DOCSLIB.ORG

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit  09-2231 United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit SHELDON G. ADELSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MOSHE HANANEL, Defendant-Appellant. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS BRIEF OF APPELLEE MAYER BROWN LLP Andrew H. Schapiro Christopher J. Houpt 1675 Broadway New York, New York 10019-5820 (212) 506-2500 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee Sheldon G. Adelson CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Appellant Sheldon G. Adelson is a natural person. Accordingly, a corporate disclosure statement is not required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ......................................................... I COUNTER-STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ..........................................................1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ...............................................................................3 COUNTER-STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................................................4 COUNTER-STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ...........................................................6 Sheldon Adelson.....................................................................................................6 Moshe Hananel ......................................................................................................7 The Macau Development .......................................................................................8 Hananel’s Claim ....................................................................................................9 Danny Raviv.........................................................................................................12 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ......................................................................13 ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................15 Standard of Review ..............................................................................................15 Discussion of the Issues .......................................................................................16 I. The District Court Properly Assigned Hananel the Burden of Proof...............................................................................................................16 A. As the Natural Plaintiff in the Underlying Contract Claim, Hananel Bears the Burden of Proof........................................................................17 B. Any Error Was Harmless..........................................................................19 C. Adelson Did Not Waive the Burden of Proof Issue.................................21 II. The District Court Properly Exercised Jurisdiction Over Hananel ..........................................................................................................22 A. The District Court’s Finding of Purposeful Availment Was Correct ......22 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page 1. The district court’s findings of jurisdictional facts are correct and unchallenged.................................................................................23 2. The Massachusetts contacts were not incidental.................................24 3. Massachusetts litigation was foreseeable............................................26 B. Hananel Has Not Proven That Commencement of This Case Is So Unreasonable as to Destroy Jurisdiction ..................................................28 III. Judge Saris’s Denial of an Adverse Inference Was Not an Abuse of Discretion .......................................................................................30 A. Raviv Was Not Practically Unavailable...................................................30 B. Raviv Was Not Legally Unavailable........................................................32 C. Any Error Was Harmless..........................................................................34 IV. The District Court’s Conclusion That No Meeting of the Minds Occurred Is Supported by Substantial Evidence ...........................................37 A. Hananel Did Not Prove the Terms of His Contract .................................37 1. Settlement communications do not prove Hananel’s contract, because they show that the parties disagreed about the alleged option...................................................................................................38 2. Contracts of other employees are either irrelevant or unhelpful to Hananel............................................................................................39 3. Hananel’s incomprehensible argument about his termination does not mandate reversal ...................................................................41 B. Hananel’s Claim Fails for the Independent Reason That He Did No Work on the Macau Project......................................................................42 1. A reasonable option term would have required more work than Hananel claims that he performed.......................................................43 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page 2. Hananel did not even satisfy his own standard, that he “initiated” the venture .........................................................................45 C. The Trial Court Did Not Commit Clear Error Concerning Hananel’s Foreign Witnesses ...................................................................47 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................48 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.......................................................................49 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................50 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Adams v. Adams, No. 09-1443, 2010 WL 1224233 (1st Cir. Mar. 31, 2010).................................22 Adelson v. Hananel, 510 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2007)...........................................................5, 22, 27, 28, 29 Adelson v. Hananel, 641 F. Supp. 2d 65 (D. Mass. 2009).....................................................................6 Amadeo v. Zant, 486 U.S. 214 (1988)............................................................................................15 Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564 (1985)......................................................................................16, 37 Applewood Landscape & Nursery Co., Inc. v. Hollingsworth, 884 F.2d 1502 (1st Cir. 1989).............................................................................19 Bogosian