Last Friday, a group of MGM entities including MGM Resorts International, Mandalay Resort Group, filed a complaint in federal court seeking declaratory relief against victims of the October 1 shooting who filed (or have threatened to file) suit against the various MGM entities. Three different firms, with James Pisanelli serving as lead attorney, are on the Complaint that alleges that CSC--the security company used by the MGM entities for the Route 91 festival--was certified by the Department of Homeland Security. The Complaint further alleges that the shooting was An Act of Terrorism under the SAFETY Act. If the allegations are true, then the federal courts (not state court) have jurisdiction and the claims against the MGM entities must be dismissed.
Now, it's time for a little armchair lawyering and an opportunity for you to weigh in on this unique situation. MGM is a publicly traded company and is Nevada's largest employer. It relies on tourism, but finds itself in a position where it has to fight against the interests of its customers to protect its own bottom line. Is this a good strategy? Who is ultimately making the decisions for MGM? Given the facts and firms involved, it is likely that an insurance company is behind at least some of this decision, but is getting out in front of this the best move? Does it look to much like forum shopping? Will a court find it was Act of Terrorism? Is the bad publicity MGM going to get from this going to be worth the result? Any predictions on where this goes or how it ends?
Here are a couple of news links about the story:
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar