Citizen Portal
Sign In

Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows

Get Lifetime Access

Gaming board approves institutional‑investor designations for several applicants tied to sports‑wagering permits

Louisiana Gaming Control Board · November 13, 2025

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board granted institutional‑investor status to 2 Sigma Ventures 3 LP, Excel 13 LP and Excel Growth Fund (identified in petitions), allowing those passive investors to avoid full suitability filings for pending sports‑wagering permit applications, but kept the right to investigate later if new facts emerge.

The Louisiana Gaming Control Board on Nov. 13 approved multiple petitions seeking to classify passive investment funds as institutional investors in connection with pending sports‑wagering permit applications.

Assistant Attorney General Taliva McIntyre and Master Trooper Brian Jefferson presented the petitions and explained the relevant statute (Louisiana Revised Statute 27:3 13 I) and the board’s discretion to determine institutional investor status on a case‑by‑case basis. For each petition the division reviewed ownership percentages, managerial control and supporting documents.

Master Trooper Jefferson told the board that 2 Sigma Ventures 3 LP holds a roughly 12.014% indirect ownership interest in Radar (Bridal Labs/Radar Labs) and is managed and advised by an exempt reporting adviser. The division found 2 Sigma is passive, does not participate in day‑to‑day management, lacks voting rights and does not appoint directors; it recommended the board find 2 Sigma qualified as an institutional investor. The board adopted the resolution.

The board separately considered petitions for Excel 13 LP (approx. 7.294%) and Excel Growth Fund 6 LP (approx. 6.343%) in connection with Radar Labs’ permit application. After presentation and a petitioners’ attorney explanation, the board approved both funds as institutional investors, again noting that the presumption of suitability does not preclude future investigation if facts change or new information arises.

Robert Moncrief, representing the petitioners, told the board the firms are registered as investment advisers under federal law and asked the board to approve the petitions so the applicants’ permit reviews could proceed. The board voted to adopt the resolutions and the motions carried by roll call.