 Great. Thanks, Dave. Good morning. Today is Monday, March 11th, 2024. This is an adjudicatory hearing before the Masters is gaining commission, but because we are holding this virtually, I'm going to call make a roll call Commissioner Brian. Good morning. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. You shifted on me and then good morning, Commissioner Maynard. Good morning. All right, we'll get started. As I said, this is an adjudicatory hearing for the Masters is gaining commission relative to request for a finding of durable suitability for plain build gaming and redevelopment LLC for operations at Plain Ridge Park Casino. I'll refer to plain build gaming and redevelopment today as PPC. My name is Kathy Judd-Stein and I'm Chair of the Commission. I'm joined today by my colleagues, commissioners, I mean, O'Brien, Brad Hill, Nick Tisha Skinner, Jordan Maynard. The entire commission will preside over the hearing and decision of this matter. This hearing will be conducted in accordance with 205-CMR-101.01, Master's General Law Chapter 30A, Sections 10 and 11 and 801-CMR-1202, information, their hearing rules. This hearing is being conducted via remote collaboration technology. Before we begin, I would like to explain the process that will govern this proceeding. First, a notice of hearing was provided to PPC in advance of today's hearing. Therein, it identifies the issues that this hearing is intended to address. The commission has indicated that it will specifically be considering the issues discussed in the notice, including the following. The durable suitability of plain build gaming and redevelopment are LC%205-CMR-215.01, subsection 1. The historic and ongoing relationship between Penn Entertainment Inc. and Barstool Sports Inc. We'll refer to that as Barstool, including the due diligence completed prior to entering the relationship with Barstool. The details of the separation agreement with Barstool continue to use the Barstool Sports branding between August 8th, 23 and the 4th transition to ESPN Vet in response with gaming guardrails around social media at Barstool Sports. The historic and ongoing relationship between Penn Entertainment and ESPN, including the relationship between the ESPN Media Business and the ESPN Sports Breeding Business, including but not limited to policies and procedures to prevent overlap between the two. And finally, the suitability of HD4 Capital Management. I'll turn now to Deputy General Counsel Justin Stumpeck. Good morning, Justin, to explain the suitability standard that we'll be considering during our discussion today. Thank you, Madam Chair and commissioners, good morning to all. So we're here today to consider a durable finding of suitability for PPC under 205-CMR-215-01 subsection. The commission adopted Section 215 of the regulations to govern suitability terminations, and it included provisions allowing for a durable finding of suitability, also known as the final determination. It also included provisions relating to a preliminary finding of suitability. PPC currently holds preliminary finding of suitability, which the commission approved on January 12, 2023, along with its temporary Category 1 sports wagering operator license. The finding of preliminary suitability was based on an evaluation of the criteria set forth in 205-CMR-215-01 subsection 2, 205-CMR-218-06 subsection 5F, and General Laws Chapter 23 and Section 60, as well as reliance on previous suitability information that was obtained from the applicant's prior gaming application under General Laws Chapter 23K. As you know, General Laws Chapter 23 and Section 60 permits the commission to consider the information from 23K in event evaluation of suitability for sports wagering. You may recall that the durable finding of suitability for the other Category 1 sports wagering operator license at Encore Boston Harbor and MGM also relied on that prior suitability established under General Laws Chapter 23K. Just as a quick refresher, the suitability criteria that was enumerated in the subsections I just mentioned above include the following items. The overall reputation of the applicant, including but not limited to the integrity, honesty, good character and reputation of the applicant and qualifier, the financial stability, integrity and background of the applicants and qualifier, the business practices and business ability of the applicant to establish and maintain a successful sports wagering operation, whether the applicant or qualifier has a history of compliance with gaming or sports wagering licensing requirements and other jurisdictions, whether the applicant qualifier at the time of the application is a defendant in litigation, and that can also include litigation of all of its business practices. The suitability of all parties and interests of the license including affiliates and close associates and the financial resources of the applicant, whether the applicant or qualifier is ineligible to hold a license under 205C Mark 10.014 or General Laws Chapter 23N9A or General Laws Chapter 23N Section 60, whether the applicant or qualifier has been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, whether, to one extent, the applicant or qualifier has associated with members of