New Hampshire Supreme Court upholds Concord Casino license revocation, rejecting Andy Sanborn's appeals

Concord Casino license revocation: background

Concord Casino received licenses to operate a charitable gaming facility in 2018, according to the opinion. Commission audits in 2021 and 2022 raised concerns about financial documentation and about the business's application for, and use of, a US Small Business Administration Economic Injury Disaster Loan.

In 2023 the Commission and the New Hampshire Attorney General's office found that neither Sanborn nor the business was suitable to be associated with charitable gaming, citing credible evidence that the loan was unlawfully obtained and that Sanborn spent proceeds on purchases the loan did not permit. The Commission then suspended the licenses under a forced-sale order: if the business was not sold to a Commission-approved buyer within six months, the suspension would become a revocation.

Sanborn signed a purchase and sale agreement with a buyer, who is not named in the opinion. In an October 30, 2024 letter, the Commission denied the buyer's license applications after the Attorney General's office concluded the buyer and the business were unsuitable. The Commission revoked the casino's games operator employer license and games of chance facility license on November 26, 2024.

What the New Hampshire Supreme Court decided

The court first held that both Concord Casino and Sanborn had standing to appeal the license denial, because the denial blocked a sale that caused Sanborn a direct financial injury.

On the merits, the court pointed to Sanborn's planned ties to the business after closing: an LLC with Sanborn as managing member would lease space to the casino, Sanborn would receive payments based on its earnings for several years, and he would share in the proceeds of a future sale unless certain conditions were met. The court also noted that the amount due at closing was more than ten times the cash the buyer reported having on hand, and that some later payment obligations approached or exceeded his reported net worth.

The opinion was issued per curiam. Justices Donovan, Countway and Will concurred; Chief Justice MacDonald heard oral argument on February 10, 2026 but did not take part in the final vote. The opinion remains subject to motions for rehearing under the court's Rule 22.

Image rights: if you hold rights to an image used here and want it credited differently or removed, contact support@askspinner.com.