Japanese gaming tycoon Kazuo Okada removed from Okada Manila after SC ruling

Gaming tycoon Kazuo Okada has again lost control of casino resort Okada Manila after the Supreme Court (SC) lifted an April 2022 order that allowed him to take control of Tiger Resorts, Leisure and Entertainment Inc. (TRLEI), the operator of the casino.

In a 14-page resolution, the SC First Division dismissed Kazuo’s petition for review, which sought to annul the earlier decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA).

The CA decision and resolution affirmed a regional trial court decision that treated Kazuo’s complaint, challenging his removal as CEO of TRLEI, as an election contest and dismissed it on grounds of prescription. 

“The records show… that the complaint was filed on 29 August 2018 or more than one year after the conduct of the 16 June 2017 special stockholders’ meeting where the elections for the removal and replacement of Kazuo as director, chairperson, and CEO of TRLEI were held,” the SC said.

“Clearly, the complaint was filed beyond the 15-day prescriptive period for election contests,” it added.

The High Court also did not give weight to Kazuo’s argument that his complaint was not an election contest. 

“Kazuo is, thus, essentially questioning Asano and Takako’s election as directors of TRAL, claiming instead that he is the sole representative of TRAL due to his alleged majority ownership of OHL. Verily, such claim falls squarely under the definition of an election contest,” it said.

“Thus, being an election contest, the Complaint is subject to the 15-day prescriptive period under Rule 6, Section 3 of the interim Rules,” it added.

Further, the Court said that Kazuo had no cause of action as he was only a nominal shareholder in TRLEI and had no control over its subsidiaries.

The Supreme Court on April 27, 2022 issued a status quo ante order (SQAO) after Kazuo filed his petition for review. On May 31, Kazuo took over Okada Manila from its operator.

“Thus, like a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction, an SQAO may only be maintained prior to a decision on the merits to prevent a situation where the outcome of the litigation is rendered useless,” it said.

“As an SQAO is an interlocutory and ancillary in character, it cannot stand independent of the main proceeding. Given this court’s resolution on the main petition, the SQAO must consequently be lifted,” it later added.

GMA News Online is trying to reach Kazuo Okada for his reaction. —LDF, GMA Integrated News