organized crime or other persons in disreputable character, and finally, the extent to which the applicant or qualifier has cooperated with the IED during the review of the application. Under the terms of 205C Mark 215 addressing suitability, any durable finding of suitability must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, not just substantial evidence, which is a lower standard used for the remainder of the licensing applications. Bargerous prudence tells us that clear and convincing proof exists when the evidence induces in the mind of the fact finder, a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably true, and that the probability that they are true or exist is substantially greater than the probability that they are false or do not exist. For evidence to be clear and convincing, it must be sufficient to pay a high degree of probability that the proposition to prove is true, and it must be strong and positive and full, clear, and decisive. And the matter before you, you may choose to award a durable finding if you include the applicant, and each of those qualifiers has demonstrated their suitability by clear and convincing proof. Such a finding would be a positive determination under 205C Mark 2501E, and may include conditions and restrictions applicable. If the commission determines that the evidentiary burden of suitability is not met, it would issue a negative determination with respect to suitability. And with that said, Madam Chair, I turn the proceedings back over to you. Thanks, Justin. So I understand that PPC is represented by Council here today, and I'll ask that Mr. Soriano, please identify yourself and your team today. Good morning, Madam Chair. Good morning, commissioners. Chris Soriano, Vice President, Chief Compliance Officer, Penn Entertainment. With me is Erin Chamberlain, Senior Vice President, Regional Operations for Penn Entertainment, and North Groundsville, Vice President, General Manager for PPC. Okay, thank you all. At the conclusion of my opening comments, this proceeding will commence with the IEB's presentation of its findings to the commission pursuant to 205CMR 215.01 subsection 1 and 205CMR 15.03. Any commissioner may ask a question of any one presenting information at any point or following the presentation. At the conclusion of the IEB's presentation, the licensee through Council will be afforded an opportunity to ask questions of any individual who presented information on behalf of the IEB as well. At the conclusion of the IEB's presentation, the licensee will be given the same opportunity to make a presentation. They may call any witnesses and present any other evidence they desire. As before, any commissioner may ask any question of any witness or presenter at any time during or after any presentation. PPC may raise any objection it desires at any time. However, the basis for all objections must be clearly stated. After the licensee's presentation, the commission will address each topic area from the notice of hearing, in turn, and each commissioner will have a full opportunity to ask questions. Any witnesses concerning those topic areas before moving on? Finally, at the conclusion of the presentations of all the evidence, the licensee will be provided an opportunity to make closing remarks summing up its views on suitability. Before we begin, I understand that there are a number of exhibits of consideration of this hearing that has been submitted in advance. Those exhibits are as follows. Commissures, I'm sure you've had the chance to view them all, and Grace has made this available to you. Exhibit one, request for hearing on finding a durable suitability dated December 8, 2023. Exhibit two, request for renewal of a temporary license to conduct sports wagering. Exhibit three, letter from Chris Sarriam concerning follow-up items dated January 26, 2024. Exhibit four, IEB cover memo dated February 16, 2024. Exhibit five, executive summary regarding suitability dated November 17, 2022. Exhibit six, supplement to executive summary regarding suitability dated November 21, 2022. Exhibit seven, pen entertainment letter regarding bar stool dated November 4, 2022. Exhibit eight, pen entertainment letter regarding bar stool dated November 10, 2022. Exhibit nine, IEB report regarding conditions of licensure dated September 26, 2023. Exhibit 10, IEB exhibit list for IEB report regarding conditions of licensure dated September 26, 2023. Exhibit 11, IEB exhibit packet for IEB report regarding conditions of licensure dated September 26, 2023. Exhibit 12, ESPN, that marketing documents submitted by entertainment and then exhibit 13, IEB, HD for memo. Are there any objections to these exhibits being marked and entered into evidence? None from PPC, Madam Chair. