Massachusetts Gaming Commission (“Commission”) Weekly Update
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
September 30, 2021
Chair Glenn C. MacDonald co-chaired this week.
On Monday, the Plainridge Park Casino (“PPC”), a slots-only facility located in Plainville, Massachusetts, celebrated its seventh anniversary operating in the Commonwealth. In recognition of the occasion, Commissioners MacDonald and Katy M. Judd joined PPC General Manager Mary McNamara, Mass Gaming & Entertainment Executive Vice President Paul Homery, and State Senator Michael J. Rodrigues, among others, in remarks commemorating the event (slides here). During her remarks, Ms. McNamara reported that FY21 slot machine gaming revenue at PPC through September 26, 2021, totaled approximately $205.8 million, which represents an increase of $16.4 million, or 8.5%, from the same period last year. The commissioners also participated in a tour of the gaming floor and other areas of the facility.
Also on Monday, Plainridge Park Casino, continued (Agenda Item III.A.). Enel Green Power North America, Inc. (“Enel”), Plainridge Park Casino, LLC (“PlainRidge”), and the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (“Commission”), stipulated to a Consent Order resolving the Commission’s investigation into whether Plainridge committed a material breach of Section 13.1 of the Master Agreement by failing to provide timely notice to the Commission and to ENEL of the parties’ entry into an amendment to their Host Community Agreement (“HCA”). Under the terms of the Consent Order, PlainRidge will pay the Commission $100,000, which will be donated to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission Local Grant Fund (“LGF”). The Hearing Officer found that the parties had entered into an Amendment to the Host Community Agreement on December 23, 2019, but Plainridge failed to provide timely written notification thereof to ENEL and the Commission as required under Section 13.1 of the Master Agreement. Specifically, Plainridge notified ENEL of the amendment on January 8, 2020, and provided the Commission with written notice of the amendment on February 19, 2020. As set forth in the Consent Order, the $100,000 payment must be made within thirty (30) days of the date of the Consent Order.
On Tuesday, the Commission received , (Agenda Item IV.A.1.). In support of its application, Wynn proposed a destination resort to be known as “Wynn Boston Harbor World Class Cambridge” (the “Proposed Cambridge Casino”). The Proposed Cambridge Casino would be located at 1 Anthony Pierce, Cambridge, Massachusetts. The property totals 7.86 acres. The applicant proposes to construct a five-level, 3 million square foot building containing approximately 100,000 square feet of gaming area, Delaware North operated food and beverage outlets, a 350-room luxury hotel, up to 200 luxury condominiums, a 1,000 space parking garage, and a harborwalk promenade along the Charles River. Access to the site would be via a new bridge connecting the site to Lechmere Station on the MBTA’s Green Line. Wynn committed to investing up to four hundred million dollars ($400,000,000) in the Project. Wynn also stated that it does not believe that any additional funding mechanism should be considered by the legislature for the Project and that it does not seek a deviation from the $500 million cap on greater than five percent ownership interests in a gaming and entertainment facility established by Chapter 23K, Acts of 2011, as amended by Chapter 161, the Fiscal Year 2022 State Budget. The applicant requests that the Commission schedule a public meeting to receive information regarding the Application. Staff expressed concerns about the location of the proposed site and traffic. Chair MacDonald recused himself from this matter.
Biggest MMA Fights at Commerce Casino - Who Had the EdgeOn Wednesday, , (Agenda Item IV.B.). The petitioners are represented by Joseph M. Corcino, Esq., of Bowditch & Dewey, PC. The petition alleges that Wynn has initiated or is in the process of initiating a material expansion or material change to its licensed gaming establishment without first obtaining regulatory approval, as may be required by law and/or the Wynn Massachusetts Gaming License (the “License”). Specifically, the petitioners contend that the proposed Cambridge project described above constitutes a material change or expansion requiring either a supplemental license or an amendment to the License. If Wynn intends to seek a supplemental license, it must do so pursuant to § 12.1 of the Regulations. The petitioners also contend that if Wynn believes that the Project does not require a supplemental license or an amendment to the License, then Wynn must demonstrate that the Project falls within one or more of the exceptions to the definition of “material change” or “material expansion,” both of which references appear in Section 12.1(a) of the Regulations. Finally, the petitioners request an order from the Commission directing Wynn to cease and desist from proceeding with the Project until such time as Wynn obtains the requisite approvals or demonstrates that no such approvals are needed. Wynn was invited to file a response by October 20, 2021.
On Wednesday, , (Agenda Item IV.C.). The Plaintiff, William F. Mannion, Jr., is represented by Joseph R. Barran, Jr., Esq. On June 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint. In Count One of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Chapter 93A. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that “[t]he gaming chairs were advertised as being adjustable and reclinable . . . However, the gaming chairs were fixed and non-reclining.” As a result, according to the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sustained personal injuries when he lost consciousness while playing a video game. The Defendants are motivated by profit, the Plaintiff alleged, because they rent gaming chairs and earn money based on the number of hours the chairs are rented. Moreover, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants knew, or should have known, that the gaming chairs were fixed and non-reclinable, yet did nothing to correct the situation. Count Two of the Amended Complaint alleges negligence; Count Three seeks recovery under a theory of strict liability; and Count Four seeks recovery for loss of consortium. The Defendants are Tiger USA, Inc., dba Tiger Loco (“Tiger”), Plainridge Park Casino, LLC (“PlainRidge”), and Kobalt Finance, LLC (“Kobalt”). At oral argument, the Defendants moved to dismiss Counts Two and Three on the grounds that County Two duplicated the claims asserted in Count One and that Count Three was impermissible in light of Count One. Hearing Officer Jennifer L. Bunker took the matter under advisement.
Best Florida Online Slots (2023 List) - GamblesplentyAlso on Wednesday, , (Agenda Item V.) Hearing Officer Jennifer L. Bunker ordered the appearance of David A. Giudice for an adjudicatory hearing on the charge of violating M.G.L. c. 23K, § 16(b)(1), i.e., knowingly permitting a minor to possess tobacco products on casino premises. Mr. Giudice pleaded not guilty to the charged offense and requested a jury hearing. Pursuant to 801 Code Mass. Regs. Sec. 14.04(1), an adjudicatory hearing was scheduled for November 17, 2021, commencing at 9:30 a.m.
In addition, the Enforcement Bureau presented three Consent Orders for Commission approval. , (Agenda Item III.B.), involved two incidents where the Respondent, Jeffrey D. Marshall, intermittently dozed off while driving on I-95 South near Plainridge Park Casino. In each incident, another individual in the vehicle had to wake him up in order to enable him to safely exit the turnpike. Under the terms of the Consent Order, the Respondent must successfully complete the Massachusetts Gaming Commission Impaired Employee Program (“Program”) and submit proof of completion to the Commission. The Program brochure describes the program as follows: “The purpose of the Program is to provide an early intervention and education process for employees who, because of their use of alcohol and/or other drugs, have experienced impairment related to their employment with a licensed gaming establishment, and who wish to continue their employment following participation in the Program.” The Hearing Officer found that the Respondent did not deny the facts contained in the report and expressed remorse for the incidents. The Consent Order includes a finding that the violation was of a lower seriousness than other violations typically encountered by the Enforcement Bureau, was not work-related, and did not reflect adversely on the Respondent’s honesty, integrity, or suitability to associate with a gaming establishment licensee. The Consent Order includes a two-year suspension of the Respondent’s eligibility to remain employed in the gaming industry in Massachusetts. Once the two-year period expires, the Order requires the Respondent to self-certify to the Commission that he has successfully completed the Program and remains free from any subsequent impairment-related incident since completing the Program.
