[ad_1]
Receive the DealBook Newsletter to make sense of corporate and political headlines – and the power brokers who shape them.
__________
MGM Resorts International, in a Shocking Legal Maneuver to Protect the Conglomerate The responsibility for mass shooting last year, sued the victims.
This is a bold preventive approach that relies on an interpretation of new legal issues under an obscure federal law that has never been tested in court. Depending on how business is conducted, it will have profound implications for victims and businesses targeted by terrorists and cybercriminals.
MGM filed nine lawsuits against 2,500 victims in federal courts across the country, including Nevada. California and New York. MGM owns the hotel Mandalay Bay, where Stephen Paddock, from his suite on the 32nd floor, shot dead 58 people and wounded hundreds of others attending a music festival next door. It is the most deadly shootout in the history of our nation.
MGM now wants a federal judge to declare that he has no responsibility "of any kind".
The optics of the trials is to say the least undesirable. Critics are already calling MGM's legal tactics "utterly reprehensible" and worse. And there is surely more indignation from the victims and their families who probably do not want to relive this tragedy.
However, the lawsuits do not concern victims or pecuniary damages. MGM has filed actions for declaratory relief – a legal action that seeks a decision on the rights of the company – under a 15-year-old federal law that prohibits or restricts lawsuits brought by victims of acts of terrorism
. Prosecution is the Anti-Terrorism Support Act in Encouraging Effective Technologies of 2002, or the Security Act. The law provides comprehensive protection for companies that develop innovative security products and services when the dispute results from an "act of terrorism".
The law was adopted after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when prosecutions were initiated. United Airlines and American Airlines, airport security companies, Boeing and other companies with large pockets for security breaches. Most prosecutions have been settled or resolved, although the process has been extended and lasted for more than a decade in some cases. The Congress wanted to avoid this mess in the future and encourage businesses to develop anti-terrorism technologies – including cybersecurity programs – without fear of excessive liability and entanglement in litigation.
Liability Guarantees Under the Security Act damages that victims can recover allow only one trial or "federal cause of action" when there is a "terrorist act" and that a product or service under the Security Act is at stake.
security firm with the protection of the Security Act to protect the onlookers. In doing so, he claims to receive the benefits provided by law and to free himself from the damages claimed by the victims or their families. According to MGM, the protections provided by the Security Act fall to him as a buyer of the services of the security firm, even though he has never undertaken the rigorous process required by the Department of Homeland Security to obtain the benefits provided by law. the company will be liable for damages, which is likely to be limited to a ceiling of confidential liability established by the Department of Homeland Security
because it is the first legal test of the Security Act, it will have consequences for every company that has received the protections of the law. In the 15 years since its adoption, more than 1,000 companies have qualified their products and services for their protection. These range from composite materials designed to protect bridge infrastructure against terrorist attacks to comprehensive data security plans and policies to mitigate exposure to a cyberattack.
These companies relied on the law. Without these protections, say the companies, they would never have dedicated resources or taken the legal risk of developing advanced security products and services.
The stakes are also high for the victims of terrorist attacks. Does the Security Act cover companies, such as MGM, that have not obtained the protections of the law? Will victims who sue companies protected by the Security Act have damages equal to a few cents or other sources of recovery?
The way MGM will behave in its pursuits is far from clear. There are many challenges and new legal issues ahead, including if the legal protection of the security firm will protect MGM from liability as a company that uses its services certified by the federal government. Another obstacle is that the law requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to declare an act of terrorism before his protections are triggered. The Ministry did not do this during the filming of Las Vegas
Protection of the Security Act is a heavy burden that requires companies to analyze and submit extensive information to the Department of Homeland Security to demonstrate that their security products or services are effective and safe. . They must also undergo an extensive validation process by the department and a panel of external experts. The certification lasts only between one and five years, so companies must regularly ensure that their safety programs comply with the standards of the agency.
Although GMM's tactics are controversial, these lawsuits will help clarify the scope of the Security Act. The most important and comprehensive laws in the era of increasing terrorist events and cyberattacks.
Craig A. Newman is a partner with Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler and Chair of its privacy practice. Mr. Newman has represented companies that have secured protection under the Security Act but are not involved in MGM cases.
Source link