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And those exhibits shall be admitted into evidence. And for purpose of ensuring a clean record, I ask that everyone when possible, please refer to those exhibits by exhibit number. I'm referencing to any of those documents. If anyone would like to have additional documents entered into evidence during the course of the hearing, please ensure they are properly introduced and marked for the record. As explained, excuse me, the commission anticipates that it's inquiry at this proceeding will be related to the matters addressed in the notice of hearing relative to the licensees, durable finding of suitability. In the event that a line of question conducted by the commission moves into an area that has not been included in the report or notice, but that is material to the final determination of this matter. Any party may request a recess in the proceeding in order to review the issue. We will deliver it privately and make a final decision at the conclusion of the evidentiary portion of the hearing. The decision will be issued as promptly as possible. If at any point during the commission's deliberations, it determines that further testimonial or documentary evidence is desirable. It reserves the right to ask the appropriate party to provide such evidence prior to a final decision being made. We will now swear all the witnesses in. Council are on the individuals. I think Chris, you've confirmed this, but are all the individuals you anticipate presenting testimony in this matter present on this call? They are, Madam Chair. Okay. And with respect to IEB, Justin. Yes. Yes, I believe IEB adds everyone that they, that Kailin, I think your whole team is here. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Okay. And if there is anyone who is not present who will later testify, I'll be up to both IEB and PPC to let us now and we'll place them under oath. So with respect to those who are testifying or anticipate testifying, please raise your right hand. I solemnly swear that the testimony you will provide before the commission at this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing about the truth. I do. Okay. Thank you. And I can confirm that all have responded in the affirmative. Justin, you saw the same, correct? Correct. Okay. A proceeding of this nature necessarily requires the consideration of a wide variety of information that takes several forms. In this case, some of the information documentation may include commercially sensitive information and the public discussion of such information may place an entity at a competitive disadvantage such information were to be publicly discussed. For the commission to be able to execute its legal obligations effectively and diligently prior to making a final finding, it must be at liberty to fully inquire relative to any of these sensitive matters without compromising the individuals or entities involved. To do otherwise would be at a minimum unfair and potentially unlawful. Accordingly, my colleagues and I may elect to exercise the discretion afforded in accordance with 205 CMR 101.01 paragraph seven to close this proceeding to the public to fully address certain matters. Under the same regulatory section PPC may request that portions of this hearing be closed to the public as well. And any such request will be considered in turn. Before we begin, it is my understanding that two pre hearing conferences were conducted on this matter one on Tuesday, January 23 2024 and another on Thursday, March 7 2024. The representative of the licensee the IEB and legal counsel at which procedural and evidentiary issues were discussed. Does anyone have any preliminary issues or objections they'd like to raise as a result of those meetings. None from PPC Madame chair. Thank you. Oh, thank you. So I wasn't sure who from IEB was representing today so good morning Zach. Good morning to as well. With that, I'll ask Council on behalf of PPC beginning with Mr. Soriano to please proceed with any opening remarks that you would like to make. Good morning again. Good morning, Madam Chair, I will defer to Mr. Grunzel to provide our opening comments. Great. Thanks, Chris. Good morning, Madam Chair. Good morning commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today as we begin our time together. Madam chair we wanted to recognize that this may be one of the last times that we were scheduled to appear in front of the commission with you as chair. And on behalf of the entire PPC team and pen entertainment and want to thank you for your more than 25 years of service to the people of the Commonwealth. I would like to recognize that public service comes with many sacrifices, both for the individual serving as well as their families. And we do thank you for your willingness to serve the Commonwealth these many years. It's been a privilege working with you. And we do wish you the very best in the next chapter. You're welcome. The purpose of our meeting today is set forth in the agenda is our request to receive a durable finding of suitability for plain bridge parks retail sportsbook and as the commission is aware we submitted extensive documentation with our initial application in 2022. And many of the exhibits that you cited in your exhibit list and we had two public hearings before the commission that resulted in an issue what's a preliminary finding of suitability. At this time we've submitted the additional documentation and information requested by the commission and worked closely with the IB to have this matter ready for you today. I want to thank the entire IB staff for their third thoroughness and professionalism. There's extensive documentation in the record today that addresses questions that have