Nevada board approves Blueberry Gaming entry but limits two Catalyst principals for four years

The Nevada Gaming Control Board recommended approval Wednesday for Blueberry Gaming USA to be licensed as a manufacturer and distributor and for Catalyst Capital Group to register as Blueberry’s private investment owner, but imposed a four‑year limit on two Catalyst principals and a $50,000 revolving fund for investigative reviews.

The action follows a multi‑hour suitability hearing in which Blueberry executives described the company’s product portfolio, U.S. growth and Nevada investments, and private equity representatives acknowledged repeated delays in providing information to Nevada investigators during the licensing review.

Why it matters: the board’s decision allows Blueberry — a slot‑machine supplier that has expanded rapidly in North America — to operate in Nevada while placing conditional limits on two controlling principals tied to the investment firm Catalyst, after investigators found a pattern of late and incomplete responses that delayed the review.

Blueberry presentation and Catalyst role Blueberry Chief Executive Andrew Burke presented the company’s business case, telling the board Blueberry has 12,000 units in North America, 194 regulatory licenses and a growing Nevada operation that includes an 80,000 square‑foot Las Vegas facility and an office in Reno. Burke said Blueberry recently closed a $55,000,000 financing that reduced legacy investor exposure and funded growth initiatives including more development studios and product lines. “We’re very excited about what the future can hold for the business,” Burke said during his presentation.

Catalyst Capital — the Toronto‑based private equity firm that acquired Blueberry from a related party lender — described its turnaround investment and long‑term commitment to the company. Newton Glassman, Catalyst’s founder and managing partner, told the board he takes responsibility for earlier lapses in the licensing process and pledged internal changes at Catalyst to improve responsiveness going forward.

Board concerns, probe delays and remedial steps Board members and investigators pressed Catalyst about multiple instances where requested documentation was late or incomplete. Chair Dreiser and investigators said the delays extended the licensing review and “substantially” delayed the matter, harming Blueberry’s schedule. Glassman and his colleagues acknowledged the shortcomings and described new internal procedures: more direct partner oversight of regulatory filings, expanded compliance staffing at Blueberry and a commitment to empower a new Catalyst compliance lead to enforce timely responses.

Board action and conditions After deliberation the board voted to recommend approval of the registrations and suitability findings for Blueberry, Catalyst and related individuals, but attached two key conditions: a four‑year limitation on the finding of suitability for Newton Glassman and Gabriel de Alba (the two Catalyst principals singled out by the board), and a $50,000 revolving fund at Blueberry to permit the Gaming Control Board to draw on dedicated funds for investigative reviews if needed. The limitation will require the two principals to reapply after that period if they wish to remove the condition. Member Sandahl made the motion to approve the filings subject to the limitation and the fund; the board voted aye.

What proponents and opponents said Blueberry executives emphasized the company’s R&D investment, a stable Nevada workforce (Burke said about 92 employees in Las Vegas and 111 including Reno), and product success such as titles that have placed on industry lists. Catalyst representatives stressed the firm’s record in turnaround investing and said continuing ownership is part of their plan to support Blueberry’s next growth phase. In response to the board’s concerns, Glassman said, “When I recognized that I needed to take a more active personal role in the investigation to ensure that happened, I did so, and I believe that there was a marked improvement in our responsiveness.”

Board reasoning Chair Dreiser said the board accepted that there was no intent to deceive but that the pattern of delayed responses required a firm accountability measure and a way for staff to monitor the company’s compliance with Nevada’s standards. Judge Assad and Member Sandahl both said they appreciated the assurances and revisions Catalyst described; Judge Assad urged that intent (mens rea) matters, while Dreiser emphasized the need to support investigators and send “a message of accountability.”

Details and next steps - The board’s recommended approval includes registration and suitability findings for Blueberry Gaming USA, Blueberry Gaming Canada and Catalyst funds, and licensure for named executives at Blueberry (per the agenda). - The limitation on Glassman and de Alba requires reapplication after four years (expires at the Nevada Gaming Commission meeting in September 2029) for removal of the condition. - The board also approved a $50,000 revolving fund that Blueberry must maintain to pay for investigative reviews if drawn by the board.

Burke said Blueberry will continue investment in Nevada, including hiring and facility operations, and Catalyst said it plans to remain a long‑term investor. The matter now moves to the Gaming Commission with the board’s recommendations and attached conditions for final administrative review.

Ending Board members said they welcomed Blueberry to Nevada under the imposed conditions and said they would expect prompt responsiveness to any future information requests. “Catalyst did us a favor by forcing us to look at it,” Glassman told the board, committing to the revisions the board sought.