Carlos Lobo, one of the legal consultants for the Macau Gaming Commission (Commission) responsible for selecting the winning bidders to be awarded gaming concessions in the early 2000s, told the court yesterday that Commission members prioritized tenderer’s gaming experience as the most important factor to be considered.
Lobo took the witness stand at the Court of First Instance (TJB) on June 23, which marks the third day of hearings of the USD12 billion court case filed by Asian American Entertainment Corp Ltd against Las Vegas Sands Corp (LVS).
When presented with one exhibit — the table of statistics representing tenderers’ overall capabilities drafted by the former commissioner for legal affairs of the Commission Jorge Oliveira and submitted by Lobo — the witness recalled that the “experience factor” was considered the most important of all the criteria considered by the commission, being placed at around 54% of the weight of the decision between the bidders.
To his recollection, the LVS team made a pitch for the gaming right by submitting a presentation to the Commission in January 2002, during which the representatives of LVS suggested applying its operational model in Las Vegas directly to Macau.
The Commission “liked such a concept very much as they think it’s a good idea for Macau,” Lobo said.
The presentation and the Commission’s feedback are still vividly remembered by Lobo, who recalls that the “renowned figure,” the late founder of LVS, Sheldon Adelson, was also present at the occasion.
“We [the Commission] wanted to find the best solution for Macau [in this matter of the tender] until the closure of the tender process,” he added.
The defendant’s legal team also presented Lobo with several other documents as exhibits. One was a partnership request jointly filed by Asian American and another European corporation, which was ultimately rejected by the Commission
Lobo told the court that the Commission members, including Jorge Oliveira, were shocked upon receiving this request, considering this collaboration was not “logical.”
When asked by the judge as to why such a proposed partnership astonished the Commission, Lobo said in response that the firm which Asian American suggested to partner with was a “relatively small-scale European corporation.”
Furthermore, Lobo was shown one tender document compiled by the Commission, which stated that the ties between Asian American and the Venetian Venture Development LLC ended on January 15, 2002.
Lobo did not know on which day the two conglomerates officially terminated their partnership. However, he revealed that after learning of their separation, Jorge Oliveira understood the huge importance for the Commission to explain why it approved the application filed by Venetian and Galaxy Galaxy Casino SA, but not that made by Venetian Venture and Asian American.
In the previous court, Jorge Menezes, the plaintiff’s lawyer, submitted as an exhibit a letter from the Venetian Venture Development LLC to the Macau Gaming Commission, delivered on February 1, 2002. The letter was an announcement made by the company informing the Commission of the termination of its ties with Asian American.
This evidence prompted the Judge to question Lobo as to whether the ties between Asian American and Venetian Venture officially ended between January 15 to February 1 in 2002. However, the witness responded, “I don’t know where their ties stand [during this period of 15 days].”
The morning session in the court was spent in arguments as to whether Lobo was qualified to be a witness in the case. Jorge Menezes, the plaintiff’s lawyer, suggested the judge withdraw Lobo’s witness status since he worked for The Venetian resort in Macau from 2010 to 2015.
However, the judge said that this period did not coincide with the tender application period from 2001 to 2002, and thus ruled that Lobo is a valid witness in this case.
Asian American Entertainment Corp Ltd filed a lawsuit against LVS, accusing the company of violating the contract for a casino license in Macau in the period from 2001-2002.
Asian American, led by Taiwanese mogul Marshall Hao, is seeking damages of approximately 70% of Sands Macau’s profits from 2004 to 2022, a sum amounting to around USD12 billion.
The legal dispute between Asian American and LVS has been fought since 2007, when the lawsuit against LVS was first filed in the U.S. It was later dismissed for exceeding the statute of limitations and other procedural reasons.
No Comments