of sexual assault and misconduct against Steve Wynn were published in the Wall Street Journal earlier this year, insisted that Wynn the man now has nothing to do with Wynn the company.
"I don't want people to think Wynn the name is associated with a man," he said. "Yes, it is a man's last name; but it is a brand."
And Maddox insisted that the Wynn brand is strong. But he said "there seems to be more sensitivity" in Massachusetts around the allegations against Steve Wynn so the Encore brand is a better fit here.
The announcement came Friday as the Gaming Commission holds a hearing to determine whether Steve Wynn should still be classified as a "qualifier" -- someone who has control or influence over a licensee and therefore must meet the state's suitability standards.
Most gambling company executives and board members must be deemed qualifiers, but the commission has the discretion to label other people as qualifiers if they are determined to be a "close associate" or a "business associate."
Wynn's personal attorney and lawyers for Wynn Resorts argued Friday that Wynn should not still be classified as a qualifier since the casino mogul has resigned his positions with the company and divested his stocks. Attorneys from both sides insisted that Steve Wynn does not intend to try to influence members of the Wynn Resorts board who he has known for many years.
"The close associate definition applies to people who have relevant financial interest -- which he doesn't -- or is entitled to exercise power," Wynn's personal attorney Brian Kelly at Nixon Peabody said. "He's not, he's out, he's sold his shares, he has no position. So I would submit to the commission that ... he is not a qualifier."
Maddox, the Wynn Resorts CEO, told the Gaming Commission that "there is no association with Steve Wynn, there is no business association with Steve Wynn."
He said he has talked with Steve Wynn -- sometimes often -- since he left the company, but added, "I am my own man."
Frank DiGiacomo, an attorney representing Wynn Resorts, said Steve Wynn "clearly no longer has financial interest, no longer can exercise control. He is just a member of the public."
Commission Chairman Stephen Crosby suggested Friday that he does not think Steve Wynn fits the definition of a close associate because the commission's definition of that term includes the word "entitled" and Steve Wynn does not appear to be entitled to exert control.
"There is the practical reality if there were, for example, an effort to remove a board member who is a long-time associate, it could be very tempting I think for him to want to lobby whoever on behalf of his long-time friend the board member," Crosby told the team from Wynn Resorts. "That's maybe a little outside close associate, but it's within your commitment that there won't be any business communications."
DiGiacomo argued that if the commission determines that Steve Wynn should remain a qualifier, the remedy would be for the company to disassociate itself from Wynn. He argued that the company has already done that.
"He is already disassociated," he said. "He could not disassociate twice."
The commission adjourned Friday to deliberate in private about whether Steve Wynn should be considered a qualifier. Once commissioners reach a decision, the commission is expected to issue a written decision. Executive Director Edward Bedrosian said the decision could be ready as soon as next week.
After the Wall Street Journal in January detailed an alleged "decades-long pattern of sexual misconduct" by Wynn, including claims he had pressured employees to perform sex acts, the Gaming Commission has been investigating whether Wynn and others involved in the company would still meet the strict suitability standards outlined in the state's gaming law.
Earlier in April, Bedrosian said that regardless of what the commission decides, the decision about Wynn as a qualifier "will not end the current investigation by the Investigations and Enforcement Bureau as to allegations of misconduct against Steve Wynn or the handling of those allegations by Wynn Resorts and its officers or directors."
Previously, the head of the commission's investigations bureau confirmed that Steve Wynn paid a private $7.5 million settlement to a manicurist to resolve a sexual harassment allegation, which was not disclosed when Wynn Resorts sought a casino license. Asked in February whether certain other executives had any knowledge of the settlement, Bedrosian said he could not answer because "that would certainly seem to be part of the ongoing investigation."
In December 2013, Steve Wynn appeared before the Gaming Commission, telling its members that from Macau to Everett, operating a responsible gaming facility takes "common sense," and with his 47 years in the business he said he would be a good choice for the lone casino license in eastern Massachusetts.
"You should pick someone that looks like fun to you," Wynn told the commission during a suitability hearing held after the commission's background investigators recommended that Wynn be found suitable on the condition that he explain his company's business practice in Macau.
This report was originally published by State House News Service.
