The City of Springfield has launched legal action against MGM Resorts International and Blue Tarp Redevelopment, LLC, claiming the operators of MGM Springfield have failed to meet obligations established under the casino’s Host Community Agreement (HCA).

Mayor Domenic Sarno announced the lawsuit after what city officials described as nearly two years of unsuccessful discussions with MGM regarding compliance issues tied to the agreement that paved the way for the casino’s development.

“My team and I have been negotiating for nearly two years with MGM about their non-compliance issues with our Host Community Agreement (HCA),” Sarno said in a statement. “Unfortunately, we have not reached an agreement; therefore, in the best interests of the citizens of Springfield, I have directed our City Solicitor, Stephen Buoniconti, to commence legal action in hopes of resolving this very serious matter.”

The complaint seeks a court order requiring MGM and Blue Tarp Redevelopment to fulfill commitments contained in the host agreement. The city argues that several obligations linked to the operation of MGM Springfield remain incomplete despite extensive negotiations.

City Claims Casino Fell Short of Key Commitments

The lawsuit focuses on several areas where Springfield believes MGM has not delivered on promises made when the project was approved.

Under the 2013 Host Community Agreement, MGM committed to employment targets, gaming capacity levels and redevelopment work connected to nearby properties. According to court filings, those benchmarks have not been achieved.

The city states that MGM Springfield currently operates around 1,600 slot and video gaming machines along with 50 table games. The original agreement referenced more than 2,800 gaming machines and at least 75 table games.

Employment figures have also become a point of contention. Springfield alleges that the casino employs roughly 1,500 workers, including about 1,000 full-time staff members. Earlier commitments referenced approximately 3,000 employees, including 2,200 full-time positions.

Another issue concerns 101 State Street, a property located near the casino. City officials contend that redevelopment work on the building has not progressed as expected.

“Look at the corner of State and Main, 101 State Street and the ugly scaffolding and Jersey barriers that have been up there for years,” Sarno said. “MGM has not followed through and complied with our Host Community Agreement and lived up to what they’re supposed to do. So, I’ll let the legal process play out at this point in time.”

City Solicitor Stephen Buoniconti also criticized MGM’s efforts to move the dispute into arbitration.

“MGM wanted to try and settle all these disputes in private through an arbitration process,” Buoniconti said. “One, we didn’t think they have a legal right to do that and second, we don’t believe those disputes should be done in secret.”

MGM Links Lawsuit to Proposed Casino Sale

MGM has rejected the city’s allegations and argues that the litigation is connected to a separate disagreement involving a proposed sale of the casino’s operations.

In a statement issued after the lawsuit was filed, the company described the case as an attempt to delay Springfield’s review of a transaction involving an unnamed buyer.

“Today, Mayor Sarno and the City of Springfield initiated frivolous litigation to continue to delay its consideration of MGM’s request to approve the proposed sale of its interest in MGM Springfield to a well-qualified casino operator.”

According to MGM, city officials were informed in early 2024 that a potential purchaser had been identified. The company said it provided information regarding the buyer, outlined plans for the property and offered assurances that the Host Community Agreement would continue to be honored after any transfer.

MGM further stated that city representatives favored converting 101 State Street into a hotel. The company claims it agreed to that proposal despite it being the most expensive option under discussion.

The casino operator maintains that Springfield repeatedly postponed decisions regarding the sale process.

“It became clear that the Mayor and the City were not acting in good faith and the objective was to delay. This lawsuit is just another tactic to delay and obstruct the process, jeopardizing the significant investments and long-term benefits the sale would deliver to the community.”

Reports Point to Potential Buyer

While MGM has not publicly identified the prospective purchaser, reports from local media outlets such as WWLP suggest a buyer may already be lined up. Toronto-based Clairvest Group has emerged as a possible candidate. Clairvest recently acquired another MGM property, the Northfield Park Racino in Ohio, in a deal reportedly valued at $546 million.

The Host Community Agreement gives Springfield authority to approve any transfer of the casino business, even though MGM has already sold the underlying real estate associated with the property.

MGM Springfield opened in 2018 as Massachusetts’ first full-scale resort casino. At the time, the launch was celebrated by city officials and company executives, with Mayor Sarno joining MGM representatives in a vintage Rolls-Royce procession through downtown Springfield. Wynn Resorts later opened the state’s second resort-style casino in Everett.

Relations between Springfield and MGM have since become increasingly strained. With the lawsuit now before the courts and questions surrounding a potential sale still unresolved, the dispute appears set to continue beyond the negotiating table.