{"id":29801,"date":"2022-05-12T07:04:08","date_gmt":"2022-05-12T10:04:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/focusgn.com\/asia-pacific\/?p=29801"},"modified":"2026-04-23T08:47:04","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T11:47:04","slug":"macau-court-rejects-aaec-request-for-extension-of-appeal-period","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/focusgn.com\/asia-pacific\/macau-court-rejects-aaec-request-for-extension-of-appeal-period","title":{"rendered":"Macau court rejects AAEC request for extension of appeal period"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Asian American Entertainment Corp Ltd (AAEC) had requested an extra 30 days to appeal a Court of First Instance decision in favour of Las Vegas Sands Corp (LVS).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<!--more-->\n\n\n\n<p>Macau.- Following the\u00a0<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/focusgn.com\/asia-pacific\/macau-court-rules-in-favour-of-lvs-in-aaec-case\" target=\"_blank\">Court of First Instance&#8217;s ruling in favour of LVS<\/a>, AAEC&#8217;s lawyers played one last card and\u00a0<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/focusgn.com\/asia-pacific\/aaec-wants-to-appeal-court-decision-in-case-against-lvs\" target=\"_blank\">requested a 30-day extension<\/a>\u00a0to appeal the decision, claiming the document had not been provided with a full sentencing decision in Portuguese. However,\u00a0<strong>the Court of First Instance has rejected the request<\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The course said that although both Chinese and Portuguese are official languages in Macau, this does not oblige the court to select the official language of the mandate or of the appointed legal representatives.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>AAEC lawyers are said to be disappointed with the court&#8217;s decision, saying that it was impossible for a Portuguese-speaking lawyer to review a 99-page ruling in Chinese within 10 days. However, it said it was<strong> preparing to file an appeal by May 13<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>AAEC was claiming US$7.5bn from LVS for breach of contract. The two companies had signed a partnership in October 2001 with a view to exploring a potential bid for a Macau concession, however, LVS ultimately partnered with Galaxy Entertainment, with whom it won a licence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>LVS\u2019s lawyer claimed that&nbsp;<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/focusgn.com\/asia-pacific\/lvs-blames-aaec-for-failed-partnership-on-macau-casino-licence\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">AAEC was the first to break up the partnership<\/a><strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>and trade with rivals including Hong Kong entrepreneur Lui Che Woo.&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Asian American Entertainment Corp Ltd (AAEC) had requested an extra 30 days to appeal a Court of First Instance decision in favour of Las Vegas Sands Corp (LVS).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":176,"featured_media":8570,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"is_press_release":false,"is_interview":false,"is_opinion":false,"focusai_summary":"Asian American Entertainment Corp Ltd (AAEC) sought a 30-day extension to appeal a Macau Court of First Instance decision favoring Las Vegas Sands Corp (LVS) in a US$7.5bn breach of contract dispute. The court rejected the extension, citing no obligation to provide the ruling in Portuguese, but AAEC plans to file its appeal by May 13. The dispute originates from a 2001 partnership for a Macau gaming concession bid, which LVS ultimately pursued with Galaxy Entertainment.","focusai_entities":"Asian American Entertainment Corp Ltd, AAEC, Las Vegas Sands Corp, LVS, Galaxy Entertainment, Lui Che Woo","focusai_location":"Macau, Hong Kong","focusai_target_profile":"ceo_executive (0.9), regulator (0.85), compliance_legal (0.9), operator_casino (0.8), investor_analyst (0.95), journalist_researcher (0.85)","focusai_suggestions":[{"label":"LVS Litigation Impact?","query":"What are the specific contractual clauses AAEC alleges LVS breached, and how might this impact future B2B partnership agreements for concession bids in regulated markets?"},{"label":"Financial Exposure Analysis?","query":"How might a potential US$7.5bn liability impact LVS's capital allocation strategy, dividend policy, or M&A prospects in other regulated gaming verticals?"}],"footnotes":""},"categories":[16338,439],"tags":[24032,1642],"class_list":["post-29801","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-east-asia-news","category-legal-news","tag-asian-american-entertainment-corporation","tag-las-vegas-sands"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/focusgn.com\/asia-pacific\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29801","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/focusgn.com\/asia-pacific\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/focusgn.com\/asia-pacific\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/focusgn.com\/asia-pacific\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/176"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/focusgn.com\/asia-pacific\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29801"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/focusgn.com\/asia-pacific\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29801\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":29841,"href":"https:\/\/focusgn.com\/asia-pacific\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29801\/revisions\/29841"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/focusgn.com\/asia-pacific\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8570"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/focusgn.com\/asia-pacific\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29801"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/focusgn.com\/asia-pacific\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29801"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/focusgn.com\/asia-pacific\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29801"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}