been raised by the commission. The retail sportsbook at Plain Ridge Park is operating successfully as the sportsbook at Plain Ridge Park, and has been a welcome amenity for our property, particularly with the opening of our permanent facility, which has operated as sportsbook at Plain Ridge Park since it's opening this past summer. And we respectfully submit that we have satisfied the standards for issuance of a durable finding of suitability and request that the commission issue that finding my colleague and chief compliance officer for pen entertainment Chris Oriano and I are happy to answer any questions that you may have at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your kind words and for opening up this hearing. And now that I really has the opportunity to present is that correct Justin. Yes, I think proceeded really probably makes the most sense for them to write for Zach to make his presentation and then to proceed. Thank you. Attorney Mercer good morning again. Good morning chair. I'm the director for the IEB along with me today or IEB director, Kate LaMonna, and an interim chief enforcement council Kathleen Kramer as detailed by Madam chair there are a number of exhibits that were submitted. I don't have anything by way of opening remarks that I am prepared to proceed into the presentation. Okay. With that, I think you should proceed with your presentations act and questions will be presented. Thanks. Thank you chair. And LLC doing businesses Plain Ridge Park casino or PPC is a subsidiary pen entertainment and currently holds a category two gaming license under general laws chapter 23 K. And a category one sports wagering license under general laws, temporary category one sports wagering license under general laws chapter 23 and this summary will detail the timeline of PPC's application regarding its category one sports wagering license. On November 21 2022 PPC submitted an application for a category one sports wagering license on November 17 2022 the IEB submitted an executive summary regarding the suitability of PPC. As a category one sports wagering licensee which has been submitted for today's proceedings as exhibit five, along with attachments marked exhibit seven and eight. The IEB also submitted a supplemental memorandum to the executive summary on November 21 2022, which has been submitted as exhibit number six. Under general laws chapter 23 and section 6d the commission can leverage the information obtained and suitability investigations performed pursuant to general laws chapter 23 K. PPC and its qualifiers were found suitable by the commission in connection with its application for a casino gaming license under general laws chapter 23 K in 2013. Consistent with the process followed for category one sports wagering license applications for both MGM and EVH, which also had prior findings of suitability under 23 K. The IEB's executive summary relied upon PPC's category two gaming license suitability investigation and its ongoing responsibility to update the commission with additional information. The IEB confirmed in its executive summary the PPC's category two gaming license remaining standing at the time of submission. As part of its application, Penn maintained a marketing relationship with Barstool Sports Inc. Barstool, a sports and entertainment company. Barstool ultimately became a wholly owned subsidiary of Penn on February 17 2023. Penn's relationship with Barstool involved branding their sportsbook operations in Massachusetts as Barstool Sportsbook. On December 6 2022 PPC began its presentation on its application for category one sports wagering license to the commission. On December 15 2022, Penn Chief Executive Officer and President Jay Snowden submitted a letter to the commission in response to questions raised in December 6 2022. Penn returned to the commission in the December 20 2022 meeting to provide additional information. On this date, the commission found PPC preliminarily suitable for a temporary category one sports wagering operating license, which was issued on January 12 2023. The commission's determination was contingent upon two conditions upon PPC. The conditions imposed were as follows. One, the operator make efforts to ensure that only those 21 and older attend all live events conducted by the Barstool College football shows. And two, the operator must cooperate with the IEB conducting a wholesome investigation of Barstool Sports Inc. in connection with its branding to Penn Sports Interactive. On January 4 2023, the commission imposed the same commission conditions on the temporary category three sports wagering license for Penn Sports Interactive LLC or PSI, the tethered operator to PPC and another subsidiary of Penn. On March 14 2023 PPC was subject to an adjudicatory hearing for an alliance incident involving the offering of unauthorized events for wagering in violation of general laws chapter 23 and section three. 