Similarly, involved two incidents where the respondent, Peter M. Nolan, fell asleep while driving. On the first occasion, he fell asleep at the wheel of his truck at his residence in Walpole, Massachusetts, and struck a parked vehicle. According to the report, no one was injured in the accident. Later that same day, after leaving a hospital following treatment for his injuries, the respondent dozed off while operating his motor vehicle on the Massachusetts Turnpike. His passenger woke him up before they reached the Plainridge Park Casino. The Consent Order included a finding that the respondent did not dispute the facts contained in the report and expressed remorse for his actions. The Order imposed a two-year suspension of the respondent’s eligibility to remain employed in the gaming industry in Massachusetts. The Order also required the respondent to successfully complete the Program and to self-certify to the Commission upon expiration of the two-year suspension period that he had completed the Program and had not had any subsequent impairment-related incidents. The Consent Order included a finding that the violation was of a lower seriousness than other violations typically encountered by the Enforcement Bureau, was not work-related, and did not reflect adversely on the respondent’s honesty, integrity, or suitability to associate with a licensed gaming establishment licensee.
Involved an incident where the responder, Kevin Sweeney, arrived at work smelling of alcohol. Security personnel offered to call him an Uber or a cab. Instead, Mr. Sweeney called his wife to pick him up. While waiting for his wife to arrive, security offered him coffee and juice to sobriety up. When his wife arrived, she observed that her husband appeared to be intoxicated. The security officer’s supervisor again asked Mr. Sweeney if he wished to use company resources to get a ride home, but Mr. Sweeney refused. When his wife returned the following morning, she again told security that her husband appeared to be intoxicated. This time, security contacted the Encore Transportation manager who arranged for a limousine to take Mr. Sweeney home. The next day, the Encore Boston Harbor Director of Human Resources conducted an investigation and spoke with the security officers and Mr. Sweeney’s wife. She also reviewed video surveillance of the incident. The Director prepared a report summarizing the results of her investigation, which was referred to the Enforcement Bureau. The consent order incorporated the findings of fact contained in the investigation report. Under the terms of the Consent Order, the Respondent must successfully complete the Program and submit proof of successful completion to the Commission. The Consent Order also includes a sixteen-week suspension of the Respondent’s eligibility to associate with the licensee and a requirement that the Respondent self-certify to the Commission at the end of the suspension period that he has successfully completed the Program and has not had a similar incident since the incident gave rise to these proceedings.
The MGC’s next will be held on Thursday, October 14, 2021, commencing at 10:00 AM.
In addition, the will meet on Friday, October 15, 2021, commencing at 10:00 AM. Among other agenda items, the LGT will consider : (i) Millbury British American Club; (ii) Falmouth Boys and Girls Club; (iii) Greater Lawrence Community Action Council, Inc.; (iv) Springfield Partners for Youth, Family, and Community Engagement; (v) South Coastal Counties Legal Services, Inc.; (vi) Holyoke Head Start; (vii) Friends of Lowell; (viii) Catholic Social Service of Fall River, Inc.; (ix) Health Imperatives; (x) Merrimack Valley Chamber of Commerce; (xi) United Way of Tri-County; (xii) North Shore Community Action Program, Inc.; (xiii) Opportunity Works; (xiv) Brockton Area Temporary Emergency Shelter, Inc.; (xv) Community Teamwork, Inc.; (xvi) Hampden County Sheriff's Department; (xvii) Volunteers of America Massachusetts; (xviii) The Home for Little Wanderers; (xix) Jewish Vocational Service; (xx) Boston Private Industry Council, Inc.; (xxi) The Dimock Center; (xxii) South Shore Community Action Council, Inc.; (xxiii) Quincy Asian Resources, Inc.; (xxiv) Elizabeth Peabody House, Inc.; (xxv) The MetroWest YMCA; (xxvi) Neighborhood