v. Woloohojian Realty Corp., 323 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2003).................................................................................34 Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985)............................................................................................25 Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. v. Home Ins. Co., 568 N.E.2d 631 (Mass. Ct. App. 1991) ..............................................................19 Canney v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 228 N.E.2d 723 (Mass. 1967).............................................................................18 Chicago College of Osteopathic Med. v. George A. Fuller Co., 719 F.2d 1335 (7th Cir. 1983) ............................................................................36 Estate of Abraham v. Comm’r, 408 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2005).................................................................................15 Foley v. McGonigle, 326 N.E.2d 723 (Mass. Ct. App. 1975) ..............................................................19 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page(s) Fortune v. National Cash Register Co., 364 N.E.2d 1251 (Mass. 1957)...........................................................................42 Foster-Miller, Inc. v. Babcock & Wilcox Canada, 46 F.3d 138 (1st Cir. 1995).................................................................................15 Ganis Corp. of Calif. v. Jackson, 822 F.2d 194 (1st Cir. 1987)...............................................................................26 Good Hope Industries, Inc. v. Ryder Scott Co., 289 N.E.2d 76 (Mass. 1979)...............................................................................26 Hahn v. Vermont Law School, 698 F.2d 48 (1st Cir. 1983).................................................................................26 Haskell v. Versyss Liquidating Trust, 912 N.E.2d 481 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009) ..............................................................17 Latin Am. Music Co. v. Am. Soc. of Composers, Authors & Publishers, 593 F.3d 95 (1st Cir. 2010).................................................................................16 Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sweeney, 216 F.2d 209 (3d Cir. 1954) .........................................................................20, 21 Lyle Richards Int’l v. Ashworth, Inc., 132 F.3d 111 (1st Cir. 1997).........................................................................24, 25 Michelson v. Digital Fin. Servs., 167 F.3d 715 (1st Cir. 1999)...............................................................................18 N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Stoner, 109 F.2d 874 (8th Cir. 1940) ..............................................................................21 Niziolek v. Ashe, 694 F.2d 282 (1st Cir. 1982)...............................................................................34 Northern Ins. Co. v. Point Judith Marina, LLC, 579 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 2009)...........................................................................15, 37 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page(s) Oxman v. WLS-TV, 12 F.3d 652 (7th Cir.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What's the Matter with Palm Beach County?
    Politics and Religion, page 1 of 19, 2015. © Religion and Politics Section of the American Political Science Association, 2015 doi:10.1017/S1755048315000760 1755-0483/15 What’s the Matter with Palm Beach County? Eric M. Uslaner University of Maryland–College Park Abstract: American Jews voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama in 2012 despite strong Republican efforts to win their votes. Republicans charged that Obama was not sufficiently supportive of Israel and that Mitt Romney was closer to Jewish opinions on this salient issue. Republicans miscalculated. For most American Jews, Israel was not a key voting issue. American Jews were also closer to Obama on Middle East issues than they were to Republicans. There was also a cultural chasm between American Jews and the Tea Party, reflective of long-standing tensions between Jews and evangelicals. Using surveys of the Jewish vote and the full electorate, I show that this cultural divide was more salient for Jews than for other white voters — and that there is at least preliminary evidence that this cultural divide may be important for other minority groups. INTRODUCTION “What’s the matter with Kansas?” the journalist Thomas Frank (2004) asked. Kansans have a median income below the national average. While less affluent voters are more likely to be Democrats, Kansas is the fifth most Republican state in the United States.1 Kansas is Republican because it is socially and religiously conservative. More than a third of Kansans identify as evangelical Protestants compared I am grateful to Jim Gerstein for sharing his data with me and to him for many helpful comments and conversations.
    [Show full text]
  • News Release 
    News Release Texans for Public Justice * 609 W. 18th Street, Suite E, * Austin, TX 78701 * tpj.org For Immediate Release: Contact: Craig McDonald, October 18, 2011 Andrew Wheat PH: (512) 472-9770 The House May Be Betting on Perry at Tonight’s Venetian Casino Debate Texas Governor and Las Vegas Sands Croupier Sheldon Adelson Have Wealth of Ties Austin—Tonight’s Republican presidential debate at Las Vegas’ Venetian Resort Hotel Casino takes Texas Governor Rick Perry back to the same sprawling complex where he attended his son’s 2009 bachelor party. Las Vegas Sands Corp. owns the Venetian, which is hosting the debate, and it owns the adjoining Palazzo Resort-Hotel- Casino, where Perry bedded down the night of his son’s party. The head of Las Vegas Sands, Sheldon Adelson, has been a Perry supporter since 2007. Perry’s campaign reported that he flew to Vegas on October 24, 2009 to meet Brian Sandoval, who was then running a successful GOP campaign to be governor of Nevada. Days later the campaign acknowledged to the Dallas Morning News that on that same Vegas trip Perry also attended a bachelor party that the male friends of his son, Griffin, held to celebrate the younger Perry’s upcoming wedding.1 Perry previously reported that casino owner Adelson contributed a $1,856 in-kind “event expense” to the Perry campaign on December 7, 2007. Perry’s campaign reported that one of its fundraisers, Krystie Alvarado, flew to Vegas a day earlier for a fundraiser. The campaign reported that Flatonia, Texas sausage magnate Danny Janecka then flew Governor Perry to Vegas on December 9, 2007 for a fundraiser.
