 Okay. Thanks, Dave. Good morning. This is a convening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, such for holding this meeting virtually. I'll ask for a roll call. Good morning, Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning, I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning, I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning, I'm here. And good morning, Commissioner Maynard. Good morning, I'm here. All right, we'll get started. This is a continuation or a resuming our review of the application of FBG Enterprises, LLC, doing business as fanatics. And I believe this is our fourth meeting with you. And so we again extend our great appreciation for your patience as we navigate our busy schedule. We met yesterday at 8 as well from 8 to 10. And we were able to get through much of the list of items for executive session, but not all of them. Our legal counsel has advised that we can go right into our executive session now because we have a proper vote on record. So with that to the public, we will... So Madam Chair, actually before we go, there was the one matter that I had raised with them yesterday. There was a discussion of whether they might be able to quickly talk about it now before we move into executive session. I just wanted to see if we still want to do that or wait till we come back out. And I'll just finish this sentence and then we'll do that and I'll ask if there's anything else. Okay. So we'll be convening back in the public session. This is an opportunity. It's Commissioner O'Brien just mentioned for us to consider whether there's anything else that we would want from an executive session, anything else addressed. And Commissioner O'Brien, I know you raised at least one item yesterday. Yes. And we may not have to go into executive session for it. It's more the open source check that was done, surfaced some articles in connection with Mr. Rubin. He divested himself of his ownership shares and some of the professional teams. And then there was some assigning of Affiliate Office 76ers player James Harden and whether anyone on the company can speak to sort of what was out in the public ether on that topic. Sure. Senator Berger, we saw the comments in IAB's Lunar Report, which was media speculation. I think the company views that it's just unfounded and untrue media conjecture and speculation that there's nothing to substantiate that in reality. Certainly, if IAB is again their final, their future investigation, if they have further questions on the topic or any additional information comes to light that they think is relevant, the company or its principles are more than happy to speak to anything that comes up. But as of now, we think it's just completely unsustainable. Great. Thank you for addressing that publicly. Thank you. Are there any other matter commissioners that you would like to raise before we go into executive session? Anything that you think is appropriate for executive session? All right. Then we'll have our team offer the opportunity to go back into the virtual role. Thanks so much. This could be one minute. No problem, Christian. Okay, Dave, I think we're all set. Thank you. All set. Great. Thank you. Okay, this is a reconvening of a public meeting of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. And because we're holding this meeting virtually, I'll do a roll call again. A second good morning to you, Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning. I'm here. And Commissioner Hill. Yeah. And Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. And Commissioner Maynard. Good morning. I'm here. Okay. So we just finished up in our executive session and have addressed all the matters that we anticipated addressing. I think that there's a very brief clarification that we think will be helpful for the public record, appropriately so. And so we'll turn first to Mr. Berger and see if there are any questions from you commissioners on that. Well, maybe perhaps, Mr. Grossman, you'll just remind all of us on the individual topic. Are you all set on that? Yeah. No, I think Mr. Berger or Ms. Wynn can take it away. It relates to the interest of James Hardin and his involvement with the company. Okay. Were we on that one? The class action. Yeah, the class action. My apologies. Yes, absolutely. You already talked about, yes, the Sherman Act case that was discussed. Sure. On those, I think our public state, we obviously discussed more in morning executive session, but there's three cases that have been publicly filed. All the pleadings in those cases are publicly available. We certainly welcome commissioners. Take a look at those. We would say in all three cases, defendants have filed pre-motion to dismiss letters in which fanatics in each of those has stated the complaints should be dismissed. We would say that those motions speak for themselves in terms of our current defense in those cases. Any questions on that commissioners? Not a question. It's just a record clarification. It's also my understanding, they were going to just forward to us a copy of the complaint and the motions that were filed so we have them. Yeah, we'd be happy to do that. They're all on the public record, but we can certainly forward them to attorney Grossman. Great. Thank you. Any other questions he has, you know, for additional documents, you know, on public record, we can provide as well. Thank you. Commissioners, at this stage, are there any other questions over the applicant? We do have to take our temperature