205 CMR 247.012A2 and the Massachusetts Sports Wagering Catalog. Following the hearing and the decision dated July 21, 2023, the commission found PPC in violation and imposed a fine in the amount of $20,000. Following the commission's implementation of the licensing conditions, the IEB began an investigation into both the areas of the courier. On August 8 2023, amid of the IEB investigation, Penn divested its interest in Barstool and announced a new strategic partnership with ESPN, a sports media company. This partnership has resulted in the rebranding of Penn's mobile sports wagering platform from Barstool Sportsbook to ESPN back. The IEB submitted its report regarding PPC's conditions of licensure to the commission on September 26 2023. This report has been marked as Exhibit 9. The exhibit list and exhibit packet for that report are also included and marked as Exhibits 10 and 11. In addition to its discussion of the two conditions implemented by the commission, the IEB report also addressed Penn's divestiture of Barstool. The IEB presented this report to the commission during the October 2 2023 public meeting. On the same day, Penn presented an overview of its new partnership with ESPN. Penn's mobile sports wagering platform maintained the Barstool Sportsbook branding until the launch of ESPN bet on November 14 2023. On November 7 2023, Penn came before the commission to present further information regarding their marketing partnership with ESPN. In that meeting, the commission requested that Penn provide documents related to the ESPN bet marketing of their mobile sports wagering platform, neatly the policy separating their news gathering functions with sports wagering marketing. The commission set a deadline in December 11 2023 for Penn to provide supplemental materials. On November 10 2023, Penn provided a series of documents in response to the commission's request. These documents are marked as Exhibit 12. On December 8 2023, PPC requested an adjudicatory hearing on its binding during the suitability and requested a renewal of its temporary license. These items have been marked as Exhibits 1 and 2. The IEB is also submitted a supplemental memo regarding recent developments involving an institutional investor for Penn, which has been marked as Exhibit 13. The IEB is submitted these materials to assist the commission's determination and regarding to PPC's durable suitability and confirms PPC's gaming license remains a good statement. The IEB has not learned of any additional information that disturbed the prior finding suitability. And that concludes the IEB's remarks at this stage. Thank you, Chair. Okay. Thank you, Sam. Commissioners, we'll open up for any questions you have. Mr. Mercer, other members of the IEB, I'll tip to the report. I'm sure you're following along with the reports. Well done. Thank you. Questions. Madam Chair, I have some questions for Mr. Soriano and Mr. Round, maybe Attorney Chamberlain. Could I just hold for a second before we go to PPC? Do you have any questions for Zach at this juncture, commissioners, for clarification or otherwise? I do have one, Madam Chair. And also questions on the standard too. Let's think about that. All right. So exhibit 12, the, is that the sum and substance of the materials that were submitted in response to the request that was made by the commission in terms of the interplay between ESPN, that ESPN and Penn? Correct. Those are the items that were submitted on the November date as stated in the IEB's presentation. That is the extent of everything that I have received. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay. Other questions, commissioners, any questions for either Attorney Stembeck or Attorney Mercer with respect for Justin, the standard? Or for Zach, the IEB presentation. We can always go back to, all right. Commissioner Brown, your questions for Mr. Soriano. I do. And some of these, Madam Chair, I think are probably most appropriate for a private session. It's following up on some of the materials relating to the barstool divestiture, which I believe are not for public consumption. Okay, so let's just take, so I just wanted to, let's just one question at a time and yeah, down. Okay, good. I don't want to, I put that out there to park it, as you like to say in the parking lot, because I don't think it's, I don't think it's for right now, but I wanted to put it out there. The public consumption question, and again, please Chris or North or Aaron, stop me if this is also private session, but the shift to ESPN that you give us number of materials, the exhibit 12, right, that related to some of the things that we had about the interplay between the sports watching experience and the sports betting experience. I'm, I mean, I want to start this off by saying that my experience with you as a company has been in terms of compliance and suitability has been fantastic. I don't ask these questions anticipating any issues necessarily I just point out something that I think is inherent in the interplay between marketing and sports betting companies and in particular because ESPN, you know, is the sports investor right now. When this launched in November 14 of 23 J Snowden, you know talked about the benefits from sort of this interaction and this experience and was looking for I believe the phraseology was a seamless and frictionless experience between being able to, you know, watch and consume the sports itself, and then also have the betting experience on ESPN bet, and you submitted a number of materials to us on that point. I still have concerns