• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Inter-Pacific Bar Association (IPBA) Sue Marina Sands

SNAblog

Alfrescian
Loyal
Joined
Mar 9, 2009
Messages
1,489
Points
0
http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...-sued-for-law-conference-mishaps-threats.html

Sands Singapore Casino Sued for Law Conference Mishaps, Threats
June 09, 2010, 6:59 AM EDT

By Andrea Tan

June 9 (Bloomberg) -- Las Vegas Sands Corp.’s Singapore casino resort was sued by the organizers of the first conference it hosted for misrepresenting a “complete disaster” as a world-class venue and for imposing duress, fear and force.

IPBA 2010 Pte is asking the Singapore High Court to assess damages for misrepresentation, breach of agreement and Marina Bay Sands Pte’s conduct, according to a lawsuit filed yesterday.

Marina Bay Sands threatened to “jeopardize” and withhold services for the Inter-Pacific Bar Association conference last month where Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s first prime minister, was a keynote speaker, according to the document.

Sands, controlled by billionaire Sheldon Adelson, promised that the resort would be an “iconic venue” and open in a “grand fashion with a full suite of facilities,” according to IPBA’s lawsuit. Instead, power failed during a speech by the Chief Justice of New South Wales and delegates complained of unfinished rooms, shuttered facilities and misplaced luggage, according to the document.

Delegates were greeted by water leaking from the roof into “unsightly” pails placed in the hotel lobby atrium. Some guests had to be sheltered with umbrellas at the registration counters. Other delegates were locked into their rooms because of malfunctioning door latch keys, according to the lawsuit.

Val Chua, a Marina Bay Sands spokeswoman, couldn’t immediately be reached for comment. Yap Wai Ming, chairman of the host committee for the IPBA conference, declined to comment.

‘Duress, Fear and Force’

“As a consequence of these threats, all carefully timed and orchestrated by the plaintiff to impose the maximum duress, fear and force,” IPBA handed three checks to Marina Bay Sands “under protest,” the conference organizers said in their filing. IPBA later stopped payment for two of the checks.

Marina Bay Sands, built at a cost of $5.5 billion, sued IPBA on May 14 for withholding payment of S$300,000 ($212,000).

Sands halted projects in Macau and Las Vegas during the 2008 financial crisis to focus on the $5.5 billion Singapore complex that opened in April. Singapore lifted a four-decade ban on casinos in 2005 to help it attract 17 million visitors and reach annual tourism revenue of S$30 billion by 2015.

Adelson, who opened parts of the resort on April 27 after delaying a scheduled end-of-year opening, said then that the Singapore casino will be a “grand-slam home run.” A “grand opening” for the 2,560 rooms hotel is scheduled for June 23.

‘Fun Place’

Singapore decided to license casinos to shed its “unexciting” image, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in Parliament in 2005.

To have said “no” to casinos would have signaled “that we want to stay put, to remain the same old Singapore,” Lee Kuan Yew, who was prime minister from 1959 to 1990, told legislators that year. “A neat and tidy place with no chewing gum, no smoking in air-conditioned places, no this, no that -- not a fun place.”

Marina Bay Sands is one of Singapore’s two only casinos. Genting Singapore Plc opened Resorts World Sentosa’s casino on Feb. 14.

Drew & Napier LLC is acting for IPBA and Harry Elias Partnership LLP is representing Sands.

The case is Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd. vs IPBA 2010 Singapore Pte Ltd. S348/2010 in the Singapore High Court.
 
3 tomb stone feng shui at works.

Ass Luck all the way.

World Class JOKE uniquely SG.:D:D:D
 
Poor advice by Marina Sands Lawyers.

The last time Gentings took OUB to court for stopping payment on cheques issued by their Bank Staff fraudulently, OUB counter sued and not only won but got back all the money they lost to Gentings. The Law firm was also Drew and Napier.

Marina Sands would be better off suing their internal legal team for poor advice.
 
Word has it that the Lee's congregation decided to hold this
conference knowingly that Marina Bay Sands is not all that ready .

They wanted to nit-pick Marina Bay Sands .
So now that MBS owes them a discrete flavour .
They ruling regime can use it again anytime .

How can you hold back Casino's licensing till very last minute .
You need them to pass all checks before they can open doors .
You mean they have to go do a dry run with play kits .
You fucking Singapore system you go fuck people 's business .
 
Poor advice by Marina Sands Lawyers.

The last time Gentings took OUB to court for stopping payment on cheques issued by their Bank Staff fraudulently, OUB counter sued and not only won but got back all the money they lost to Gentings. The Law firm was also Drew and Napier.

Marina Sands would be better off suing their internal legal team for poor advice.

They won not they were clever...if you have read Law, especially Law relating to banking...you will know why.

This MBS case is different...they are suing for duress..etc:p
 
I know the issues are different but I am told that Drew & Napier was specially picked because the likely argument will be similar - "the casino should have known" that it could not deliver what was promised and that it did not have any contingency in place. In the Genting case it was " the casino should have known" that it could not possible for deputy branch manager could not be earning millions.

In both cases cheques were stopped.

By the way, settlement offer made by Casino but rejected. Like Gentings, Marina Sands sued first. Thats how dumb they are. If held your wedding there and the same thing happened to you, would you not stop payment.


They won not they were clever...if you have read Law, especially Law relating to banking...you will know why.

This MBS case is different...they are suing for duress..etc:p
 
That's really silly. It's only S$300,000, half a peanut at current exchange rate. MBS should have apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused, waive the conference fee, throw in some free hotel vouchers, promise a full investigation into what happened and will take whatever necessary remedial action to assure customers that it won't happen again.
 
Err doesn't fact that these guys are from "Inter-Pacific Bar Association" tell Sands that it is an uphill battle.

Wasn't MM guest speaker? Probably they have more lawyers as members then there are lawyers in Singapore.

Agreed, Sands should just apologize and give each delegate FOC 2 night stay with $250 casino comp.
 
Mulfunction and lock in the Hotel Room are unacceptable. If there is fire or someone heart attack/stroke/health problem What will hapen?
Sue the MBS for the safety and unintentionally kidnapping.
 
I reckon mbs could've made some form of service recovery as that would have gone towards mitigating factor, knowing full well that ipba(being whom they are) would take them to court.

On the other hand, by offering some goodies, it may not be sufficient, so why not go the whole hog and be on the offensive. Let's see how it pans out...
 
I know the issues are different but I am told that Drew & Napier was specially picked because the likely argument will be similar - "the casino should have known" that it could not deliver what was promised and that it did not have any contingency in place. In the Genting case it was " the casino should have known" that it could not possible for deputy branch manager could not be earning millions.

In both cases cheques were stopped.

By the way, settlement offer made by Casino but rejected. Like Gentings, Marina Sands sued first. Thats how dumb they are. If held your wedding there and the same thing happened to you, would you not stop payment.

So, are they suing each other on The Bill Of Exchange Act..since stop cheque payment was the action or law of tort?;)
 
Worst case scenario, getting sued by a society of Lawyers and Judges
 
Worst case scenario, getting sued by a society of Lawyers and Judges

MBS should invite some of them to their caSINo VIP room, give them free Chips ( not potato), free flow liquor, food & throw in some PRC mei mei's....that should settle the issue.:D
 
Since both sides had already fired their salvos, let them continue, sit back and enjoy the show. MBS trying to take on a global association of lawyers !! They must have been grossly misled by their lawyers fighting their case, into thinking they can get back their $300,000 !! Wait till they kena foot legal costs from both sides and compensation for all the delegates and event organiser.

Else there will not be anything credible for our credible, highy trusted and timely State's Times to report.

The trumpet player also sian on those everyday craps that they been feeding you, especially how great the PAPa is doing, despite what the peasants sees on the ground ?
 
Last edited:
It's all sabre-rattling that's all.I'm sure it will not go the distance. Will be settled out-of-court.:rolleyes:
 
Nothing to do with anything that you raised. Breach of contract - unable to deliver as promised or contracted. Unless MBS can prove that it was deeply discounted and the client was aware that it was discounted, they can kiss it this goodbye.

Genting was even better. They sued for a fraction of the stopped cheques and lost millions and had to pay it back. OUB took the approach that since they have been sued might as well go for whole thing and it became a landmark case.

So, are they suing each other on The Bill Of Exchange Act..since stop cheque payment was the action or law of tort?;)
 
Agree with you and Ramseth. Poor judgement. MBS is financed by the backdoor thru a Temasek vehicle and assumed that the courts will side with him.

I reckon mbs could've made some form of service recovery as that would have gone towards mitigating factor, knowing full well that ipba(being whom they are) would take them to court.

On the other hand, by offering some goodies, it may not be sufficient, so why not go the whole hog and be on the offensive. Let's see how it pans out...
 
The judge chairing the meeting is also a member of the IPBA right ?

Man, this is going to be interesting. Imagine complaining to PAPa that the GRC is not constitutional and hoping that PAPa will outlaw it :eek:.
 
IPBA full of Lawyers and Lawyers hate to lose...
MBS full of Gangsters and Mafia boss hate to lose too...
 
Back
Top