    [Show full text]
  • Al-Tamimi V. Adelson, 264 F
    United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued October 16, 2018 Decided February 19, 2019 No. 17-5207 BASSEM AL-TAMIMI, ET AL., APPELLANTS v. SHELDON ADELSON, ET AL., APPELLEES Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:16-cv-00445) Martin F. McMahon argued the cause and filed the briefs for the appellants. Thomas Pulham, Attorney, United States Department of Justice, argued the cause for the appellees United States of America and Elliott Abrams. Mark B. Stern and Sharon Swingle, Attorneys, United States Department of Justice, were with him on brief. Jonathan I. Blackman argued the cause for the appellees Sheldon Adelson, et al. Alexis L. Collins, John E. Hall, David M. Zionts, A. Jeff Ifrah, George R. Calhoun, Barry G. Felder, Michael J. Tuteur, William H. Jeffress, Jr., Abbe David Lowell, Douglas W. Baruch, Joseph J. LoBue, Jennifer M. Wollenberg, 2 William J. Kelly, III, Andrew H. Marks, Christopher M. Loveland, Mark D. Harris, Rachel O. Wolkinson, Charles S. Fax, Jay P. Lefkowitz, Lawrence Marc Zell, Lars H. Liebeler, David Abrams, Jay Alan Sekulow, Benjamin P. Sisney and David I. Schoen were with him on brief. Michael E. Barnsback and Liesel J. Schopler entered appearances. Benjamin P. Sisney, L. Marc Zell and David Abrams were on the supplemental brief for the defendants-appellees Gush Etzion Foundation, et al. Before: HENDERSON and PILLARD, Circuit Judges, and EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON. KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs, both Palestinian nationals and Palestinian Americans, claim the defendants, pro-Israeli individuals and entities, are conspiring to expel all non-Jews from territory whose sovereignty is in dispute.1 They sued in federal district court, pressing four claims: (1) civil conspiracy, (2) genocide and other war crimes, (3) aiding and abetting genocide and other war crimes and (4) trespass.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bibi Connection
    UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05793511 Date: 01/07/2016 RELEASE IN PART B6 From: H <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 7:44 PM To: '[email protected]' Subject Re: Max on Bibi's campaign v Obama Yes. From: Sullivan, Jacob J [mailto:SullivanJJ©state.gov] Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 04:14 PM To: H Subject: RE: Max on Bibi's campaign v Obama This is really fascinating. Does Beinart get into all of this? From: H [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:07 PM To: Sullivan, Jacob J Subject: Fw: Max on Bibi's campaign v Obama Interesting reading. From: sbwhoeop Sent: Saturday, January z1, zulz iu:uu i in B6 To: H Subject: Max on Bibi's campaign v Obama http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/bibi-connection The Bibi Connection By Max Blumenthal UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05793511 Date: 01/07/2016 UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05793511 Date: 01/07/2016 13 US President Barack Obama (R) meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, 20 May 2011. (Photo: AFP - Jim Watson) By: Max Blumenthal Published Thursday, January 12, 2012 The US presidential election campaign that kicked off January 3 with the Iowa caucuses was the subject of a curious article attacking President Barack Obama in the mass circulation Israeli daily newspaper, Israel Hayom.