going forward about where that line is going to be and what that's going to mean. And I have no questions to doubt what you've submitted in exhibit 12 in terms of, you know, what the standards are what the AGA guidance is on this point. But, you know, there are concerns that I have about responsible gaming and particularly those under 21 in terms of consuming sports, and that frictionless seamless experience still having a wall, so that there's no confusion. I think ESPN did a, you know, Super Bowl broadcast where they had Toy Story, and they had the different characters acting out the game, etc. That's clearly not a betting situation of clearly the gaming experience the sports watching experience but I, I want to continue to have a dialogue going forward. I don't know if my other, my fellow commissioners have questions on this but whether there's a more detailed conversation about how that line is towed in a way that is responsible, particularly for those under 21. So Commissioner Brian I'm happy to start and good morning it's nice to see you as always. I appreciate the question I think you've raised what is something that everyone is thinking about industry wide. I think that you see as you see lots of content out there involving the integration between content and betting. I know a number of other companies have shows where they discuss betting as, you know, as there's ESPN Bet Live as there's streaming content. I think it's a, you know, it's a global, I think it's a global issue and I think it is a conversation that is worth continuing as you as you have very eloquently suggested. We at Penn, as and I appreciate your comments commissioner Brian about our commitment to compliance. I know we've had some disagreements over over the years over on on specific issues but I do, you know, speak on behalf of the company that is of critical importance to all of us and so the thinking through these issues is I think something that we would welcome a continued dialogue with the industry and this commission in particular has often been a leader in terms of hosting roundtables and industry discussions and workshops and bringing in the experts and looking at research based conclusions as to how we address this. We're happy to participate in that going forward. And to really look at how we do this. In terms of the question that's before us. I have to, as a lawyer, my lawyer instinct requires me to say that, you know, for purposes of the record I think that you know the ESPN online guard rails and the durable suitability of PPC there may be some gap between those two but I'm happy to discuss it today. Having said that, we've really spent time in terms of thinking through where that wall is and I hope that the commission could see that from the depth and breadth of the materials that that we submitted and this was not something that was, you know, thought up overnight. This was something that was that was really thought through and spent a lot of time on. And when you look at walls and when you look at separation, I think you start in our sports, the sports betting guidelines and the distribution, you know, you start with the fact that both us and ESPN are ESPN is subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company are publicly traded entities. And we are subject to thorough and careful codes of conduct, conflict provisions, etc. And I think that fundamental basis that as publicly traded regulated companies, we think about these issues of conflict and and where do they start and where do they end and how do we think them through. And so, in the thorough policies that we came up with, we feel confident that that's a good way to address the issues that you talk about in the same way commissioner bite by analogy. Let's lay aside sports wager and let's just go to the land based casino. There's always the potential for inherent conflicts in the land based casinos, where, you know, surveillance is the second eye on the count, for example. And so as a result, we've implemented good controls and good procedures since really the beginning of regulated gaming to make sure that surveillance has its line of reporting finance has its line of reporting the cage does its thing separately. And that there's no crossover between the two and we've we've tried to think that through the same way here, in terms of how we address conflicts but very much appreciate the question and we would welcome a continued dialogue on this subject. Mr. Sorry, I don't provide more detail. Could you provide more detail if we were in a private session or would they would your remarks be concluded with what you just explained just now. I think, again, Madam chair, I think we've, I think we've covered it between the documents that are in the record and the remarks that I just made. But I heard commissioner O'Brien and please pressure I don't need to put words in your mouth, as suggesting that perhaps an ongoing industry wide look at dialogue at this issue more generally would be appropriate going forward, not just today and so that is something we'd be happy to participate in. Sure. Yeah, so to your point also attorney circuit. Crisariano is your point also about your cat three versus why you're here today. You know there is a