and, Commissioner Skinner, I know you're not feeling great, so this is not a good choice of words when I say take your temperature today, but if we could find out if we have a consensus with respect to four sections of the application, we need to turn back to sections B, C, E, and G. So, if you have your notes available, we began that evaluation process yesterday, and we've had a great deal of information through our rigorous discussions in the executive session and in the public session. So, with respect to section B, Madam Chair, I would say the applicant has met expectations for section B. Thank you, Commissioner Hill. I agree. Thank you. I agree. And Commissioner Bryan, everybody's just, to their notes, which is a good thing. I agree, and I have to say that the executive sessions the last couple of days have helped me tremendously in being able to make my assessments on these, so I would agree they satisfy. Thank you. Madam Chair, very much like yesterday when we had another applicant, I think I could streamline this by saying that I believe section C, E, and G have met expectations. With that, Commissioner Skinner, are you as comfortable with that because we can break it down? I am comfortable with that. I also agree that the applicant needs expectations on all of those sections. Okay. Thank you. And Commissioner Maynard, are you comfortable with the collective look? I am comfortable saying they have met expectations in every one of those categories. Thank you. And Commissioner Bryan. I am. The only caveat is for me on E for responsible gaming, I would have a, you know, if we move on to voting them a license approval, I would like the condition on confirmation that the anticipated January 25th board vote adopting the responsible gaming plan. That to me is a big part of whether I felt like they satisfied E. And they moved it up. It's my understanding that that's going to happen imminently. But that is critical to me saying yes on E. Commissioner Bryan, if I may, I think generally we're going to be amenable to that. Can we just have some a little bit of flexibility just in case there's a scheduling conflict or something like that on, you know, that exact day, if you will? Yeah. I think I would condition in wording is such that if, and if it doesn't happen on that day that we get noticed prior to that date. My big concern is the idea that it might launch, you know, you might be trying to technically launch prior to having that approved. So maybe that's it. Is it the understanding that that's going to be approved at the board level prior to any potential launch in Massachusetts? I think that's clearly our intent. And that makes sense. We prefer one like that just, you know, getting better than the date or gathered or, you know, something happened. Yeah, I think that that's the intent of what I'm saying is that it be approved at the board level prior to any launch in Massachusetts. Commissioner, just to be clear on the record, our application asked for a draft. No, I know. But everyone else who's come before us already has an approved one, and then it's sort of how are you going to change it to Massachusetts? They didn't have one even at the corporate level at all. So that's that's the concern. I was going to ask if you could make that distinction. So I wanted that to be clear to the the applicant. So I guess I really do appreciate the immediate responsiveness and what we saw. And so to Commissioner O'Brien's point, it's because of your new history, as opposed to old history. So that's right, right, right. Okay. And so we'll explore that in further detail down the road. So otherwise, I'm taking your temperature now, Commissioner O'Brien. Yeah, otherwise satisfied as to see Angie. Yes. And, and I have to say that I thought this application was was excellent, very strong. And very much appreciate from several now, a few weeks ago year, a few weeks, but before the holidays, certainly when we had your presentation, all of it put together, it's been very, very helpful. And we appreciate again, and are in answering all of our questions. So thank you. But the application for me was a pleasure to read and assess. So, so I'm good on all sections. Now we turn to I want to get the agenda out. Item number seven on this agenda, where we would turn to whether or not we'd like to proceed with having Mr. Grossman help us go to the determination process. Commissioners, are we at that junction? Juncture comfortably? Okay. Mr. Grossman. Thank you, Madam Chair. At this juncture of the proceedings, we'll turn back to section 218 of the regulations. And you'll recall specifically 218.06 sub five sets out the standard under which the commission will determine whether to award a license or not and lays out all the factors and sub factors. So I'll walk through those right now. And ultimately, the question will become, do you find substantial evidence in the record that the award of a license to this applicant would benefit the Commonwealth? Just by way of refresher, when we say substantial evidence, the term the term itself is defined as such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion. And so through that lens, we should walk through the factors and the sub factors that you have already reviewed and will want to make a finding at the end as to whether you find ultimately that they have all been met and are supported by the weight of the evidence. So again, the umbrella question is whether this a license award to this applicant would benefit the Commonwealth. And