    [Show full text]
  • Seth Hanlon Center for American Progress Action Fund and Tax March June 19, 2017
    Seth Hanlon Center for American Progress Action Fund and Tax March June 19, 2017 Executive Summary Senate Republicans are currently meeting behind closed doors to negotiate legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA). They plan to rush the bill through the Senate along party lines, with the process shrouded in an unprecedented level of secrecy for major legislation. Neither house of Congress has held even a single hearing on the legislation, which will affect the health care of millions of Americans and Nevadans. Though Senate Republicans have kept the legislation secret, it is expected to be similar to the ACA repeal bill that passed the House in May by the narrowest of margins, which is called the American Health Care Act (AHCA). Critics of the AHCA – including health care experts, patient groups, senior groups, and groups representing doctors, nurses, and hospitals – warn that it would throw millions off insurance and remove critical health care protections without sufficient replacement provisions to protect people’s livelihoods. The Affordable Care Act has benefited millions of people across the country – with 20 million people newly insured due to the law. In Nevada alone, as of December 2016, 294,000 people have gained health coverage, bringing the uninsured rate down from 22.6 percent to 12.3 percent. The AHCA threatens to reverse that progress. If it becomes law, an estimated 138,100 Nevadans will lose coverage. The AHCA cuts care for millions while providing massive tax cuts to some of the wealthiest people in the country. This report estimates the tax windfall for one such person: the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who is the richest person in Nevada and a major benefactor of Republican politicians.
    [Show full text]
  • Billions: the Politics of Influence in the United States, China and Israel
    Volume 6 | Issue 7 | Article ID 2829 | Jul 02, 2008 The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Billions: The Politics of Influence in the United States, China and Israel Connie Bruck, Peter Dale Scott Billions: The Politics of Influence in the Thatcher, who in turn passed legislation United States, China and Israel enabling Murdoch to crush the powerful trades unions of Fleet Street. In America, Murdoch’s Peter Dale Scott and Connie Bruck Fox News, New York Post, and Weekly Standard underwrote the meteoric rise of the neocons in the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), whose Chairman was William Introduction Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard. [2] Peter Dale Scott Connie Bruck’s account of billionaire Sheldon Adelson using his millions to refashion the politics of Israel strikes several familiar notes. Around the world states are in standoffs against their richest citizens. In Thailand Thaksin Shinawatra has challenged the traditional monarchist establishment of the country. The Russian oligarchs dominated Russian politics for a decade in the Yeltsin era. In Mexico a similar role has been played by oligarchs such as Carlos Hank González (d. 2001), and Carlos Slim Helù, today the second Rupert Murdoch with his third wife, Wendy richest man in the world. Deng in 2001 In many cases, billionaires have used their From an American perspective, it is hard to control of media to solidify their influence in think of anyone surpassing the influence of politics. This was the strategy in Canada of Murdoch. But according to the 2008 Forbes Conrad Black, for a time (before his conviction 400, Murdoch, with a net worth of $8.3 billion, on fraud charges) "the third biggest newspaper is only the 109th-richest person in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • STRONG, RESILIENT and INTERCONNECTED JEWISH PEOPLE and ISRAEL the IAC Was Established in 2007 (As ILC) and Started Its Expansion in 2013 (As IAC)
    STRONG, RESILIENT AND INTERCONNECTED JEWISH PEOPLE AND ISRAEL The IAC was established in 2007 (as ILC) and started its expansion in 2013 (as IAC). Since then it has grown to reach hundreds of thousands of people through its 20 regions and more than 80 communities around the US. 2019 marks the 6th year of the IAC National Summit and its exponential growth and in honor of the summit and its distinguished speakers the IAC is presenting this special collection of articles you are holding. While innovation and business advancement of Israeli tech, science and innovation is no longer a new phenomenon related to Israeli-Americans living in the US, the phenomenon of lay leadership among these unique groups still has many undocumented angles and examples. In recent years, there is an apparent paradigm shift of communal leadership among the Israeli-Americans in the USA. In