distinction and I wanted to flag it today because there is this close association and affiliation right between your retail book, even though it has a different name, and and so to the branding of your online and so I do think this is a conversation that will continue as we look at durable for the cat three. And I do think that, you know, you have a unique position in terms of that line with ESPN ESPN bet so I do think an industry wide conversation I think we need to have it. And I do think we'll be circling back to this as this goes forward on the cat three durable suitability. Absolutely commissioner and again, we don't necessarily have to wait till the cat three durable suitability hearing to have more discussion about this we'd be happy to have it whenever the commission would like to. Yeah, that's great I would like that. Thank you very much. Thank you madam chair. Any other questions for Mr sarian or for for north. We have Aaron here as well. So I appreciate your question commissioner Brian and having just spent time with some of the national industry leaders as well as regulators this is a conversation that is taking place across the nation and I think the continued collaboration between regulators and industry will address this issue because it is going to be at the heart of integrity of sports wagering and everyone has the same goal of keeping it safe and and sustainable so important conversation and one that really with respect to the cat three. The most relevant. Okay. Other questions. Or either IED or for PPC. If we, if you need to be prompted remember you can go back to first exhibit of the notice of hearing. I guess that's actually not an exhibit, but at the beginning of our packet. Remind yourself of the issues that can be addressed to make sure that you have no outstanding questions. Once we get to deliberations because I'm hopeful that we won't have to reconvene to have any other questions answered. So everybody has a chance to look at the notice. Yeah, just saying that I joined commissioner Brian. Questions around exhibit three which are probably best suited for in this forum. I'm going to interrupt only because I want you to know we didn't I don't think we heard all of your statement I think I'm not singular right commissioners. I also had an audio issue. So, so I think we have no problem with you just trying to, you know, just repeat everything. So I went off video so my audio hopefully works better. Okay. I joined commissioner O'Brien and her questions around exhibit three. I think it's best suited for not not this session, but I do, I will have questions around that. Any other questions. Fishers. No questions, but miss sorry on I think I just want to add to what commissioner Brian and commissioner may have said this is really something that we're very concerned about as a commission. We certainly look forward to any dialogue in the future that will help us get over any angst that we may have toward this issue. So, please don't take by us being quiet that we don't care about this because we really do. I appreciate that commissioner as do we. And so I think this is a healthy conversation for us to all have. Do you have anything you want to add at this point, not at this point I think my fellow commissioners have covered it quite nicely. That particular item that particular issue. Any other questions concerning other issues. Okay. Does any commission have any questions for any witnesses present present here today. With respect to the durable suitability of playing those gaming and you don't know that I'll see percent two or five CMR 15.01 subsection one. Okay. Before we continue I want to make sure. Mr. sorry, I know that you're outside that's PPC have any presentation or a question of any witnesses, further presentation of evidence or any questions that you wish to ask this junction. We do not chair. Okay. Okay. I'm going to go through the notice even though I'm not hearing any questions just and just out of abundance of caution. With respect to the second bullet from hearing notice and it's first up which states, the historic and ongoing relationship between Penn entertainment. And Barstow sports, including the due diligence completed prior to entering the relationship with Barstow as any commissioner have any questions for any witness present here today. With regard to that topic. It has been raised and it has been raised in our notes as relevant to sort of building so I don't want to have the opportunity to miss and have it. Okay. I'm double checking. Thank you. Yeah. So yeah, and I think again the my comment before about sort of the divestiture so it this might have some interplay with what I said earlier, but it's it's a private session matter it's not for public consumption. Okay. So, with respect Barstow so Chris, I was with respect to the overall hearing and I want to make sure. So this is. Yes. Brian. So at will reserve that for respect to the, the Barstow due diligence that will go into private session. Does any commissioner have any questions for any witness present here before we go into private session on that other than commissioner Brian, something that could be public. Okay. With respect to the second bullet from the hearing notice and its second subcar, which