The local subsidiaries of the Las Vegas Sands Corporation (LVS) have, at first instance, won the court case against their former business partner Asian American Entertainment Company (AAEC), TDM reported, citing a court source.
Although the final verdict has not yet been made public, the ruling comes as no surprise. It has been known since the last trial hearing at the Court of First Instance (TJB) in late February that the lawyer representing the interests of the company led by the Taiwanese businessman Marshall Hao had acknowledged that the case was lost in the TJB, and that he was already preparing an appeal to the Court of Second Instance (TSI).
At the time, AAEC lawyer Jorge Menezes said that his preparation for the appeal will follow the reading of the facts that the court considers proven or unproven. This comment led to the acknowledgment from the AAEC that they had lost the case in the TJB.
Menezes also said that, in his entire legal career, he had never seen a judgment with so many flaws and contradictions. At the time he opted not to present any concrete objections to the factual matters established by the court, noting that he would prefer to leave such objections for the appeal he would be filing in the TSI.
Meanwhile, commenting on the matter, a source familiar with the plaintiff told the Times that the court contradicts written documents in a “distressing manner,” adding that it disregards all independent witnesses and concentrates solely on the testimony of David Friedman, an ex-employee of LVS, who provided nearly 200 pages of “biased written testimony.”
“We see this as a political decision, not a judicial decision. The trial was conducted very fairly, but something remarkable happened in January that made it change its course, becoming a political affair, which is quite sad,” said the source.
“Further evidence of the political motivation [behind the decision] is the court finding that Asian American acted in bad faith, fining it in an unprecedented way. This aims at denying Asian American the right to appeal, because the law states that bad faith revokes the court fee exemption. The goal is to have the lawsuit terminated before the gaming tender is over,” the source added.
AAEC will lodge its appeal and will bring several matters of concern to the attention of the relevant US authorities.
Previously, Menezes also said that he was willing to take the case through every avenue of appeal available in the attempt to secure justice for his client, who, he said, has been seeking justice in the matter for over 20 years.
In the final court hearing, held in mid-February, the court considered that most of the facts presented by the plaintiff to the court to justify a compensation claim of around MOP60 billion were unproven, anticipating the verdict that is now reported.
The AAEC’s claims for compensation from the LVS subsidiaries are made on the grounds that the LVS subsidiaries replaced AAEC with Galaxy Entertainment Group as their business partner at a very late stage of the public tender for the gaming licenses in Macau. Hao considers that LVS’ move has caused severe damage to his company and business prospects, claiming that he is entitled to a large share of the profits earned by LVS through its Macau operations for the past two decades.
