Wednesday, Feb. 14, 2001 | 11:17 a.m.
LV most affordable destination for business meetings
A California company specializing in Internet travel on Tuesday named Las Vegas as the most economical place in the nation to conduct a corporate meeting.
GetThere DirectMeetings, Menlo Park, Calif., said Las Vegas ranked first in a survey evaluating hotel room rates, food and beverage expenses, meeting room rental rates and airfares.
The company planned a mock meeting with 50 persons attending, two from each of the 25 most populated cities in the United States, to establish its rankings. Listed behind Las Vegas in the survey were Louisville, Ky.; Nashville, Tenn.; Indianapolis; Cleveland; Grand Rapids, Mich.; Raleigh, N.C.; Omaha, Neb.; Greensboro, N.C.; and Birmingham, Ala.
GetThere is operated by GetThere LP, a wholly owned subsidiary of Sabre Holdings Corp., a travel marketing and technology company that developed a series of computer reservation systems.
The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority moved Tuesday to formally make peace with the Venetian following two years of bitter legal warfare.
The LVCVA board voted unanimously to approve a settlement with the resort hotel that will result in a dismissal of all claims by both sides. Neither party will collect damages.
It was something of a tough pill to swallow for some on the LVCVA, who had engaged in a contentious war of words and lawsuits with the Venetian and owner Sheldon Adelson for the better part of two years.
"We're far from ecstatic about this agreement," said Manny Cortez, president of the LVCVA. "But this is probably our best bet."
"There was a time when I believed we should file a countersuit and go to war, because I thought we did nothing wrong," said Henderson Mayor Jim Gibson. But Gibson agreed with Cortez that settlement was probably in the best interest in the LVCVA.
Andy Abboud, director of government relations for the Venetian, also said it was time to move on.
"We look forward to working with them (the LVCVA)," Abboud said. "We felt all issues had been resolved. It's for the good of the entire community that we move on."
The Venetian slapped the LVCVA with three lawsuits -- one filed in July 1999, the other two in January 2000 -- over a $150 million public bond issue by the LVCVA to finance the expansion of the Las Vegas Convention Center.
The Venetian, operator of the competing Sands Expo Center, argued the public bonds gave its competitor an unfair advantage. The Venetian lost one ruling and appealed to the Supreme Court, while a second lawsuit alleging the LVCVA had violated the Venetian's First Amendment rights was dismissed. The third lawsuit was pending prior to the settlement.
At one point, it appeared the LVCVA was preparing to retaliate legally against the Venetian. In November 1999, the LVCVA board authorized Cortez to explore the possibility of filing suit to collect damages from the Venetian for costs incurred because of the lawsuit. Claimed damages would have not only included legal fees, but an estimated $10 million in additional interest costs incurred by legal delays. This action prompted the Venetian's First Amendment claim.
Those alleged damages weren't far off the minds of several board members.
"When I received this material I thought back to all of the statements that were made ... that we were suffering huge losses," said Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman. "This is a wash. Burying the hatchet is fine, so long as we don't have a valid claim. If in fact there is the potential of collecting a large amount of money, we ought to pursue this (legal claims against the Venetian)."
But Luke Puschnig, LVCVA legal counsel, told Goodman there was little chance of success because the LVCVA was a government entity, and state and federal laws place severe burdens of proof on government agencies seeking damages from private entities. The likely result would be that a lawsuit would be dismissed, Puschnig said.
"My opinion is a lawsuit would be very difficult, very expensive and would not be fruitful at all," Puschnig said. "If we go down this path, all we'll get is attorney's fees."
Goodman didn't appear entirely convinced, but reluctantly agreed to the settlement.
"If there's a substantial amount of (potential damages), maybe it's worth pressing forward, even if we're the underdog," Goodman said. "If I'm voting for this, Mr. Puschnig, it's solely because you're telling me we would lose on our motion."
"I'm more than happy to continue pursuing this and consuming attorney's fees," responded LVCVA attorney Todd Bice, drawing loud laughter from the audience. "But there's no sense in throwing good money after bad."
LVCVA attorneys estimated about $400,000 in attorney's fees were incurred during the legal fighting.
The settlement, an apparent road map for cooperative efforts between the LVCVA and the Venetian, repeats the LVCVA's stance that the convention center expansion is to "expand, retain and increase convention business in the area," and prohibits a change in that stance without a public hearing.
The LVCVA also agreed to hold public meetings with local resort officials to "discuss and consider convention business in Clark County," to commission a new or updated master plan within 24 months with the assistance of "outside experts," and to "consider for marketing purposes reasonable proposals of all other Clark County convention properties to attract additional convention business and visitors for Clark County that will require the use of multiple convention facilities."
For its part, the Venetian agreed to pull its support, "direct or indirect," of the Nevada Environmental Coalition, an environmental group that threatened to file suit against the LVCVA to block the expansion for alleged violations of the federal Clean Air Act. A lawsuit was never filed, and LVCVA officials suspected the Venetian was behind the effort.
"The Venetian will not support or undertake to assist the Nevada Environmental Coalition or anyone else in an effort to challenge, delay or interfere with (the convention center expansion)," the settlement reads.
"I think this is a very pragmatic resolution," said board member Steve Greathouse, a senior vice president with Mandalay Resort Group. "The agreement specifies we'll do what we've already been doing. This is a very good resolution."
archive
