MGM Estimates Las Vegas Shooting Lawsuits Could Settle for Up to $800M
MGM Resorts International said it had $751 million in insurance coverage to resolve lawsuits filed over the mass shooting at the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas, according to a quarterly report filed with the SEC.
May 16, 2019 at 02:16 PM
4 minute read
MGM Resorts International is estimating it could spend up to $800 million to settle lawsuits brought by victims and their families of the 2017 mass shooting at the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas.
In a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, MGM said that a potential settlement could be between $735 million and $800 million, and that it had $751 million of insurance coverage available.
“Since February of 2019, we and counsel representing plaintiffs in all pending matters and purporting to represent substantially all claimants known to us have been, and continue to be, engaged in mediation efforts to resolve these matters,” the company stated in its May 7 quarterly report. “After multiple mediation sessions over several months, progress has been made, and while mediation is ongoing, we believe it is reasonably possible that a settlement will be reached.”
In court records, MGM has estimated that as many as 22,000 victims could sue over the shooting.
MGM, which is represented by Brad Brian of Munger, Tolles & Olson in Los Angeles, declined to comment.
Robert Eglet of Las Vegas-based Eglet Prince, who represents victims of the shooting, said that, while MGM's filing is accurate, there is no settlement.
“We're in ongoing negotiations but there is no settlement,” he said. “I can't even say if it's probable there will be a settlement. We have a long ways to go, and we're miles apart on a lot of things.”
Lawyers plan to provide a status report on mediation talks by June 28, according to court documents.
On Oct. 1, 2017, Stephen Paddock was a guest on the 32nd floor of the MGM's Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino hotel, where he stockpiled an arsenal of weapons used to fire at concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest Festival. He killed 58 people and injured hundreds.
Lawsuits filed over the shooting are mostly in Clark County District Court in Las Vegas, but MGM filed nine lawsuits in federal courts against 1,977 victims who either sued or threatened to sue the company for failing to provide security that would have prevented the shooting. The suits sought declaratory relief that MGM was not liable for injuries or deaths.
MGM's suits, filed across the country, struck an immediate backlash, both on social media for targeting the shooting's victims and from plaintiffs lawyers who accused the company of forum shopping.
On Oct. 3, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation refused MGM's request to coordinate its lawsuits into multidistrict litigation. In what many experts called a novel move, MGM cited the Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002, or SAFETY Act, passed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to encourage development of security technologies certified by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
MGM had insisted that the SAFETY Act warranted coordinating all the cases in federal court.
In this month's SEC filing, MGM continued to state that it wasn't “legally responsible for the perpetrator's criminal acts,” but is considering settlement “in the interest of avoiding protracted litigation.”
The cases remain stayed pending the mediation talks.
“If such a settlement is not consummated, the mediation stay will be lifted and we are currently unable to reliably predict the future developments in, outcome of, and economic costs and other consequences of any such litigation related to this matter,” MGM said in its SEC filing. “We will continue to investigate the factual and legal defenses, and evaluate these matters based on subsequent events, new information and future circumstances. We intend to defend against any such lawsuits and ultimately believe we should prevail, but litigation of this type is inherently unpredictable.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Right Amount?: Federal Judge Weighs $1.8M Attorney Fee Request with Strip Club's $15K Award
Skadden and Steptoe, Defending Amex GBT, Blasts Biden DOJ's Antitrust Lawsuit Over Merger Proposal
4 minute readTrial Court Had No Authority to Reopen Voir Dire After Jury Impaneled in Civil Case, State Appellate Court Rules
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250