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 costs based upon consultation with legal counsel and has accrued a nominal amount for such costs as of December 31, 2018. 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 and cash flows.

Round Square Company Limited v. Las Vegas Sands Corp.

On October 15, 2004, Richard Suen and Round Square Company Limited ("Roundsquare") 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 (the "District Court"), asserting a breach of an alleged agreement to pay a success fee of $5 million and 2.0% of the net profit from the Company's Macao 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 $44 million. On June 30, 2008, a judgment was entered in this matter in the amount of $59 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 for a new trial. In its decision reversing the monetary judgment against the Company, the Nevada Supreme Court also made several other rulings, 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. On February 27, 2012, the District Court set a date of March 25, 2013, for the new trial. On June 22, 2012, the defendants filed a request to add experts and plaintiffs filed a motion seeking additional financial data as part of their discovery. The District Court granted both requests. The retrial began on March 27 and on May 14, 2013, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Roundsquare in the amount of $70 million. On May 28, 2013, a judgment was entered in the matter in the amount of $102 million (including pre-judgment interest). On June 7, 2013, the Company filed a motion with the District Court requesting the judgment be set aside as a matter of law or in the alternative that a new trial be granted. On July 30, 2013, the District Court denied the Company's motion. On October 17, 2013, the District Court entered an order granting plaintiff's request for certain costs and fees associated with the litigation in the amount of approximately $1 million. On December 6, 2013, the Company filed a notice of appeal of the jury verdict with the Nevada Supreme Court. The Company filed its opening appellate brief with the Nevada Supreme Court on June 16, 2014. On August 19, 2014, the Nevada Supreme Court issued an order granting plaintiffs additional time until September 15, 2014, to file their answering brief. On September 15, 2014, Roundsquare filed a request to the Nevada Supreme Court to file a brief exceeding the maximum number of words, which was granted. On October 10, 2014, Roundsquare filed its answering brief. On January 12, 2015, the defendants filed their reply brief. On January 27, 2015, Roundsquare filed its reply brief. The Nevada Supreme Court set oral argument for December 17, 2015, before a panel of justices only to reset it for January 26, 2016, en banc. Oral arguments were presented to the Nevada Supreme Court as scheduled. On March 11, 2016, the Nevada Supreme Court issued an order affirming the judgment of liability, but reversing the damages award and remanding for a new trial on damages. On March 29, 2016, Roundsquare filed a petition for rehearing. The Nevada Supreme Court ordered an answer by the Company, which the Company filed on May 4, 2016. On May 12, 2016, Roundsquare filed a motion for leave to file a reply brief in support of its petition for rehearing, and on May 19, 2016, the Company filed an opposition to that motion. On June 24, 2016, the Nevada Supreme Court issued an order granting Roundsquare's petition for rehearing and submitting the appeal for decision on rehearing without further briefing or oral argument. On July 22, 2016, the Nevada Supreme Court once again ordered a new trial as to plaintiff Roundsquare on the issue of quantum merit damages. A pre-trial hearing was set in District Court for December 12, 2016. At the December 12, 2016 hearing, the District Court indicated it would allow a scope of trial and additional discovery into areas the Company opposed as inconsistent with the Nevada Supreme Court's remand. The District Court issued a written order on the scope of retrial and discovery dated December 15, 2016. On January 5, 2017, the Company moved for a stay of proceedings in the District Court, pending the Nevada Supreme Court's resolution of the Company's petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition, which was filed on January 13, 2017. On February 13, 2017, the District Court denied the motion to stay proceedings and, on February 16, 2017, the Nevada Supreme Court denied the writ. The parties are presently engaged in discovery and the damages trial date has been set to begin on March 4, 2019. The Company has accrued a nominal amount for estimated costs related to this legal matter as of December 31, 2018. In the event the Company's assumptions used to evaluate this matter change in future periods, it may be required to record an additional liability for an adverse outcome. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously.

Asian American Entertainment Corporation, Limited v. Venetian Macau Limited, et al.

On January 19, 2012, Asian American Entertainment Corporation, Limited ("AAEC") filed a claim (the "Macao action") with the Macao Judicial Court (Tribunal Judicial de Base) against VML, LVS (Nevada) International Holdings, Inc. ("LVS (Nevada)"), Las Vegas Sands, LLC ("LVSLLC") and Venetian Casino Resort, LLC ("VCR") (collectively, the "Defendants"). The claim is for 3.0 billion patacas (approximately $372 million at exchange rates in effect on December 31, 2018) as compensation for damages resulting from the alleged breach of agreements entered into between AAEC and LVS (Nevada), LVSLLC and VCR (collectively, the "U.S. Defendants") for their joint presentation of a bid in response to the public tender held by the Macao government for the award of gaming concessions at the end of 2001. On July 4, 2012, the Defendants filed their defense to the Macao action with the Macao Judicial Court. AAEC then filed a reply that included several amendments to the original claim, although the amount of the claim was not amended. On January 4, 2013, the Defendants filed an amended defense to the amended claim with the Macao Judicial Court. On September 23, 2013, the U.S. Defendants filed a motion with the Macao Second Instance Court, seeking recognition and enforcement of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in the Prior Action, referred to below, given on April 10, 2009, which partially dismissed AAEC's claims against the U.S. Defendants.

