Failed developer of French Lick casino sues Cook exec

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A partner of one of the original bidders to develop the French Lick casino and hotel project is suing the chairman of Bloomington-based Cook Group Inc., charging he violated federal racketeering laws by serving on an entity that recommended a team that included Bill Cook to develop the project.

Cook, the Bloomington billionaire who founded the medical device manufacturer Cook Group, formed Orange County Holdings LLC to develop the $382 million hotel and casino that opened in late 2006.

The lawsuit brought by Craig Adolph, a partner in Lost River Development LLC, which failed to receive the bid, represents the latest court battle involving a project plagued by messy legal disputes.

Adolph’s complaint charges that Cook Group Chairman Steve Ferguson and other members of the now-defunct Historic Hotel Preservation Commission violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, or RICO, as well as the Indiana False Claim Act.

As chairman of Cook Group, Ferguson was personally involved in the negotiations to develop the casino and hotel while continuing to serve as a member of the HHPC, which had a role in naming a developer, the suit alleges.

“Ferguson and the other members of the HHPC … committed acts of official misconduct, conflict of interest, profiteering, and corrupt business influence—all offenses against the citizens of Indiana and against the public administration of the State in violation of Indiana criminal statutes,” the suit claims.

In a written statement issued Wednesday, Ferguson denied the allegations, saying “we intend to vehemently defend against these baseless attacks for events that occurred years ago.”

Ferguson said in the statement that Adolph has brought previous actions against him and others involving his failed attempt to develop the hotel and casino. The first suit was dismissed in 2005 and the second was settled in 2008 for $3,000.

Adolph filed his latest suit in January, but the complaint was not served on Ferguson and the others until April 9, after the state attorney general and the inspector general indicated they would not intervene until a court orders it.

Adolph is suing on behalf of the state, although it is not involved, and also names Ernest Yelton, executive director of the Indiana Gaming Commission, as a defendant.

Adolph charges that Yelton knew of the legal and ethical violations committed by Ferguson and the other members of the HHPC.

Yelton declined to comment Thursday morning on the allegations.

Adolph requests a jury trial and is asking for 25 percent of the amount the state might recover, if he is successful. Adolph, suing on behalf of the state, claims it is entitled to a civil penalty of up to three times the amount of damages sustained as a result of the defendants’ alleged violations.

In June 2007, Cook’s team bought out Indianapolis-based developer Lauth Property Group’s share in Orange County Holdings. That ended a contentious relationship that included accusations from Lauth that Cook’s project managers were incompetent and drove up costs on the casino and hotel project.

Lauth had aligned with Chicago-based Merit Management and Adolph under the Lost River group before partnering with Cook.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.