Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Jun. 30, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 9 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation The Company is involved in other litigation in addition to those noted below, arising in the normal course of business. Management has made certain estimates for potential litigation claims based upon consultation with legal counsel. Actual results could differ from these estimates; however, in the opinion of management, such litigation and claims will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. On October 15, 2004, Richard Suen and Round Square Company Limited filed an action against LVSC, Las Vegas Sands, Inc. (“LVSI”), Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, asserting a breach of an alleged agreement to pay a success fee of $5.0 million and 2.0% of the net profit from the Company’s Macau resort operations to the plaintiffs as well as other related claims. In March 2005, LVSC was dismissed as a party without prejudice based on a stipulation to do so between the parties. Pursuant to an order filed March 16, 2006, plaintiffs’ fraud claims set forth in the first amended complaint were dismissed with prejudice against all defendants. The order also dismissed with prejudice the first amended complaint against defendants Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner. On May 24, 2008, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs in the amount of $43.8 million. On June 30, 2008, a judgment was entered in this matter in the amount of $58.6 million (including pre-judgment interest). The Company appealed the verdict to the Nevada Supreme Court. On November 17, 2010, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the District Court of Clark County for a new trial. In its decision reversing the monetary judgment against the Company, the Nevada Supreme Court also made several other rulings which may affect the outcome of the new trial, including overturning the pre-trial dismissal of the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim and deciding several evidentiary matters, some of which confirmed and some of which overturned rulings made by the District Court of Clark County. As such, the Company is unable at this time to determine the probability of the outcome or range of reasonably possible loss, if any. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously. On October 20, 2010, Steven C. Jacobs, the former Chief Executive Officer of SCL, filed an action against LVSC and SCL in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, alleging breach of contract against LVSC and SCL and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and tortious discharge in violation of public policy against LVSC. On March 16, 2011, an amended complaint was filed, which added Sheldon G. Adelson as a defendant and alleged a claim of defamation per se against him, LVSC and SCL. On June 9, 2011, the District Court of Clark County dismissed the defamation claim and certified the decision as to Sheldon G. Adelson as a final judgment. On July 1, 2011, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal regarding the final judgment as to Sheldon G. Adelson. Mr. Jacobs is seeking unspecified damages. This action is in a preliminary stage and management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously. On February 9, 2011, LVSC received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission requesting that the Company produce documents relating to its compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”). The Company has also been advised by the Department of Justice that it is conducting a similar investigation. It is the Company’s belief that the subpoena may have emanated from allegations contained in the lawsuit filed by Steven C. Jacobs described above. The Company intends to cooperate with the investigations. Based on proceedings to date, management is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. On March 31, 2011, SCL filed an announcement with the SEHK stating that SCL has been informed by the Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong (the “SFC”) that SCL is under investigation by the SFC in relation to alleged breaches of the provisions of the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Ordinance and has been requested to produce certain documents. The Company intends to cooperate with the investigation. Based on proceedings to date, management is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the “U.S. District Court”), against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleges that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other means from August 1, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On July 21, 2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleges that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other means from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008. The complaint, which is substantially similar to the Fosbre litigation, discussed above, seeks, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On November 1, 2010, a purported class action amended complaint was filed in the consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner. The amended complaint alleges that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false and misleading information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other means from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On January 10, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which is pending before the U.S. District Court. This action is in a preliminary stage and management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously. On March 9, 2011, Benyamin Kohanim filed a shareholder derivative action (the “Kohanim action”) on behalf of the Company in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, against Sheldon G. Adelson, Jason N. Ader, Irwin Chafetz, Charles D. Forman, George P. Koo, Michael A. Leven, Jeffrey H. Schwartz and Irwin A. Siegel, the current members of the Board of Directors. The complaint alleges, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties in failing to properly implement, oversee and maintain internal controls to ensure