Arbitration News

Ho-Chunk Suspend Arbitration With State And Make $30 Million Pre-Payment

The Ho-Chunk Nation and the State of Wisconsin will suspend arbitration on their compact dispute and will continue working to reach a final settlement of the issues surrounding the Nation’s gaming compact, the two parties announced today. As part of the move, the Ho-Chunk Nation will make a good faith, $30 million pre-payment on future compact obligations to the State.

“I am pleased the Ho-Chunk have agreed to make a $30 million good faith payment to the State of Wisconsin, and I look forward to bringing final resolution to the process very soon,” Administration Secretary Steve Bablitch said.  “It is in everyone’s best interest that a settlement is reached quickly, and we will continue working to reach a conclusion that is fair to the Tribe and favorable to taxpayers of Wisconsin.”

Ho-Chunk Nation President George Lewis concurred, noting that he is pleased to continue negotiations.

“The Ho-Chunk Nation is pleased that negotiations will move forward, and we hope that this pre-payment on potential future compact payments to the State will be recognized as a good faith gesture and smooth the way for ongoing talks,” Lewis said today. “The Ho-Chunk are very proud of our partnership with the State of Wisconsin and our role in growing and sustaining a healthy Wisconsin economy.”

The State and the Ho-Chunk Nation also announced the following:

• The parties will stay their arbitration proceedings until outstanding legal appeals are settled.
• The parties will continue negotiations during the stay of arbitration in an effort to reach a final settlement of the issues surrounding the Nation’s gaming compact.
• The $30 million pre-payment made now by the Nation will be credited against future compact payments to the State.

The arbitration was first initiated in June, 2005.

Contact our Florida Arbitration Lawyer Now!

	Did You Know?
	Courts cannot overturn an arbitration award. Typcially, the courts cannot overturn an arbitration award because the arbitrator made a mistake of law or fact. Even if a court would have decided the case differently under existing law, the court will still enforce an arbitration award that differs from what it would have decided.