this collection of articles, wanted to explore some of the aspects of the emerging Israeli- American leadership and invited our writers to consider some of the questions below: What is its status of Israeli-American leadership? What is the place and role of the Israeli-Americans within the broader Jewish community? What are some of the unique characteristics and contributions of the Israeli-American leaders and trailblazers? What will the future leadership of this community look like and what is the potential impact? What are the trends of philanthropy and giving? What are some major shifts in terms of identity and belonging in relation to said leadership initiation and where do they point to? looking from a standpoint of activism and public relations what are these groups' significant? The above framing opened the door to a series of theoretical as well as practical questions and potential influence on the Israeli-American and Jewish American community and we would like to thank the lay leaders, the professionals and the thought leaders who shared their opinion on the role of Israeli-American in ensuring a strong, resilient and interconnected Jewish people and Israel.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report on a Discreet Due Diligence Investigation Into Ng Lap
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION CN ^ In the matter of: Sheldon Adelson & Cheung Chi Tai O . S- NgLap Seng § ^ :;i ^ c ^ X MURNo.: I w' ^ R Oi COMPLAINT ^ § k 1. Campaign for Accountability ("CfA") brings this complaint before the Federal Electii!®'' Commission ("Cortimission") seeking an immediate investigation and enforcement action against Sheldon Adelson, Cheung Chi Tai, and Ng Lap Seng for direct and serious violations of ^ the Federal Election Campaign Act ("FECA") and Commission regulations. i Complainants 2. Complainant CfA is a § 501(c)(3) project dedicated to ensuring accountability in public officials and compliance with federal laws. Toward that end, CfA seeks to protect and advance the right of citizens to be informed about the activities of government officials and to ensure the integrity of government officials and the government decision-making process by exposing unethical and illegal conduct of those involved in government. CfA uses research, litigation, and communications to advance its mission. In furtherance of its mission, CfA also monitors the campaign finance activities of those who finance federal elections and publicizes information regarding those who violate federal campaign finance laws. CfA relies on the Commission's proper administration of the FECA, including its ban on foreign nationals directly or indirectly making any contributions in connection with federal, state or local elections. 52 U.S.C. § 30121. CfA is hindered in its programmatic activity when the Commission fails to enforce this ban imposed by the FECA. 3. Anne L. Weismann is the executive director of CfA, a citizen of the United States, and a registered voter and resident of the State of Maryland.
    [Show full text]
  • The Builders: Here Are Some of the Top Givers from Real Estate Ade Adeniji
    The Builders: Here Are Some of the Top Givers from Real Estate Ade Adeniji BILLIONAIRE STEPHEN ROSS’S RELATED COMPANIES IS ONE FIRM BEHIND NEW YORK’S HUDSON YARDS DEVELOPMENT. PHOTO: LET GO MEDIA/SHUTTERSTOCK Through our Wall Street Donors, Tech Philanthropy and Glitzy Giving verticals, we’ve been digging into individual donors from cash-rich industries for years. We’ve also written about givers who have emerged from certain firms in these fields, including Goldman Sachs. Common threads and themes often unite donors from specific fields, something that shows up in our newer Real Estate Givers vertical, too. The real estate sector has been one of the most powerful engines of wealth creation in the country. Developers, builders, investors and real estate owners are among the nation’s richest people, and a growing number of them are turning to philanthropy. While most of these fortunes were amassed by men, spouses frequently steer the family’s giving. Donald Bren, sporting a $15.3 billion net worth as of this writing, is the richest real estate tycoon in the country. The industry has minted quite a few other billionaires including Sam Zell, Sheldon Solow, Jeff Sutton, and two more Donalds—Donald Sterling and a certain former president. There are also several stalwart real estate families in the mix, including the LeFrak family and the low-profile Goldman family. Unsurprisingly, New York City is a major center for these individuals and often a focal point for their philanthropy. But Chicago, Southern California and South Florida are others. A good number of these figures often build up their philanthropy in the same regions where they built their vast real estate portfolios.
