A new court hearing in the near four-year legal battle between Las Vegas Sands Corp and Steve Jacobs, a former chief executive of Macau-based subsidiary Sands China Ltd, is to be held on August 14, the parent company said in its second quarter 2014 earnings report filed in New York on Thursday.
Mr Jacobs was dismissed from his post in July 2010 for what Sands China said was “cause”, including an allegation of unauthorised deal making, which Mr Jacobs denied.
In October 2010 he sued Las Vegas Sands Corp and Sands China in Nevada making allegations including breach of contract and breach of good faith.
Since then there have been multiple court hearings initiated by both sides on a range of technical legal issues raised by the dispute.
Next week’s hearing in the District Court of Clark County in Nevada, concerns an attempt by Mr Jacobs and his legal team to get the court to reconsider its earlier dismissal of a defamation claim he also made in March 2011 against Las Vegas Sands’ chairman Sheldon Adelson (pictured) as well as against Las Vegas Sands and Sands China.
On May 30, 2014, the Nevada Supreme Court overturned the District Court’s dismissal of that action, and remanded the claim back to the lower court for further determination.
Las Vegas Sands said in its Thursday filing that on July 3, Mr Adelson filed a notice with the District Court of “intent to oppose the motion to reconsider and requested oral argument”. That will be heard on August 14.
Meanwhile, also on Thursday, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that Las Vegas Sands can face sanctions for failing to turn over documents relating to Mr Jacobs’ actions.
The court, in a decision written by Chief Justice Mark Gibbons, rejected arguments by Las Vegas Sands that Macau privacy laws prevented it from releasing the documents and said the sanction hearing could move forward, reported the Las Vegas Sun newspaper.
But the court in a separate decision ruled that Mr Jacobs could not use in his civil action certain documents he took with him when he left Sands China, because they are privileged communications with company lawyers.
Mr Jacobs maintains he is entitled to certain stock options that were denied to him by the company following his dismissal.
