Las Vegas biz editor sued over column
Las Vegas Sun business editor Jeff Simpson has been sued by a local casino for libel as a result of a column he wrote in the newspaper, according to a story in the paper.
The story stated, “The lawsuit, filed in Clark County District Court, asks for more than $10,000 in damages Sands claims was caused by a Simpson column published April 2. The column analyzed the competitors for a Singapore casino license. Las Vegas Sands was eventually selected to build the casino.
The Sands’ lawsuit claims that the Sun and Simpson acted with malice in writing that Sands has a ‘sorry Nevada regulatory record,’ a claim the Sands’ suit said was false, and that Sands has suffered and will continue to suffer from the characterization.
“‘The column was neither malicious nor factually incorrect,’ Michael J. Kelley, managing editor of the Sun, said yesterday. ‘It was a legitimate effort to guess the likely winner for a casino license in Singapore, and falls well within the definition of fair comment under the First Amendment. The writer, in a later column, congratulated Las Vegas Sands after it won. And Las Vegas Sands’ regulatory record, everywhere it does business or is working to do business, is a matter of public record. This is a frivolous suit, and we will vigorously defend it.'”
Read more here.
Simpson was named the Sun’s business editor in 2004 and is executive editor of the Sun’s sister publication, In Business Las Vegas. He writes on behind-the-scenes happenings in the gaming industry and in the valley’s broader business community. His column appears on Sunday.
No Responses
[…] The Casino City Times has picked up on the libel lawsuit that the Sands resort filed against Las Vegas Sun business editor Jeff Simpson, providing more details about the complaint than was originally reported by the Sun. […]
[…] A short story in the paper stated, “The initial defamation lawsuit filed by Sands, parent company of the Venetian, was dismissed in November by District Judge Michelle Leavitt. She stipulated that the company could amend its complaint if it could make a ’substantively’ different legal argument for defamation than in the original lawsuit. […]