Update: The Trop has been hit with yet another defection — and it’s a biggie.
A bit shy of two years into his tenure as president of the Tropicana Las Vegas, veteran executive Tom McCartney has given his notice. While it’s tempting to speculate that McCartney got the heave-ho after the meltdown of the Trop’s relationship with Nikki Beach, he’s being given until month’s end to clean out his desk. Had he been sacked, there’d be no multi-week grace period, simply a cold declaration that he’d left “to pursue other opportunities.” McCartney will land somewhere else and probably soon. Come to think of it, creditors suing for control of nearby Hooters Casino Hotel could use an experienced consultant, should the property fall into their hands, unlikely as that looks at the moment. (Better draw up a non-compete clause, Mr. Y.) McCartney’s brief tenure at Planet Hollywood shouldn’t be held against him, as he saw that its assimilation into the Caesars Entertainment matrix would make him redundant and prudently hopscotched to the Trop.
Win one, lose some. For a day or two, it looked like Sheldon Adelson had wriggled clear of unflattering litigation. Attorneys for ex-Las Vegas Sands chauffeur Kwame Luangisa blamed Adelson for allegedly bilking their client of wages due, in addition to other obstreperous conduct. Now, over the years, S&G has heard of Adelson delivering more than one “abusive tirade” to someone he perceived as beneath him. However, Sands’ attorneys had a strong case for why the CEO should be excluded from the lawsuit and the court agreed.
Sheldon might want to savor that victory because he’s not having too many in court these days. In related litigation, charges of racism are being flung back and forth (a PR nightmare, no matter how it’s spun). It’s hardly news around here that Adelson travels with a heavily armed goon squad personal security detail, so Sands looks silly trying to seal court documents containing information that’s plentifully available elsewhere. But it is credible that plaintiffs’ attorney Donald Campbell “tried to throw books at Adelson during a deposition,” if only because there are so many other people in Las Vegas who would like to do the same thing. Besides, if anyone abducted Adelson, it would be O. Henry‘s The Ransom of Red Chief all over again. The kidnappers would pay to be rid of the old sourpuss.
Whatever Adelsonian information is held by former Sands China CEO Steven Jacobs must be really touchy stuff. The company earned a judicial rebuke by continuing to press for the return of what may be the most racy 11 GB ever committed to a hard drive. Adelson nettled Justice Elizabeth Gonzalez by cluttering the court’s calender with a frivolous motion: Since the proper jurisdiction — Las Vegas or Macao — for an Adelson/Jacobs throwdown remains unsettled, Sands was ruled to be putting the cart before the horse. After all, Nevada courts may ultimately have no standing in the matter. If Sands is that antsy to get its hands on the data, you have to wonder just what it needs to sweep under the carpet.
Finally, a dusty, 2004 libel action filed against the Culinary Union‘s parent got tossed from a British court, with Sands ordered to pay $1 million in penalties and court costs. The company claimed that Unite-Here‘s discussions with the then-ruling Labour Party queered the pitch for an Adelson-built casino/stadium in Glasgow. (Considering how catastrophically a similar venture in Coventry turned out for Isle of Capri Casinos, Adelson might want to send the union a thank-you note.) Adelson’s lawyers lost interest in the case three and a half years ago, prompting last week’s dismissal.
Since, as the Las Vegas Review-Journal‘s Chris Sieroty writes, “It’s unclear what Adelson considered defamatory in the presentation and discussion,” one theory for Sands’ U.K. counterattack presents itself. Libel laws in Britain have a lower threshold of proof than in the U.S. That’s why fellow neocon Richard Perle loudly predicted he’d sue Seymour Hersh in an English court. Perle (left) turned out to be “a gasbag who never intended to sue” but, given the timing of his empty bluff, it’s not a stretch to theorize that’s how Adelson got the notion of using British courts as a weapon to silence his stateside critics.