compliance with the FCPA. The complaint seeks to recover for the Company unspecified damages, including restitution and disgorgement of profits, and also seeks to recover attorneys’ fees, costs and related expenses for the plaintiff. This case has been consolidated with the Gaines action described below. On July 25, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a first verified amended consolidated complaint. This action is in a preliminary stage and management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously. On April 1, 2011, Nasser Moradi, Richard Buckman, Douglas Tomlinson, and Matt Abbeduto filed a shareholder derivative action (the “Moradi action”), as amended on April 15, 2011, on behalf of the Company in the U.S. District Court, against Sheldon G. Adelson, Jason N. Ader, Irwin Chafetz, Charles D. Forman, George P. Koo, Michael A. Leven, Jeffrey H. Schwartz and Irwin A. Siegel, the current members of the Board of Directors. The complaint raises substantially similar claims as alleged in the Kohanim action. The complaint seeks to recover for the Company unspecified damages, including exemplary damages and restitution, and also seeks to recover attorneys’ fees, costs and related expenses for the plaintiffs. This action is in a preliminary stage and management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously. On April 18, 2011, Ira J. Gaines, Sunshine Wire and Cable Defined Benefit Pension Plan Trust dated 1/1/92 and Peachtree Mortgage Ltd. filed a shareholder derivative action (the “Gaines action”) on behalf of the Company in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, against Sheldon G. Adelson, Jason N. Ader, Irwin Chafetz, Charles D. Forman, George P. Koo, Michael A. Leven, Jeffrey H. Schwartz and Irwin A. Siegel, the current members of the Board of Directors. The complaint raises substantially similar claims as alleged in the Kohanim and Moradi actions. The complaint seeks to recover for the Company unspecified damages, and also seeks to recover attorneys’ fees, costs and related expenses for the plaintiffs. This action is in a preliminary stage and management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. The Gaines action has been consolidated with the Kohanim action and will be reported as one consolidated matter in the future. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously. On April 18, 2011, the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System filed a shareholder derivative action (the “LAMPERS action”) on behalf of the Company in the U.S. District Court, against Sheldon G. Adelson, Jason N. Ader, Irwin Chafetz, Charles D. Forman, George P. Koo, Michael A. Leven, Jeffrey H. Schwartz and Irwin A. Siegel, the current members of the Board of Directors, and Wing T. Chao, a former member of the Board of Directors. The complaint raises substantially similar claims as alleged in the Kohanim, Moradi and Gaines actions. The complaint seeks to recover for the Company unspecified damages, and also seeks to recover attorneys’ fees, costs and related expenses for the plaintiff. This action is in a preliminary stage and management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously. On April 22, 2011, John Zaremba filed a shareholder derivative action on behalf of the Company in the U.S. District Court, against Sheldon G. Adelson, Jason N. Ader, Irwin Chafetz, Charles D. Forman, George P. Koo, Michael A. Leven, Jeffrey H. Schwartz and Irwin A. Siegel, the current members of the Board of Directors, and Wing T. Chao, a former member of the Board of Directors. The complaint raises substantially similar claims as alleged in the Kohanim, Moradi, Gaines and LAMPERS actions. The complaint seeks to recover for the Company unspecified damages, including restitution, disgorgement of profits, and injunctive relief, and also seeks to recover attorneys’ fees, costs and related expenses for the plaintiff. This action is in a preliminary stage and management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously. Singapore Development Project In August 2006, the Company entered into a development agreement, as amended by a supplementary agreement on December 11, 2009 (the “Development Agreement”), with the Singapore Tourism Board (the “STB”), which requires the Company to construct and operate the Marina Bay Sands in accordance with the Company’s proposal for the integrated resort and in accordance with the agreement. The Company entered into the SGD 5.44 billion (approximately $4.41 billion at exchange rates in effect on June 30, 2011) Singapore Credit Facility to fund a significant portion of the construction, operating and other development costs of the Marina Bay Sands. The Development Agreement permits the Marina Bay Sands to open in stages and in accordance with an agreed upon schedule that runs through September 30, 2011. There are no financial consequences to MBS if it fails to meet the agreed upon schedule, provided that the entire integrated resort is opened by December 31, 2011. The Company believes it will meet this deadline; however, if it doesn’t, the STB will be entitled to draw on the SGD 192.6 million (approximately $156.1 million at exchange rates in effect on June 30, 2011) security deposit under the Singapore Credit Facility. Other Agreements The Company has entered into an agreement with Starwood to manage hotels, as well as brand serviced luxury apart-hotels, on the Company’s Cotai Strip parcels 5 and 6. The management agreement imposes certain construction and opening obligations and deadlines on the Company, and certain past and/or anticipated delays would allow Starwood to terminate its agreement. The Company has recommenced construction activities at Sands Cotai Central and is negotiating an amendment to its management agreement with Starwood to provide for new opening timelines. If negotiations are unsuccessful and Starwood exercises its rights to terminate its agreement, the Company would have to find a new manager and brand for these projects. The Company’s agreement with Starwood related to the sales and marketing of the Las Vegas Condo Tower has been terminated. If the Company is unsuccessful in finding a new brand in Las Vegas, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.