in making that decision, you need to look at the following factors. The first is the applicant's experience and expertise related to sports wagering. The sub factors there and making that decision is to look at the applicant's background in sports wagering, the applicant's experience and licensure and other jurisdictions with sports wagering, and the applicant's proposed sports wagering operation here or description of the technical features and operation of its sports wagering platform. The next factor is the economic impact and other benefits to the Commonwealth if the applicant is awarded a license, which include the following sub factors, the employment opportunities within the Commonwealth, the projected revenue from wagering operations and tax revenue to the Commonwealth, and any community engagement. The third factor is the applicant's proposed measures related to responsible gaming and those sub factors include the applicant's responsible gaming policies, the applicant's advertising and promotional plans, and the applicant's history of demonstrated commitment to responsible gaming. The next factor relates to the applicant's willingness to foster racial, ethnic and gender diversity, equity and inclusion, including within the applicant's workforce through the applicant's supplier spend and in the applicant's corporate structure. Next is the technology that the applicant intends to use in its operation, including its geofencing plan, its know your customer measures, and technological expertise and reliability. The next one is the suitability of the applicant and its qualifiers, and I'll talk a little bit more about this momentarily. The sub factors here include whether the applicant can be or has been determined suitable in accordance with 205-CMR 215, the applicant's and all parties and interests to the licensee's integrity, honesty and good character and reputation, the applicant's financial stability, integrity and background, the applicant's business practices and business ability to establish and maintain a successful sports wagering operation, the applicant's history of compliance with gaming or sports wagering licensing requirements and other jurisdictions, and whether the applicant is a defendant in litigation involving its business practices. And finally any other appropriate factor in the commission's discretion. So that is the standard and all of the factors and sub factors that the commission has to take into account as it works its way through this evaluation. The other area that I wanted to draw your attention to as you're working through those sub factors relates to suitability. And as we've discussed suitability is described in greater detail in section 215 of the commission's regulations. You'll recall that there are two types of suitability that are provided for. The first is what was referred to as the durable finding of suitability, which is essentially the final suitability decision. And you'll recall that in order to award a durable finding of suitability, the commission would have to conclude that this applicant and each of its qualifiers demonstrated their suitability by clear and convincing proof at an adjudicatory proceeding. I would submit to you in this case that has not happened, in which case they would be eligible not for the durable finding of suitability at this juncture, but instead for the preliminary finding of suitability, which is also discussed in section 215. In order to be awarded that durability, that preliminary finding, the commission need only find that there is substantial evidence in the record to support that conclusion as opposed to the clear and convincing evidence required for the durable finding. So those are all of the factors. You'll recall of course as well that there are a number of conditions that would attach to any such report. And conditions are discussed in section to 20 of the commission's regulations. There are a series of what we'll call automatic conditions that attach to the award of any license, and I'll walk through those, but the commission should also establish what if any other conditions aside from these automatic ones that will be attached to the award of any license to this particular applicant. The commission just talked about one of them, and that is that they vote to adopt the responsible gaming plan by the entity's board of directors be taken prior to the commencement of operations here in the Commonwealth. So that it would be one condition that would attach. The commission should discuss whether there are others. You'll recall there were a series of issues and matters that the applicant was asked to supplement. And in fact, it did provide supplemental information on. So I don't believe that there are conditions associated with those. But before we get into any additional conditions allow me to just walk through the other automatic conditions just so they're front of mind. And these are discussed in section 220.01. They include the following that the operator obtain an operation certificate before conducting any sports wagering in the Commonwealth that the operator comply with all terms and conditions of its license and operation certificate. That the operator comply with chapter 23 and and all rules and regulations of the commission. That the operator make all required payments to the commission in a timely manner. And the first one that comes to mind here if the commission were so inclined would be a requirement that the applicant pay the million dollar fee for a temporary license. That the operator maintain its suitability to hold the sports wagering license. And that the operator conducts sports wagering in accordance with its approved system of internal controls consistent with 205 CMR and in accordance with its approved house rules in accordance with chapter 23 and section 10 a and consistent with 205 CMR. So those are the automatic conditions that attached to any license. So Madam Chair and commissioners before you move into the final review. I just wanted to check to make sure there are no additional conditions that a commissioner would like to see included in the award of any license. Commissioner O'Brien did just mention the RG draft plan and like if we could give the latitude to the applicant Commissioner O'Brien upon launching the data that I think will your point right. Yeah I think the language I would ask for is that as a condition that the that fanatics license if they're a licensee have a board approved responsible gaming plan prior to any launch in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and that they provide that to the commission I through IEB or to the commission directly. Can I tell you my level of discomfort on this it's not high but we didn't ask the others to have their drafts adopted now they had something prior but we didn't really look at what they had prior we only looked at what those drafts I do feel we're treating this applicant a little bit differently but it's I don't Madam Chair because everyone else came in and stated as part of their applications and presentations that they had an official RG plan or policy that is completely absent with this applicant and they have presented a draft substantive draft they amended it to reflect Massachusetts more depth when the follow-up meetings and they've indicated they intend to move on that formally so I'm not looking to get a formal Massachusetts based plan etc I want to know that the company at the corporate level has an RG just that RG and that's fair and I must say they've been very responsive and we have received an RG plan as well as the the information around training and it's excellent so we appreciate that right I see if we may just one one perhaps clarification on the approval process because of our our governance structure and the way we approve plans in the normal course our game really plans are actually approved by our compliance committee in the normal we talk about approval you know we'd be talking about the compliance committee who who has delegated authority you know through the company so we just wanted to be clear that it's not going to be a per say board approval but rather compliance committee approval but that's considered to us an official approval of the plan right so just consistent with your internal operating procedures that's all I'm looking for okay yeah we just we just want to definitely mission say board per say yeah and Commissioner Maynard I think you were trying to weigh in oh I would actually I saw Mr. Berger was off a few but I also have a follow-up question do you not have any RG plans adopted and in any other jurisdictions or anywhere company you know related to sports wagering Mr. Berger I'll let Alex I don't know if you want to weigh in here we are in the process of approving all of our plans we get ready to to launch Alex I don't know correct Commissioner Maynard it's always been our intent to have those plans adopted ahead of our launch of a mobile platform so we've we've moved it up in this case just to give it additional comfort that that that would be there before we launch okay all right Madam Chair I like you I share in some discomfort because honestly I don't remember who had draft plans in front of us or who had permanent plans in front of us but the applicant saying that they have no plans in place so I would join Commissioner O'Brien on that condition but I do think we need to go back and look at at some of the prior decisions we've made okay I think I know that they all had plans but they were different statuses I I think that's my clear memory a most I do believe and you're closer to the application wording than than me Commissioner Maynard but I think it was draft I think I checked that early on was acceptable so but I appreciate Commissioner O'Brien's question and I see that it doesn't present a massive obstacle for you and I think that Commissioner O'Brien with the clarification the language would be that pursuant to their governance procedures so what was presented to us right and I I want to make very clear that this request it has nothing to do with what I think is their plans or their ability or their intention and their pass track record for their you know their employees and private I don't want to say that at all in fact there's a lot about it that I was impressed by I'm just looking for more formalization of it before launch Excellent thank you okay any other conditions that we want to attach other than those that are as Todd said automatic okay Todd can you walk us through the the next step of this process please yes of course so assuming that all are in agreement that it is the preliminary finding of suitability that's in play and not the durable finding and just to clarify why that's important assuming that's the case and the commission ultimately elects to move ahead here that would make this applicant eligible to apply for a temporary license and there's a process in place and an application that will make sure gets over to the entity to submit assuming that that's all in place the question now commissioners is whether you believe that there is substantial evidence in the record and by the record we mean in the application that's been submitted and any testimony and other information provided as part of these procedures whether there are substantial evidence in the record to conclude that awarding a license to this applicant would benefit the Commonwealth and that each of the factors that I've outlined just previously are also supported by substantial evidence in the record and if so you may allow this applicant to move forward in the process Mr Grossman I think in terms of you saying we're all in agreement I think that's fair I think in terms of a legal analysis the durable on suitability isn't really available to this applicant because they haven't been subject yet to an IEB review is that correct I think it'd be fair to say there is no evidence in the record that they will that they qualify for a durable finding of suitability at this juncture which is standard that's that's how every other similarly situated applicant has come in just it hasn't happened yet and just to clarify what that means it just means that this entity like every other that has gone through this process would now go through a thorough comprehensive background check in the matter will be brought back before the commission at an adjudicatory proceeding to determine whether there's clear and convincing evidence of its suitability and that's why a temporary license is awarded at this juncture well that is all going on in the background thank you thanks for that clarification that structure reflects what we understand the legislature and the governor uncontemplated for standing up sports waiting so with that uh uh commissioners would you like to move um on on a finding with respect to a substantial evidence supporting all of those factors that attorney Grossman has laid out okay thank you I moved the commission fine based on the application and what was discussed before us today yesterday january the 11th as well as last week that the applicant fgb enterprises op co lc doing business as fanatics as shown by substantial evidence that they have satisfied the criteria set forth in general laws chapter 23 in as well as 205 cmr 2018 065 that the license award would benefit the commonwealth and further that they have established by substantial evidence their qualification for preliminary suitability in accordance with 205 cmr uh 215.01 subsection 2 and 218.07 um 1a and that this approval be subject to the requirements of 23 in and the requirements set forth in 205 cmr 220.01 um with the additional condition uh by commissioner brian that uh fanatics have a board approved rg plan um in in accordance with their corporate policies and procedures prior to launch in the commonwealth you may want to check my citations dot so following along as you went i think you nailed it but i'll have i i think your application the board approval we would i think um that language could we just he said consistent with their corporate governance policies yeah thank you yep and i would second the motion thank you any further questions all right commissioner brian hi commissioner hill i'm sorry commissioner hill i didn't hear you i'm sorry i haven't made my vote yet madame chair hi oh oh thank you commissioner hill commissioner skinner and i um commissioner manor hi and i vote yes five zero thank you so much um and thank you for your your patience over the course of these several days and congratulations to you not over as you've heard um there's many steps ahead um before uh that temporary license can be issued but we know that um you'll be working closely with our excellent team on all of those as you move ahead again thank you for the many um the many days that stretched up this evaluation we appreciate your flexibility commissioners anything that you would like to add there just to reiterate i appreciate the time that you put into the application to make any specific to massachusetts the responsiveness um when you came back in terms of what we raised as concerns in the first instance and then as i said before the information and executive session to me was critical um given your corporate structure and and the newness to the industry that was critical information for me moving forward and i wish you well good luck thank you commissioner hill congratulations and we look forward to working with you um the very near future and getting this up and running finally congratulations thank you commissioner hill commissioner skinner congratulations to the applicant um on uh meeting this initial threshold and good luck in the rest of the process thank commission mate congratulations and good luck thank you hey thank you um and mr king i'll turn to you i just want to thank the commission for their time um and their diligence uh i thought it was a very productive conversation um and really appreciate uh the opportunity to um make it go through the rest of the process excellent thank you we'll let you all go uh good luck and thank you so much thank you thank you commissioners before we leave um we'll need a motion to adjourn this public meeting we'll be meeting again at 10 o'clock on our of a regular public meeting so a good stretch of work ahead of us today commissioners hope to adjourn thank you second all right commissioner brian hi commissioner hill hi commissioner skinner hi and commissioner maynard all right and i felt yes thank you again see you um everyone