Judge Melissa Andrews of Texas’ Business Court has forced the disclosure of hidden corporate interests allegedly involved in rigging the Texas Lottery. The controversy surrounding the jackpot in question led Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick to describe the Texas Lottery as “probably the biggest money laundering scheme in the country.”
The lawsuit arose from Jerry Reed’s $7.5 million Lotto Texas jackpot in May 2023. One month prior, Rook TX—a New Jersey-based company—claimed a $95 million jackpot after allegedly misrepresenting its date of formation in violation of Texas law.
Not only is Reed’s legal team asserting that he is entitled to the $95 million, but they are simultaneously attempting to expose a potential money laundering scheme.
Reed alleges that Rook TX was only created “to hide the identity of the defendant-conspirators who rigged the lottery.”
Therefore, Reed filed a motion to compel corporate disclosure, which would require Rook TX to identify “all individuals and entities” with a financial interest in the outcome of this case.
The latest update reverses last month’s ruling, reported by Texas Scorecard, in which Judge Andrews refused to force corporate disclosure.
In making the decision, the Court considered Reed’s discovery-dispute letter and Rook TX’s response letter.
Judge Andrews concluded that “the identities of the Rook Defendants’ individual members and partners are discoverable but should be protected from public disclosure.”
The two parties are required to confer by August 22 regarding an appropriate protective order. By September 4, they must either file an agreed protective order or two separate proposed protective orders for the Court’s review.
Notably, according to the order, Rook TX has asserted it did not have documents predating its legal formation.
Judge Andrews is skeptical of this claim, stating, “The Court does not agree that a business entity could not have possession, custody, or control over documents created before its legal formation.”
The Court ordered that “relevant, non-privileged documents created before, or relating to events that occurred before, the date of the Rook Defendants’ legal formation are discoverable and should be produced if they are within the Rook Defendants’ possession, custody, or control.”
Rook TX’s motion to dismiss the case is still up for consideration. If granted by the Court, Rook TX would be released from its obligation to disclose corporate interests.
Neither party’s attorneys commented on the matter in time for publication.
If you or anyone you know has information regarding judicial malfeasance, please contact our tip line: scorecardtips@protonmail.com.