Health Plan, Inc.; (xxvii) Hopewell, Inc.; (xxviii) The Food Bank of Western Massachusetts; (xxix) Morison Management Specialists, Inc.; (xxx) Womencare, Inc.; (xxxi) Lawrence Hall of Fame, Inc.; (xxxii) The Hibernian Culture Foundation, Inc. ; (xxxiii) The Spanish American Center of New Bedford, Inc.; (xxxiv) Pathways for Children, Inc.; (xxxv) UTECH, Inc.; (xxxvi) Collaborative for Citizens with disAbilities; (xxxvii) The Home for Little Wanderers; (xxxviii) Catholic Charities of Brockton; (xxxix) Jewish Rehabilitation Services; (xl) HopeNotHate.org; (xli) St. James Summer Travel Baseball, Inc.; (xlii) The Dimock Center; (xliii) Massachusetts Association of Community Action Programs, Inc.; (xliv) The Village Connection, Inc.; (xlv) Community Day Charter Public School; (xlvi) Wayside Youth & Family Support Coalition, Inc.; (xlvii) The Home for Little Wanderers; (xlviii) South Shore Mental Health Center, Inc.; (xlix) Old Colony YMCA; (l) The Home for Little Wanderers; (li) The Home for Little Wanderers; (lii) The Home for Little Wanderers; (liii) The Home for Little Wanderers; (liv) The Home for Little Wanderers; (lv) The Home for Little Wanderers; (lvi) The Home for Little Wanderers; (lvii) The Home for Little Wanderers; (lviii) The Home for Little Wanderers; (lix) The Home for Little Wanderers; (lx) The Home for Little Wanderers; (lxi) The Home for Little Wanderes; (lxii) The Home for Little Wanderers; (lxiii) The Home for Little Wanderers; (lxiv) The Home for Little Wanderers; (lxv) The Home for Little Wanderers; (lxvi) The Home for Little Wnderers.
More Casinos That Filed for Bankruptcy in 2020 – Bob Stupak, Mohegan Sun, and MoreFinally, on Friday, the Investigations and Enforcement Bureau released , regarding social events at gaming establishments and the prohibition against employees betting money on games played at the establishment where they are employed. The Advisory clarifies longstanding positions taken by the Enforcement Bureau during the licensing process and in previous consent orders concerning an employee’s suitability to associate with a gaming licensee. As discussed in the Advisory, the Commission takes the position that “employees should not bet money, including but not limited to tips, on games played on their employer’s gaming floor, even if the employee doesn’t keep any of the winnings or lose any of the bet money.” Further, the Advisory provides that “if an employee participates in a social event hosted by a vendor doing business at the gaming establishment and the event includes gambling that does not involve the gaming establishment’s gaming equipment or licensee-issued credits/vouchers and does not exceed $100 in total bet amount per person, then the Commission is unlikely to find a material breach of the suitability provisions.”
Massachusetts Gaming Commission
Enabling Legislation: Chapter 23K, M.G.L.
**The Massachusetts Gaming Commission (“Commission”) was created pursuant to Chapter 23K (“Act”) of the Massachusetts General Laws (“M.G.L.”) to oversee the expanded gaming initiative in the Commonwealth. Prior to the Act, gambling was limited to certain charitable organizations and conveyances. , as amended by Chapters 142, 151, 192, 214, 258, 271, 284, 294, 308, 326, 327, 332, 340, 343, 345, 347, 348, 349, 350, 357, 364, 365, 366, 367, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 401, 402, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508.
The Act authorizes the Governor to issue up to three preliminary licenses for resort casinos and up to one preliminary license for a slots parlor. The legislation defines a “resort casino” as “a casino that offers all forms of casino gaming and that also offers on its premises a certain number of rooms for rent or hire as hotels, motels or other transient housing accommodations which collect occupancy taxes under chapter sixty six A . . Of the General Laws, and restaurants offering full dining and entertainment amenities . .” , as amended by Chapter 161 of the Acts of 2016, also authorizes the Governor to issue up to three additional resort licenses in competitive bidding in Gateway cities. , as amended by Chapter 161 of the Acts of 2016, also authorizes the Governor to issue a single additional resort license by region through a competitive bidding process.
