Revel has since shuttered, leaving Borgata as the most modern resort in Atlantic City. Borgata’s 2014 gaming revenue was up 4.2 percent compared to 2013. It was up 8.3 percent in 2015. The bottom line is Atlantic City casinos paid out more money to its players through jackpots in 2018 then it did in all of 2017. Nearly $22 million in slots and online jackpots of more than $50,000 or more went back to casino goers through Aug. No doubt the latest seven-figure payout will encourage players to keep spinning in an. Win A Free Atlantic Water Products Home Air and Water Test. New Jersey Woman Hits $2.4 Million Jackpot At Borgata Casino In Atlantic City. September 2, 2018 at 9:41 am. Filed Under: InstaStory. In case you missed these AMAZING VegasLowRoller YouTube videos, here are a few huge wins from my channel:A HUGE WIN:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCOLBnVO5.

The competition for gamblers’ dollars in Atlantic City is fierce. If you aren’t yet convinced of that, consider the allegations in a new Borgata lawsuit.

In an article by the Associated Press, Borgata alleges that Ocean Casino Resort is pilfering its trade secrets by hiring its former executives in violation of noncompete clauses in their Borgata contracts.

The lawsuit was filed in Nevada, where Borgata’s parent company, MGM Resorts International, is based.

Details of the Borgata lawsuit against Ocean

Over the past few months, Ocean has hired six former Borgata marketing execs. No one is disputing that fact. What’s in dispute, however, is the legality of those hires.

In the lawsuit, Borgata states that at least two of those new Ocean employees violated the terms of noncompete clauses in their contracts with Borgata. Those clauses barred them from working for any competitors for at least a year after leaving Borgata.

The complaint, however, makes further allegations.

Borgata says that those new Ocean hires have shared proprietary information about its business with Ocean. Those details include contact information and pertinent info for many of Borgata’s high-roller customers.

Borgata Slot Winners 2018 Results

Atlantic City’s top-grossing casino also asserts that Ocean hired four other Borgata marketing executives with the goal of crippling Borgata financially.

Ocean Casino told the Associated Press that it would not comment on an ongoing lawsuit.

Business has been good for Ocean recently

The former Revel has had its share of ups and downs since it reopened as Ocean Resort Casino in 2018. It was in hot water with the Division of Gaming Enforcement and Casino Control Commission in early 2019 before it was sold to Luxor Capital. Then it changed its name.

The turnaround at Ocean has been ongoing ever since.

Last month, Ocean ranked second in Atlantic City casino win. That revenue of $23.6 million was an increase of 23.1% compared to July 2019.

What’s remarkable about that increase is that last summer, the casino was running at full capacity with no mask mandate, temperature checks or indoor dining prohibitions. This year, Atlantic City casinos face myriad COVID-19 restrictions.

Ocean Casino saw nine consecutive months of slot play growth before the pandemic shut things down in March. Borgata, for its part, was closed for the majority of July, but it consistently earns three times as much as any other casino.

How this suit will end, no one knows right now. What’s obvious, however, is that Borgata is watching when its former executives work for AC competitors.

Getty Images photo

US card maker Gemaco has won summary-judgment dismissal of claims made against it by Atlantic City’s Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa.

Five of the six civil allegations brought against American playing-card manufacturer Gemaco were summarily dismissed by the presiding judge in the multi-part trial centered on the “edge sorting” advantage-play scheme orchestrated by professional gambler and poker player Phil Ivey.

The ruling, signed by presiding US District Court Judge Noel L. Hillman, granted summary judgment in Gemaco’s favor on five out of six counts brought by the Borgata’s parent company, Marina District Development Corp. The five legal allegations, which included claims of negligence, breach of contract, and breach of implied warranty, concerned cards supplied under contract by Gemaco to Borgata. The cards in question were later exploited by Ivey and his co-defendant, Cheung Yin Su, as part of a complex edge-sorting scheme.

