a. What business was LaVista Lottery in?
b. What is keno?
c. Was this a profitable business?
d. So what was the problem?
e. Did Bellino discuss his concerns with Anderson?
f. What did he do?
g. Is there anything wrong with that?
h. What is the point of this doctrine?
i. But both Bellino and Anderson had a chance to bid on the keno contract. Didn't they both have the same opportunity?
Richard Bellino and Robert Anderson formed LaVista Lottery, Inc. (Lottery) to operate a restaurant, lounge, and keno game in LaVista, Nevada. They each owned 50 percent of the stock of Lottery, and both were officers and directors. Over the next nine years, the Lottery company grossed more than $100 million. Bellino and Anderson each received over $4 million in salary and dividends. Bellino spent more time than Anderson working for the company, in part, because of his personal relationship with Lottery's lounge manager. Frustrated by Anderson's unequal contribution, Bellino encouraged the city of LaVista to solicit new bids for the keno contract. Bellino incorporated LaVista Keno, Inc. (Keno) to bid on the contract. He was Keno's sole shareholder.
When Bellino submitted a bid on behalf of Keno, he was still an officer of Lottery, as well as a director and a 50% shareholder. Anderson also bid on the contract on behalf of Lottery. The city awarded the new contract to Keno.
Anderson and Lottery sued Bellino and Keno, alleging that they had usurped a corporate opportunity. The trial court found for Anderson and Lottery.