A Macau court has ruled that Asian American Entertainment Corporation (AAEC), a former business partner of Las Vegas Sands, can proceed with a lawsuit seeking billions of dollars in damages for breaking the terms of their former partnership agreement, Reuters and MDT online reported yesterday.
In a filing made on March 16, the Court of First Instance (TJB) denied Las Vegas Sands a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which alleges that the gaming operator, headed by Sheldon Adelson, breach the contract and misuse trade secrets obtained during their venture.
The TJB decision means “that a trial would soon be called in Macau,” lawyer Jorge Menezes told the Times yesterday.
Menezes, who represents Asian American, of Taiwanese businessman Marshall Hao, added that “a trial date has not yet been scheduled, but it should be set in a matter of months.” He declined to comment on the content of the case.
Asian American is asking for compensation equivalent to over 70 percent of Las Vegas Sands’ profits from 2004 to 2022. Even before taking into account future profits, that could amount to USD10 billion on reported profits to date, according to MDT calculations.
MDT also sought a comment from Las Vegas Sands. Ron Reese, Senior VP for Global Communications and Corporate Affairs responded from Vegas via email with a short, laconic statement: “The company has consistently maintained that this case has no merit. We have confidence that ultimately the Macau judicial process will reach the same conclusion.”
Marshall Hao, on the other side of the long-standing litigation, holds a different opinion. However, like Reese, he trusts the Macau judicial system.
“This decision shows Macau’s commitment to the rule of law. We trust the Macau court system in independently deciding such a significant lawsuit,” the Asian American president told the Times in an email.
“We’ve received this news with great delight. As your newspaper reported last year [May 14], and contrary to what had been hinted in some media outlets, the Asian American lawsuit has never been dismissed,” he said in a first, more emphatic, reaction.
Hao continued by saying that this ruling “means that Asian American will be entitled to a trial and will see for the first time its claim adjudicated on its merits. We have walked a long way to achieve this goal.”
In Hao’s words, “this is also an opportunity for Macau to revisit and reconcile itself with the 2001–02 affairs.”
The partnership of Las Vegas Sands and Asian American submitted a bid for a gaming concession in 2001 in Macau. During the process, Las Vegas Sands switched partners, and instead teamed up with Hong Kong group Galaxy Entertainment, a venture that went on to win a license in Macau over a decade ago.
Asian American claims that Las Vegas Sands terminated its joint venture and then “made a near identical bid submission with Galaxy,” using details that were exclusive to their previous partnership.
This is the most crucial ruling by a court in the Asian American lawsuit against Sands, because it means that AAEC will definitely have a trial in Macau to adjudicate on whether Sands breached its contract with the Taiwanese company and whether Sands should consequently pay the claimed losses. Even if Sands appeals this decision, the appeal would only be reviewed by the upper court after the judgment has been passed – that is, only after the trial.
On its ruling on March 16, which was reviewed by the Times, the Macau judge ruled against the dismissal, stating that the decision in Nevada was based on reasons that would not give grounds for a dismissal in Macau. Therefore, the case will proceed to trial.
According to legal sources, “Sands should have reported this decision to the stock exchange.”
In a filing to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Las Vegas Sands says it reported the decision on June 25, 2014, when “the Macau Court of Second Instance delivered a decision, which gave formal recognition to and allowed enforcement in Macau of the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals, dismissing AAEC’s claims against the U.S. Defendants.”
“Were we to win this legal action, as we confidently hope we will, we would work together with the relevant authorities and entities to make sure that a favorable judgment would not affect the smooth running of the casino operations and the jobs of all those who contributed to an important source of revenue to Macau. We seek compensation, not retribution,” concluded Marshall Hao in his reply to the Times yesterday.
The figure involved in the claim (up to USD10 billion) is probably one of the biggest claims in the history of lawsuits.
No Comments