    [Show full text]
  • Mr. Trump, It's Bob O'harrow Here Wi
    Washington Post Interview with Donald Trump Donald Trump: Hello? Robert O’Harrow: Mr. Trump, it’s Bob O’Harrow here with Drew Harwell and Shawn Boburg. Thanks for making time for us. Donald Trump: Hi, fellows. How are you? Drew Harwell: Hi. Great, Donald. How are you? Donald Trump: Okay. I’m very good. Thank you. What is this for, the book, the book that’s being written in less than a week? Robert O’Harrow: Yeah, it’s a tight deadline, but it’s a little longer than a week. We’re certainly working diligently, and -- Donald Trump: I just hope the book could be fair because otherwise, you know, we’ll see what happens. But it would be nice if the book could be fair. But we’ll see. Robert O’Harrow: That’s our guiding light, is being fair and diligent. Donald Trump: I would hope so. I would hope so. Robert O’Harrow: Thanks, anyway, for having us. Shawn Boburg is going to start. Donald Trump: Sure. Drew Harwell: Donald, we’ll just kick it off right here. And thanks again. 1 Donald Trump: Go ahead. Drew Harwell: We were talking with some critics who are saying over the years that you’ve been sort of obscuring your wealth when you say you’re a billionaire. And looking back -- Donald Trump: I have been what? Drew Harwell: Obscuring your wealth when you say you’re -- Donald Trump: Well, take a look at my assets. I mean, you know, just take a look at my assets. Drew Harwell: Well, yeah, we’re looking at those.
    [Show full text]
  • The Strip: Las Vegas and the Symbolic Destruction of Spectacle
    The Strip: Las Vegas and the Symbolic Destruction of Spectacle By Stefan Johannes Al A dissertation submitted in the partial satisfaction of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in City and Regional Planning in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Nezar AlSayyad, Chair Professor Greig Crysler Professor Ananya Roy Professor Michael Southworth Fall 2010 The Strip: Las Vegas and the Symbolic Destruction of Spectacle © 2010 by Stefan Johannes Al Abstract The Strip: Las Vegas and the Symbolic Destruction of Spectacle by Stefan Johannes Al Doctor of Philosophy in City and Regional Planning University of California, Berkeley Professor Nezar AlSayyad, Chair Over the past 70 years, various actors have dramatically reconfigured the Las Vegas Strip in many forms. I claim that behind the Strip’s “reinventions” lies a process of symbolic destruction. Since resorts distinguish themselves symbolically, each new round of capital accumulation relies on the destruction of symbolic capital of existing resorts. A new resort either ups the language within a paradigm, or causes a paradigm shift, which devalues the previous resorts even further. This is why, in the context of the Strip, buildings have such a short lifespan. This dissertation is chronologically structured around the four building booms of new resort construction that occurred on the Strip. Historically, there are periodic waves of new casino resort constructions with continuous upgrades and renovation projects in between. They have been successively theorized as suburbanization, corporatization, Disneyfication, and global branding. Each building boom either conforms to a single paradigm or witnesses a paradigm shift halfway: these paradigms have been theorized as Wild West, Los Angeles Cool, Pop City, Corporate Modern, Disneyland, Sim City, and Starchitecture.
    [Show full text]
  • Sheldon G. Adelson and Dr. Miriam Adelson Receive Prestigious Woodrow Wilson Award for Corporate Citizenship
    Sheldon G. Adelson and Dr. Miriam Adelson Receive Prestigious Woodrow Wilson Award for Corporate Citizenship LAS VEGAS, March 26, 2008 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ -- Sheldon G. Adelson, Las Vegas Sands Corp. (NYSE: LVS) chairman and chief executive officer, and Dr. Miriam Adelson were presented with the Woodrow Wilson Award for Corporate Citizenship at a dinner held at The Venetian Resort Hotel Casino last night. The Woodrow Wilson Award for Corporate Citizenship is given to those who, by their own example and their business practices, have shown a deep concern for the common good beyond the bottom line. "Miriam and I believe strongly that we have an obligation and responsibility to use our skills, insights and knowledge as professionals, and our financial resources as private citizens, to break down barriers, challenge the status quo, and work tirelessly to help leave this world a better place for future generations," said Mr. Adelson after receiving the award. "That is why we remain deeply committed to issues such as drug addiction, medical research, children's education and why we are advocates for important economic policies like free trade and low taxes." "To be recognized by The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars is extremely heartwarming and I am humbled that they find me and my husband worthy of such an esteemed honor," added Dr. Adelson. "It is with great appreciation that we both accept this prestigious award." The Woodrow Wilson Award for Corporate Citizenship is given to leaders in the business sector who have inherited Woodrow Wilson's commitment to scholarship, public discourse, and the promotion of knowledge in the United States and around the world.
    [Show full text]