“Preliminary license” is defined as “a license issued prior to the passage of five years from the enactment date . . That authorizes the holder to spend funds necessary to conduct the investigations, studies, design, engineering, construction, and other preparatory activities necessary to build and develop a proposed casino, hotel and resort project or slots parlor . . But does not authorize actual casino gaming.” Act, § 2, as amended by , § 3.5. Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Actual casino gaming” is defined as “wagering and electronic simulation of wagering on casino gaming tables, games, or devices . .” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Slot parlors” are defined as “establishments that are limited to hosting up to one thousand slot machines . .” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
The Commission consists of five members, appointed by the Governor, “well versed in accounting, gambling addiction and treatment, gambling operations, law enforcement,Resorts, and such other areas as the chairman may determine to be appropriate.” Act, § 4(a). The Chairman of the Commission is the Attorney General or a designated Assistant Attorney General. Id.
“Casino gaming” is defined as ‘‘the playing of slot machines, electronic version of table games or dice games, and table games . . Any of which are played forprices . . And which, when played, offer a possibility of winning . . An prize or gain . . Including any such machines, games or devices, whether or not connected to or operated with other such machines, games or devices, and includes all accessories thereto.'' Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Hotel” is defined as “an establishment that offers to the public regular paid lodging in rooms or units equipped with the necessary furniture and equipage for overnight occupancy by one or more persons, with or without aditional facilities and services.” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Resort” is defined as “a place that offers both casino gaming and substantial non-gaming attractions, including without limitation an attached or affiliated hotel or hotels of varying size and scope offering a range of room nights sold at varying price points, as well as significant and diverse non-gaming attractions and amenities, including without limitation retail businesses, restaurants, performance venues, and meeting and exhibition facilities, each of which is designed to appeal to visitors and tourists, not merely gamblers, and which, when considered in their aggregate entirety, affords visitors and tourists a variety of viable non-gaming alternatives to casino gaming." Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Table games” is defined as “banked table games as now existing or as may hereafter be authorized . . Such as blackjack, roulette, carnage, craps, baccaratche, chemin-de-fer, pai-gow and Caribbean stud poker, and electronic versions thereof.” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Video distinct simulating any table game” means “an electronic version of a banked table game as now exists or as may hereafter be authorized . . Such as electronic blackjack, electronic roulette, electronic carnage, electronic craps, electronic baccaratche, electronic chemin-de-fer, electronic pai-gow and electronic Caribbean stud poker.” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Slots” is defined as “video distinct without a spinning wheel . . And play line . . Such as fruit machines, skill machines, trading-card machines and quarter horses.” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Dice games” is defined as “any game in which dice are used.” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Tribal-State Compact” refers to the “agreement dated::19::between the commonwealth and the Mashpee Wampanoag Triba.” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1. The Commonwealth entered into a Tribal-State Compact with the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe on November 19, 1983, as amended by Memorandum of Agreement dated March 11, 2007.
best casinos no deposit bonus“Suitable” is defined as “fit, proper and possessing the qualifications specified in the licensing provision involving the particular licensee.” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Permitted holdings structure” is defined as “the maximum percentage or ranges of percentage of greater than five per cent but less than fifty per cent of the regional casino project owned by any tribal entity or entities collectively or individually and Greater Milford Operations, LLC and Milford Downtown Holdings, LLC.” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Region” is defined as “the geographic region comprised of the towns of Milford, Hopedale, Mendon, Millbury, Blackstone, Douglas, Upton, Hendricks, Hankinson, and Milford.” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Regional casino project” is defined as “the joint venture between the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and Milford Downtown Holdings, LLC for a single casino gaming facility to be located in the Region.” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Tribal entity” is defined as “the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe.” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Slots parish” is defined as “the Massachusettz Gaming and Entertainment Center at DCAM.” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Plainville slot paradox” is defined as “Penn National Gaming, Inc.’s harness racing track and associated sliding facility located in Plainville.” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Act” refers to Chapter 23K of the General Laws. Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Communities” refers to chapters 40A, 40B, and 40C. , as amended by , § 3.1.