On March 24, 2014, the Macao Judicial Court issued a Decision (Despacho Seneador) holding that AAEC's claim against VML is unfounded and that VML be removed as a party to the proceedings, and the claim should proceed exclusively against the U.S. Defendants. On May 8, 2014, AAEC lodged an appeal against that decision. The Macao Judicial Court further held that the existence of the pending application for recognition and enforcement of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling before the Macao Second Instance Court did not justify a stay of the proceedings against the U.S. Defendants at the present time, although in principle an application for a stay of the proceedings against the U.S. Defendants could be reviewed after the Macao Second Instance Court had issued its decision. On June 25, 2014, the Macao Second Instance Court delivered a decision, which gave formal recognition to and allowed enforcement in Macao of the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals, dismissing AAEC's claims against the U.S. Defendants.

AAEC appealed against the recognition decision to the Macao Court of Final Appeal, which, on May 6, 2015, dismissed the appeal and held the U.S. judgment to be final and have preclusive effect. The Macao Court of Final Appeal's decision became final on May 21, 2015. On June 5, 2015, the U.S. Defendants applied to the Macao Judicial Court to dismiss the claims against them as res judicata. AAEC filed its response to that application on June 30, 2015. The U.S. Defendants filed their reply on July 23, 2015. On September 14, 2015, the Macao Judicial Court admitted two further legal opinions from Portuguese and U.S. law experts. On March 16, 2016, the Macao Judicial Court dismissed the defense of res judicata. An appeal against that decision was lodged on April 7, 2016, together with a request that the appeal be heard immediately. By a decision dated April 13, 2016, the Macao Judicial Court accepted that the appeal be heard immediately. Legal arguments were submitted May 23, 2016. AAEC replied to the legal arguments on or about July 14, 2016, which was three days late, upon payment of a penalty. The U.S. Defendants submitted a response on September 20, 2016. On December 13, 2016, the Macao Judicial Court confirmed its earlier decision not to stay the proceedings pending appeal. As of the end of December 2016, all appeals (including VML's dismissal and the res judicata appeals) were being transferred to the Macao Second Instance Court. On May 11, 2017, the Macao Second Instance Court notified the parties of its decision of refusal to deal with the appeals at the present time. The Macao Second Instance Court ordered the court file be transferred back to the Macao Judicial Court. Evidence gathering by the Macao Judicial Court commenced by letters rogatory. On June 30, 2017, the Macao Judicial Court sent letters rogatory to the Public Prosecutor's office, for onward transmission to relevant authorities in the U.S. and Hong Kong. On August 10, 2017, the Hong Kong Mutual Legal Assistance Unit, International Law Division, Hong Kong Department of Justice ("HKMLAU") responded to the Public Prosecutor and requested additional information. On August 18, 2017, the Public Prosecutor forwarded the HKMLAU request to the Macao Judicial Court. On November 14, 2017, the Public Prosecutor replied to the HKMLAU. The HKMLAU sent a further communication to the Public Prosecutor on November 29, 2017, again requesting the Macao Judicial Court provide further information to enable processing of the Hong Kong letter rogatory. On January 6, 2018, the Macao Judicial Court notified the parties accordingly. On February 10, 2018, the Macao Judicial Court notified the parties that a communication dated January 25, 2018, had been received from the U.S. Department of Justice. The Macao Judicial Court extended the time for processing the letters rogatory until the end of June 2018. On May 7, 2018, the Macao Judicial Court further extended the time for processing one of the letters rogatory until mid-September 2018, which was further extended on August 16, 2018, to mid-November 2018. The trial of this matter has been scheduled by the Macao Judicial Court for mid-September 2019.

On March 25, 2015, application was made by the U.S. Defendants to the Macao Judicial Court to revoke the legal aid granted to AAEC, accompanied by a request for evidence taking from AAEC, relating to the fees and expenses that they incurred and paid in the U.S. subsequent action referred to below. The Macao Public Prosecutor has opposed the action on the ground of lack of evidence that AAEC's financial position has improved. No decision has been issued in respect to that application up to the present time. A complaint against AAEC's Macao lawyer arising from certain conduct in relation to recent U.S. proceedings was submitted to the Macao Lawyer's Association on October 19, 2015. A letter dated February 26, 2016, has been received from the Conselho Superior de Advocacia of the Macao Bar Association advising that disciplinary proceedings have commenced. A further letter dated April 5, 2016, was received from the Conselho Superior de Advocacia requesting confirmation that the signatories of the complaint were acting within their corporate authority. In a letter dated April 14, 2016, such confirmation was provided. On September 28, 2016, the Conselho Superior de Advocacia invited comments on the defense, which had been lodged by AAEC's Macao lawyer.

