You can read about it in the Las Vegas Review Journal here.
(Disclaimer: I am writing this as an interested bystander, and am not affiliated, associated, or connected to any campaign or individual. These comments are not to be interpreted as any endorsement.)
There are two interesting legal issues at play here.
First is the issue of Mr. Tarkanian’s role with the telemarketing company. A registered agent is not involved or associated with the corporation any more than the fire chief of the local fire house. Basically, a registered agent only agrees to accept service of process on behalf of a corporation, meaning that if the corporation is sued, the registered agent accepts the summons and complaint, and then forwards that information to the corporation. The registered agent doesn’t do anything else but get involved if there is a problem, just like the fire department comes only when there’s a fire. That’s it. Registered agents don’t investigate the company, the company’s business models or methods, the company’s practices, or anything of the sort. Mr. Tarkanian could have been the attorney of record or other essential person of record for the corporation, but it is unlikely since the attackers don’t mention that.
Several companies exist across the valley whose sole purpose is to serve as registered agents for businesses. All they do is sit around and wait for their clients to be sued. (They do other stuff, but it’s also boring.)
The second issue relates to the court’s authority. Mr. Tarkanian is correct in his position that the issue of misrepresentation has been decided by the court, and decided in his favor. Unfortunately for Mr. Tarkanian, the court decision was against someone else unrelated to the current problem. His opponents are going to use the fact that it will take the court some time to address his current problems to do as much damage to him as possible before voting closes. As shown before, he might be found 100% correct in his position, but it will be too late to have any impact on the current election. Any fines or penalties imposed on his opponents will be just another cost of doing business and winning elections.
Defamation cases are tough to win, as truth is always a defense. Mr. Tarkanian has won his prior defamation case, which appears from this article to be based on similar facts and statements.
Mr. Tarkanian might try to sue the stations which aired the recent ads for knowingly distributing false information. This would be a huge step forward in current defamation law, but if the Review-Journal knew the ads were intentionally misleading, Mr. Tarkanian might have an argument that the TV stations knew, too.