According to a report, AAEC may lose up to MOP$57.9bn (US$7.4 billion) in profits due to the breakdown of its agreement with Las Vegas Sands (LVS) to bid for a Macau casino licence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Macau.- A report commissioned by Marshall Hao Shi-Sheng, Asian American Entertainment Corporation’s(AAEC) CEO, revealed\u00a0the company may lose up to MOP$57.9bn (US$7.4 billion) in profits\u00a0<\/strong>after Las Vegas Sands breached its contract for a\u00a0casino licence in Macau<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n AAEC and LVS collaborated in 2001 to bid for one of the concessions to operate casinos in Macau.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n As a result of this operation, LVS could choose to buy 27.5 per cent of AAEC’s shares, and the former company would hold 72.5 per cent of the new enterprise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, shortly before the concessions were awarded, the US operator switched partners and joined forces with\u00a0Galaxy Entertainment<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n AAEC initiated the lawsuit in 2012, arguing that Sands breached its contract<\/a> for a casino licence in Macau in 2002<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is seeking damages calculated at around 70 per cent of Sands\u2019 Macau profits <\/strong>from 2004 to 2022. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Last October,\u00a0Dave Sun Minqi<\/a>, senior vice president and chief financial officer of Las Vegas Sands Macau, told the court that AAEC\u2019s suit for over US$12bn was exaggerated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He said that the\u00a0MOP96.45bn (US$12bn)\u00a0<\/strong>amount claimed by AAEC was based on the “operating profit” in Macau and it was not a “comprehensive consideration” of the group\u2019s capital expenditures in the Macau market and related depreciation and amortisation costs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The report commissioned by Marshall Hao Shi-Sheng argued that any claim statement should only be made for the period from the 2002 ruling to 2020, during which actual historical accounting data can be provided.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It rejected LVS\u2019s statement that its investment higher than initially expected should be included in the claim, and additional capital expenditures should also be taken into account<\/p>\n\n\n\n It stated that AAEC’s investment was as much as LVS’s investment in Venetian Macau<\/strong>. It stated that based on initial investment assumptions, AAEC Group invested MOP$252bn in the market.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As Asian Gaming Brief revealed, the report also stated that the MOP$3.6bn paid in gaming tax and MOP$400m in corporate tax have been included in the group’s net profit<\/strong>, so any analysis of damages should not be further revised downward for such items.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Last July, former gaming advisor\u00a0Carlos Lobo<\/strong>\u00a0gave\u00a0further testimony in court<\/a>\u00a0on the relationship between Las Vegas Sands and AAEC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n