On July 9, 2014, the plaintiff filed another action in the U.S. District Court against LVSC, LVSLLC, VCR (collectively, the "LVSC entities"), Sheldon G. Adelson, William P. Weidner, David Friedman and Does 1-50 for declaratory judgment, equitable accounting, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of confidence and conversion based on a theory of copyright law. The claim is for $5.0 billion. On November 4, 2014, plaintiff finally effected notice on the LVSC entities, which was followed by a motion to dismiss by the LVSC entities on November 10, 2014. Plaintiff failed to timely respond, and on December 2, 2014, the LVSC entities moved for immediate dismissal and sanctions against plaintiff and his counsel for bringing a frivolous lawsuit. On December 19, 2014, plaintiff filed an incomplete and untimely response, which was followed by plaintiff's December 27, 2014 notice of withdrawal of the lawsuit and the LVSC entities' December 29, 2014, reply in favor of sanctions and dismissal with prejudice. On August 31, 2015, the judge dismissed the U.S. action and the LVSC entities' sanctions motion. The Macao 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.

As previously disclosed by the Company, on February 5, 2007, AAEC brought a similar claim (the "Prior Action") in the U.S. District Court, against LVSI (now known as LVSLLC), VCR and Venetian Venture Development, LLC, which are subsidiaries of the Company, and William P. Weidner and David Friedman, who are former executives of the Company. The U.S. District Court entered an order on April 16, 2010, dismissing the Prior Action. On April 20, 2012, LVSLLC, VCR and LVS (Nevada) filed an injunctive action (the "Nevada Action") against AAEC in the U.S. District Court seeking to enjoin AAEC from proceeding with the Macao Action based on AAEC's filing, and the U.S. District Court's dismissal, of the Prior Action. On June 14, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued an order that denied the motions requesting the Nevada Action, thereby effectively dismissing the Nevada Action.

Macao Concession and Subconcession

On June 26, 2002, the Macao government granted a concession to operate casinos in Macao through June 26, 2022, subject to certain qualifications, to Galaxy Casino Company Limited ("Galaxy"), a consortium of Macao and Hong Kong-based investors. During December 2002, VML and Galaxy entered into a subconcession agreement that was recognized and approved by the Macao government and allows VML to develop and operate casino projects, including The Venetian Macao, Sands Cotai Central, The Parisian Macao, the Plaza Casino at the The Plaza Macao and Four Seasons Hotel Macao and Sands Macao separately from Galaxy. Beginning on December 26, 2017, the Macao government may redeem the subconcession agreement by providing the Company at least one-year prior notice.

Under the subconcession, the Company is obligated to pay to the Macao government an annual premium with a fixed portion and a variable portion based on the number and type of gaming tables it employs and gaming machines it operates. The fixed portion of the premium is equal to 30 million patacas (approximately $4 million at exchange rates in effect on December 31, 2018). The variable portion is equal to 300,000 patacas per gaming table reserved exclusively for certain kinds of games or players, 150,000 patacas per gaming table not so reserved and 1,000 patacas per electrical or mechanical gaming machine, including slot machines (approximately $37,195, $18,598 and $124, respectively, at exchange rates in effect on December 31, 2018), subject to a minimum of 45 million patacas (approximately $6 million at exchange rates in effect on December 31, 2018). The Company is also obligated to pay a special gaming tax of 35% of gross gaming revenues and applicable withholding taxes. The Company must also contribute 4% of its gross gaming revenue to utilities designated by the Macao government, a portion of which must be used for promotion of tourism in Macao. Based on the number and types of gaming tables employed and gaming machines in operation as of December 31, 2018, the Company was obligated under its subconcession to make minimum future payments of approximately $42 million during each of the three years in the period ending December 31, 2021, and approximately $21 million during the year ending December 31, 2022.

Operating Leases

The Company leases real estate, including the Macao and Singapore leasehold interests in land, and various equipment under operating lease arrangements with terms in excess of one year. As of December 31, 2018, the Company was obligated under non-cancelable operating leases to make future minimum lease payments as follows (in millions):



2019	$	35
2020	27
2021	24
2022	23
2023	22
Thereafter	294
Total minimum payments	$	425

Expenses incurred under operating lease agreements, including amortization of leasehold interest in land and those that are short-term and variable-rate in nature, totaled $94 million, $116 million and $109 million for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively.