By: Mark Glennon*
Bally’s, the big casino operator, is selling shares only to women and minorities in its new gambling resort being built in Chicago’s River West neighborhood. Today, I filed a lawsuit alleging blatant, overt violation of constitutional and statutory nondiscrimination law. It’s not a preference or even a quota, but an outright ban on white males.
The exceptionally unusual share offering is rooted in a community development agreement between the City of Chicago and a Bally’s entity, so defendants include the city and various city officials including Mayor Brandon Johnson.
But there’s another angle to this that’s at least as important as the discrimination: Why on earth would anybody think this exceptionally risky investment is suitable for all women and minorities? Is this really doing a favor for the ordinary savers among them?
That was my focus in my initial column on this matter. As I wrote there, Chicago City Treasurer Melissa Conyears-Ervin should not have been promoting the deal as a ticket to “generational wealth,” as she did. The case against the share offering for ordinary savers is nicely captured in the headline in an excellent, recent opinion piece in The Triibe headlined, “I did the math; I wouldn’t buy Bally’s Chicago Casino equity shares.” Another more recent Triibe column makes the same point, citing various financial experts.
The deal being offered is very unusual in many other ways beyond the discrimination, all of which is detailed in the S-1 filing with the Securities Exchange Commission and other company materials. Instead of just buying one share for $25,000, a buyer can put up as little as $250 and a non-recourse loan covers the remainder of the purchase price. You thus buy an amorphous “Interest,” as it’s called in the offering documents. A buyer will never see any dividends until the loan is repaid plus interest at 11% annually, compounded quarterly, and that could be a long, long time, if ever.
The company says in its S-1 that it currently expects not to have cash available for distribution until approximately three to five years after the Chicago facility opens, which they are targeting for September 2026. “However, this may fluctuate depending on ”the ability to generate cash from operations and its cash flow needs and payments on senior debt.” At 11% compounded quarterly, the loan balance would double in less than six and a half years. The shares will not trade on any market for now and transfer restrictions are long. Over 40 pages of Risk Factors are in the S-1.
The deal may be sensible, in my view, only as an extremely risky bet, suitable only for qualified, experienced investors. It’s by no means suitable for anybody trying to build generational wealth.
It turns out that news came today of a lawsuit similar to mine, which is described in a FOX article here. Glad to see that.
I am represented by the Liberty Justice Center. Their press release is below and the filed complaint is linked at the bottom. If any damages are awarded to me they will go to a 501(c)(3) charity of my choice. Additional pleading requesting a temporary restraining order will be filed shortly.
*Mark Glennon is founder of Wirepoints.
Press Release:
The Liberty Justice Center Sues Mayor Brandon Johnson, City of Chicago over Racial and Sexual Discrimination in Upcoming Casino Project
On January 30, the Liberty Justice Center filed a lawsuit against Mayor Brandon Johnson, the city of Chicago, Treasurer Melissa Conyears-Irvin, Bally’s Chicago Operating Company, and several members of the Illinois Gaming Board to challenge a contract that imposes explicit race-based and sex-based quotas on an upcoming casino project.
In 2022, the city of Chicago selected Bally’s Chicago Operating Company to develop the city’s first integrated casino. In a Host Community Agreement (HCA), the city’s government conditioned approval of the project on including various “minority preferences” that impose race-based and sex-based quotas on all elements of the project—including initial construction, employee hiring, board composition, and overall ownership.
Notably, the city’s mandatory quotas include a 25% minority requirement on casino ownership, a 40% minority requirement on board composition, and a “commitment to tak[ing] commercially reasonable efforts to maintain” a 60% minority workforce to staff the casino.
In order to meet these quotas, Bally’s registered an Initial Public Offering (IPO) of 10,000 shares that it will only sell to investors who meet the definition of “minority” imposed by the city of Chicago’s HCA. As a result, when Illinois resident and would-be investor Mark Glennon—a man who does not self-identify as any of the racial or ethnic groups included in Chicago’s definition of “minority”—submitted an application to invest on January 25, he was excluded from participating in Bally’s securities offering specifically due to his race and sex.
On January 30, the Liberty Justice Center filed a lawsuit on Mr. Glennon’s behalf to enforce his statutory and constitutional rights and to hold the city of Chicago accountable for forcing Bally’s to discriminate against potential investors on the basis of their race and sex.
“Chicago’s government has blatantly violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by requiring a private business to enforce discriminatory provisions under threat of severe financial loss,” said Reilly Stephens, Senior Counsel at the Liberty Justice Center. “Ultimately, the city has created a racial classification requirement that cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. We urge the court not only to strike it down, but also order Chicago’s government to never again enact such a discriminatory quid pro quo development agreement.”
In addition to filing suit to challenge Chicago’s violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Liberty Justice Center also intends to file a motion for a temporary restraining order in the case. If the court grants this order, the city of Chicago will be prohibited from enforcing its racial and sexual quotas on the casino project while the lawsuit proceeds through the courts.
Glennon v. Johnson was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on January 30, 2025.
The Liberty Justice Center’s legal filings in Glennon v. Johnson are available here.
Audio and summary 
If this bill passes, say goodbye to local control over all Illinois parks and expect to see open drug and alcohol use, needles, no sanitation and fire hazards, but no ordinary park users.
If I remember correctly, didn’t some in the Daley clan do real well fronting people like Liz Warren to get business around similar restrictions.
I hope you get mucho dinero from them.
Kudos to Mark and Wirepoints for taking a stand and exposing this blatantly racist deal. And thanks to the law firm that stands up to do the right thing and takes on cases like this that are expensive and time consuming. I suppose now Brandon will use my all time favorite excuse of his– The Confederacy is alive and well.
I’m amazed that Bally’s securities lawyers approved their filing. From what I’ve read in the national media Bally’s is saying that they were just following Illinois’ regulations for this deal, but I do not think that’s an effective dodge. They still retain culpability for following an unconstitutional regulation. “I’m sorry, your Honor, but Illinois made us do it!” Judge: “You knew it was unconstitutional and in violation of securities law but you still signed off on it”. The proper way Bally’s should have handled this would have been to not include the “whites not welcome” provision in their filing, wait… Read more »
“I’m amazed that Bally’s securities lawyers approved their filing.” Right, and that’s among the astonishing things here — and that the SEC let it go this far. It’s not just the issue of discrimination, either. There are all sorts of other extreme oddities about this. And you are right about the “Illinois made us do this” defense. (Chicago, actually.) Courts have been very clear in cases like this that they don’t like the “just following orders” thing.
Then no one who is white should ever go to that casino. They should come to the Hard Rock casino in Rockford and spend their money. They can also go to Anderson Japanese Gardens and have dinner at some local restaurants like Lino’s. All are welcome here.
https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g36619-d281992-Reviews-Anderson_Japanese_Gardens-Rockford_Illinois.html#/media/281992/603850975:p/?albumid=-160&type=0&category=-160
If this organization was a financial institution, it would be akin to predatory lending. They clearly want to get community buy-in for something that will fundamentally change those neighborhoods – and not for the better. I hope someone explains this to their soon-to-be victims and that their crowd funding attempt may narrowly skirt SEC laws. If a fool and his money are soon parted, I say go for it Johnson and Bally’s, but leave unsophisticated investors that trust you out of it. The elected Illinois “geniuses” in this state never fail to surprise us, but thank you Mark Glennon for… Read more »
A fool of any race and their money are soon parted.
Remind Johnson, remind Pritzger, remind the clown show who thought up this mess that reverse racism is still racism. Discrimination against Whites is racism, discrimination against men is racism.
To my mind this $250 to secure a $25,000 “interest” is a ruse to create the appearance of minorities and women participation in the casino. The balance due $24,750 is subject to 11% interest? That’s simply insane.
And, of course, no white males are eligible is just the icing on the cake.
The whole offering is ludicrous.
I am curious as to whether the Johnson, the City, and Bally’s will take any action to defend this suit. Since there is no way to defend this offering as lawful, the defendants should immediately withdraw the offering immediately. Why on earth would the defendants want a published decision they blatantly violated the law? I suspect they don’t care.
Perhaps Bally’s wants out of the deal and this may be the best way to ease their way out.
“The government blocked our attempt to be inclusive per our agreement. We tried but were stymied by bureacracy.”
Rather akin to the dog ate my homework … not OUR fault.
Thank you.
I was happy to be excluded from consideration. The lottery would be a better investment.