The Borgata had previously won a judgment against Ivey and Sun in the amount of $10.13m (£7.22m), but last year, Judge Hillman ruled that the Borgata’s claims against Gemaco must also be heard. Since the Borgata named Gemaco as a co-defendant in the same action it brought against Ivey and Sun, Gemaco could also have been held liable for millions in damages.

Minor damages

Instead, the summary judgment in Gemaco’s favor leaves only one of the Borgata’s possible claims still standing – a contract-based breach of express warrant. However, as Judge Hillman noted, the actual damages the casino could recover would total only $26.88 (£19.17), the sum of the 32 decks (at a cost of $0.84 [£0.60] each) used during Ivey’s four separate mini-baccarat sessions in 2011 and 2012. Judge Hillman wrote: “The Court wonders whether, under such circumstances, the game is worth the candle.”

The Borgata’s claims, in essence, were that Gemaco should be held liable because the high-visibility, bright-purple “Gem” cards exploited by Ivey and Sun contained minute asymmetries that allowed the pair’s scheme to work. In this case and in a similar matter in the United Kingdom involving London’s Crockfords Casino, the pair admitted employing the scheme in at least seven different casinos in four different countries. They also requested the bright purple Gemaco cards, which employed a “full bleed” card back design that Sun had trained herself over the course of years to discern.

However, Judge Hillman dismissed the Borgata’s contention that the cards themselves were the proximate cause, the “but for” element that allowed the scheme to work. As Judge Hillman wrote:

“Borgata views the asymmetries in the Gemaco cards as the dispositive factor in the scheme, but it appears to ignore its own participation. Borgata provided the dealer who turned the cards and Borgata permitted her to do so. Borgata provided the automatic shuffler. Borgata did not substitute a new deck of cards during the entire play sessions, which lasted for over sixteen hours each time. Borgata even provided the requested type of playing cards.”

In a related part of the 27-page opinion, Judge Hillman offered more:

“… it is not Gemaco’s cards that were the ‘but for’ cause of Borgata’s losses, but rather all the subsequent required elements requested by Ivey and agreed to by Borgata, each a required and integral part, which together caused Borgata’s losses. It is true that the scheme would not have worked without asymmetrical cards. They were necessary for the scheme. But they were equally insufficient. Out of the box, asymmetrical cards are symmetrical until strategically turned and maintained in that orientation. In that sense, it was Borgata’s acquiescence in Ivey’s accommodations that were the but for cause of Borgata’s losses.”

Borgata Slot Winners 2018

Private settlement on the cards

Noting that the Borgata could only win the possible $26.88 judgment after a full trial had been completed, Judge Hillman offered three alternatives for resolving the Gemaco portion of the case:

1. To proceed to trial on Borgata’s breach of warranty claims,
2. To stay Borgata’s claims against Gemaco and certify as final Borgata’s judgment against Ivey and Sun pursuant to Rule 54(b) so that Ivey and Sun’s appeal may proceed,
3. To afford Borgata and Gemaco a period of time to enter into a private resolution of Borgata’s claims against Gemaco, or proceed in some other manner.

The second of the three options represents the likeliest continuing course. While Judge Hillman allowed for the possibility of a nominal private settlement between the Borgata and Gemaco, the greater reason for resolving this portion of the case is that the Borgata’s civil case against Phil Ivey and Cheung Yin Sun also remains unresolved.

In December of 2016, Judge Hillman granted the Borgata a $10.13m (£7.22m) judgment in connection with Ivey and Sun’s scheme. Ivey, who bankrolled the edge-sorting gambit, soon filed a formal appeal. However, Hillman stayed that appeal on several legal and procedural grounds since the claims against Gemaco made as part of the same case were still outstanding.

The finalization of the Gemaco portion of the case should come within weeks, and it will then allow Ivey’s appellate effort to move forward. Ivey’s claims against Crockfords in the UK case also went to appeal, all the way to the UK Supreme Court, where his complex scheme to twist the game’s odds in his favor was ruled unlawful under English gaming law.