“Local option process” is defined as “the procedure outlined in sections forty B to forty D, inclusive, for a city or town to participate in casino gaming or slots parlour.” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Host community” is defined in several ways:
- “That city or town in which a casino gaming operator . . Is physically located, as provided in section eleven . .” Id.
- “That city or town in which a slots parliament operator . . Is physically located, as provided in section twelve.” Id.
“Gaming establishment” is defined as “a casino gaming operator . . Or slots parlor . . As defined in section one.'' Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Suitably located” is defined as “with respect to a city or town, that the city or town is a full precinct as determined by the executive office of administration and finance and that the casino gaming facility or slots parliament facility . . Is located in a single building or connected contiguous buildings on a single contiguous tract of land . .” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Qualifier” is defined as “the applicant or licensor who controls or will control the day-to-day management and operations of the applicant or licensor, as applicable, and who, directly or indirectly, owns or will own a 5 per cent or greater interest in the applicant or licensor, as applicable.” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Background investigative report” is defined as “the report prepared by a nationwide criminal history service or an equivalent state criminal history repository in compliance with standards established by the attorney general.” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Suitability determination letter” is defined as “a letter from the chairperson acknowledging that the commission has received satisfactory responses to its suitability questions and that no disqualifying information has been identified during the commission’s review of publicly available information.” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Applicant” is defined as “any person or entity applying for a preliminary license or an actual license.” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Licensor” is defined as “the holder of a preliminary license or an actual license.” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Gaming facility” is defined as “the physical location where casino gaming or slot machines are located and operated by a licensor.” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Vendor” is defined as “a person or entity that contracts to provide goods or services to a gaming establishment but does not include an owner, operator, manager, or employee thereof.” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988” refers to "Pub. L. 100-497, 102 Stat. 2467." Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Tribal-state compact” is defined as “the agreement dated ::19:: between the commonwealth and the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe.” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1. The Commonwealth entered into a Tribal-State Compact with the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe on November 19, 1983, as amended by Memorandum of Agreement dated March 11, 2007.
“Person” is defined as “an individual, partnership, corporation, trust, association or other legal entity.” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
“Corporation” is defined as “a domestic or foreign corporation, as such term is defined in section 114A of chapter 156 of the General Laws.” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1. (Section 114A of defines “corporation” as “a body politic and fictitious person . . Organized under the laws of this commonwealth . . Or any lawful act of the legislature of this commonwealth ratifying the articles of association or incorporation of a company organized under the laws of any other state or territory or under the laws of a foreign country.”)
“Trustee” is defined as “a trustee of a trust . . Whether or not a fiduciary under such circumstances shall be deemed to be a ‘person’ shall be determined in accordance with section seventy A.” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1. (Section 70A provides that “fiduciaries shall be liable as principals for the debts, obligations and liabilities of . . A trust . . Within the meaning of sections one B and six of chapter 244.”)
“Partnership” is defined as “a civil union, as provided in chapter 209C.” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1. (Chapter 209C provides that “a ‘partnership’ shall mean a civil union between 2 persons . . Who have combined their lives in an intimate and committed relationship similarly entitled to the benefits, protections and responsibilities of spousal relationships and whose relationship . . Shall be treated in like fashion to married spouses under the laws of the commonwealth . .”)
“Association” is defined as “an association . . As defined in section one C.” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1. (Section 1C provides that “‘association’ means a partnership, limited partnership, trust, business trust, syndicate, joint venture, company, club, organization or other group of two or more persons . . Which is not a corporation, but which is not a partnership, limited partnership, trust or business trust . . As those terms are defined in section 1.”)
“Foreign person” is defined as “a natural person who is not a citizen of the United States.” Act, § 1, as amended by , § 3.1.
**“Spouse” is defined as “a partner . . Whose civil union meets the requirements