Hao vs LVS | Trial reaching closing stage, defense triggers court incident

The Las Vegas Sands Corporation (LVS) legal representative Luís Cavaleiro de Ferreira has triggered a procedural incident at the First Instance Court (TJB), claiming that a document sought to be added to the process by the plaintiff Asian American Entertainment Corporation (AAEC) is falsified.

On the line is a copy of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the two sides, allegedly delivered to the Macau Gaming Commission as part of the tender process of the consortium composed of AAEC and LVS when they first submitted a bid for the gaming license tender 20 years ago.

Although the document is not new to the case, the plaintiff recently requested to join several documents to the process, including a copy of the MOU signed by William Weidner, former president and chief operating officer of LVS.

The defense alleges that the signed copy of the document was fabricated and that Weidner’s signature was unlawfully transposed from a different document.

The incident prompted the judge to request the Gaming Inspection and Coordination Bureau (DICJ) to issue an official document confirming whether the MOU was delivered as part of the initial tender documents, and, if so, whether the document in the DICJ archives was signed by Weidner and AAEC’s Marshall Hao.

The judge also ordered the plaintiff’s lawyer to present evidence to the court demonstrating when and how they came to acquire the document, within five days of the request.

At the instigation of the defense, both sides also consented to requesting written testimony from Weidner regarding the authenticity of the MOU, including his awareness of having signed it or of someone signing it on his behalf. Weidner is to provide the requested information within 10 days.

The defense lawyer also requested that the court extend the 20-day review period for a series of new documents added to the process, on the grounds that the additional documents contain important information relevant to the case that should be considered in the court’s decision. The request for an extension of time was denied, with the presiding judge explaining that the stipulated time period is a legal deadline that cannot be extended.

Defense claims intention to proceed with case

After an exchange of arguments between the two sides regarding the authenticity and relevance of the document, the defense lawyer requested that the court extract a certificate from the process of the MOU. The defense aims to file a criminal case regarding these documents, which they claim are falsified.

The judge explained that the court is aware of the documents and the claims that they are falsified. The judge further explained that once a decision is made, and if the court is satisfied that there are grounds for instigating criminal proceedings, the courts and the public prosecution will certainly seek penalties for criminal liability of the act, if proven.

Represented by Jorge Menezes, the plaintiff expressed surprise at the claims made by the defense, in part due to the fact that the document was presented as a copy and not as an original.

“The majority of the documents used in this case have been copied from originals which none of us have had access to. I find it strange that only now this seems to be a problem for the defense,” Menezes said.

The judge also questioned both sides about their intentions to add more documents to the lawsuit, given that the case is approaching the final stages.

“It looks like we are playing ping-pong here. The plaintiff presents a new document and then the defense adds a new one in response,” the judge said.

Closing allegations for the case are scheduled for January 21, if no other situations cause further delay. In that time, the judge has said that the court should have received the reply from DICJ and the written statement from Weidner.

The case is a compensation claim by AAEC to LVS amounting to the equivalent of almost 96 billion patacas for damages caused by the breach of an agreement that established the consortium to bid on the tender. The amount claimed was said to be based on damage caused to the AAEC, and is guided by the profits obtained by four LVS subsidiaries in Macau over the course of over 20 years of exploring gaming activities through the casino license obtained through the tender.

Ducker report: AAEC losses estimated at nearly MOP58b

The estimated loss for Asian American Entertainment Corp. (AAEC) stands at MOP57.9 billion, according to a report issued by consulting firm Ducker Research & Consulting.

The report was dated January 4 and is based on data presented by The Venetian to the gaming bureau between 2002 and 2020.

In the 41-page report analysts say that if the deal had been maintained then AAEC, headed by Taiwanese mogul Marshall Hao, would have invested the same as LVS, if not more.

The loss is a result of the failed bid for a casino license with Las Vegas Sands in the region, as cited in an Asia Gaming Brief report.

Another report, by local veteran economist José Duarte, noted that MOP3.6 billion in gaming taxes paid and MOP400 million in corporate taxes were already factored into the net profit of the group. Therefore, any analysis of damages should not make further downward revisions for such items, according to a report issued by Ponto Final.

The two independent expert reports were added to the lawsuit by the plaintiff.