states the details of the separation agreement with Barstow. Does any commissioner have any questions for any witness present here today regarding this topic. Again, the private session is available. We want wish to but we like to be able to conduct as much in public as possible. So it doesn't have to be conducted in public at all but it is part of our commitment to transparency. So this again just to the as you're checking the box again this is all just the same follow up for private session. And I think commissioner you are getting at this respect to the second bullet from the hearing notice and it's third subcar which states continue use of the bar stills branding between August 8 2023 and the transition to ESPN that were you addressing that earlier. Do we have continued discussion on that in private. I find I am satisfied as to this cat to process on that point right now. That's what I understood. Do you have any I think we've all concluded were satisfied with that that it may come up with respect to cat. Am I right. We're all set. With respect to the second bullet again I think you've covered this commissioner O'Brien respect to the responsible gaming guard rails around social media bar still sports and to be clear. There, there, the exhibits address this from PPC. Are there any other questions on that before we move forward for private session. Okay, with respect to the third bullet from the hearing notice in a subcar which states the historic and ongoing relationship between kind of came in ESPN, including the relationship between ESPN media business and ESPN sports including but not limited to all policies and procedures prevent overlap between the two. Am I right that commissioner O'Brien you're satisfied with respect to what's in our exhibits for today's purposes. That's correct. Okay, anybody else feel differently than commissioner O'Brien. Okay, with respect to the third bullet from the hearing notice in a subcar which states. Oh, sorry. I don't check that off. Okay, with respect to the fourth bullet from the hearing notice which states the suitability of HG for capital management that was addressed in the exhibit 13. Are there any questions that you want to ask IEB for clarification around that matter in the public session or PPC. Everybody's had a chance to review exhibit 13. We need for that to be discussed in private. Okay, thank you. Okay, so now that we have heard all the evidence this matter before we move to closing remarks. I'd like to turn once again to my fellow commissioners, make sure there are no further topic areas that anyone would like to explore. And that all of our questions have been answered so that we can avoid we can be. Okay. Commissioners have been very satisfied with the evidence put before us and thank you. We'll give everybody the opportunity to make closing remarks PPC will be afforded the opportunity to make a statement summing up its position don't no need to do so. Mr. Sariano, would you like to proceed before we do go into private. I want to share very briefly and as I understand there are questions regarding exhibit three which it's the commission's preference to take entirely to private or do want to go question by question or I will certainly do it however the commission would like. But that said, you know, we're confident that we have submitted substantial evidence and documentation that establishes by clerk convincing evidence that PPC meets the standards of durable suitability. I would like to thank the commission staff. And of course, the IEB staff, director, director Monahan, counsel Mercer, chief counsel Kramer and the rest of the team for really their thoroughness and professionalism throughout this process. In terms of the collaboration. I know there was a lot of information that we've been presenting on this topic now for quite some time. And the dialogue and professionalism with the staff has really been excellent, but on the legal question. I believe that with our initial presentations plus all of the supplemental documentation that we've submitted plus any questions we may answer in private session that the commission may have that we have satisfied the standard by clear and convincing evidence for the issuance of adorable finding suitability and we would request that the commission so find they are excellent. Excellent. Okay. We, the commission echo his remarks with respect to our team. Thank you so much. With respect to commissioners that we all set to move on them. I think for our purposes, just a little bit of guidance we're going to be brought into a private session. There's no reason for us to have to go back into public session. Correct. We can close out from the private session. And so, I guess what I would say is we thank those who have joined us for this judicatory hearing will continue with our private session and then the commission will deliver a private to those who are not going to continue joining us. Thank you very much. I'm sure Tom and Dave, you'll move us into a new, a new. I set up a breakout room and I can open it now so everybody should get a notification momentarily. Yeah, we don't have to go to another link and just we'll go to the breakdown session. All right, excellent. Thank you so much, everyone.