Loveman testifies in Stewart dispute

Ken Ritter

Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005 | 9:23 a.m.

The head of casino giant Harrah's Entertainment Inc. said Monday that rock star Rod Stewart should return the $2 million he was paid for a December 2000 Las Vegas concert he never performed.

"Ultimately, we're just here to get our money back," Gary Loveman, the chairman, president and chief executive of the world's biggest casino company, said before taking the witness stand in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas.

"We don't wish Mr. Stewart any ill will," Loveman said. "He was paid a lot of money do to something he did not do. It's merely a contractual matter."

Stewart, 60, could testify Wednesday, said his lawyer, Louis "Skip" Miller of Los Angeles.

Stewart said last week at court that he was defending his honor in the breach of contract lawsuit filed in 2001 by the Rio in Las Vegas, a Harrah's property.

The company is seeking the return of an advance paid in January 2000 to the British rocker for the canceled show, plus interest and attorney fees.

Stewart's lawyer has said the show was canceled because Stewart underwent thyroid cancer surgery in May 2000 and that Stewart's offers to play a makeup date have been spurned.

Loveman testified that no makeup date could provide the monetary benefit the casino expected to generate from the December 2000 show. The New Year's Eve holiday to mark the millennium figured to be a huge draw in Las Vegas with hotels and performers commanding premium prices, he said. Ultimately the event was a disappointment as travel fears kept crowds down.

Loveman also described Stewart as balking at the last minute from taking the stage for a New Year's Eve 1999 show unless the casino booked him and paid him $2 million in advance for the three-day New Year's Eve 2000 weekend.

"We feared he would fail to fulfill the December 1999 concert if we did not enter a contract for December 2000," Loveman testified.

The Harrah's executive said the resulting Jan. 6, 2000, amended contract was "quite clear," stating "in plain English," that "in the event Mr. Stewart didn't perform, he would simply return the money."

On cross-examination, Loveman tussled with Miller over why Stewart wasn't given the chance to perform on a later date.

Loveman also accused Miller of repeatedly mischaracterizing his testimony.