Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	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 June 30, 2017. 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 that 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 that 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 document discovery. The Company has accrued a nominal amount for estimated costs related to this legal matter as of June 30, 2017. In the event that 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. Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. v. Las Vegas Sands Corp., Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged 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 sought, 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 alleged 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 was substantially similar to the Fosbre complaint, discussed above, sought, 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. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases are reported as one consolidated matter. 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, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part, and denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. On November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the allegations remaining in the amended complaint. On July 11, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing defendants’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the U.S. District Court’s order dated August 24, 2011, striking additional portions of the plaintiffs' complaint and reducing the class period to a period of February 4 to November 6, 2008. On August 7, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a purported class action second amended complaint (the “Second Amended Complaint”) seeking to expand their allegations back to a time period of 2007 (having previously been cut back to 2008 by the U.S. District Court) essentially alleging very similar matters that had been previously stricken by the U.S. District Court. On October 16, 2012, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs responded to the motion to dismiss on November 1, 2012, and defendants filed their reply on November 12, 2012. On November 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted a stay of discovery under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act pending a decision on the new motion to dismiss and therefore, the discovery process was suspended. On April 16, 2013, the case was reassigned to a new judge. On July 30, 2013, the U.S. District Court heard the motion to dismiss and took the matter under advisement. On November 7, 2013, the judge granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss. On December 13, 2013, the defendants filed their answer to the Second Amended Complaint. Discovery in the matter resumed. On January 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the certified class period, which was granted by the U.S. District Court on June 15, 2015. Fact discovery closed on July 31, 2015, and expert discovery closed on December 18, 2015. On January 22, 2016, defendants filed motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motions for summary judgment on March 11, 2016. Defendants filed their replies in support of summary judgment on April 8, 2016. Summary judgment in favor of the defendants was entered on January 4, 2017. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on February 2, 2017, and their opening brief in support of their appeal on July 14, 2017. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously. Benyamin Kohanim v. Adelson, et al. On March 9, 2011, Benyamin Kohanim filed a shareholder derivative action (the “Kohanim action”) on behalf of the Company in the 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 members of the Board of Directors at the time. 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 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. 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. 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 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 members of the Board of Directors at the time. The complaint raises substantially similar claims as alleged in the Kohanim action. The complaint seeks to recover for the Company unspecified damages, and also seeks to recover attorneys’ fees, costs and related expenses for the plaintiffs. The Kohanim and Gaines actions have been consolidated and are reported as one consolidated matter. On July 25, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a first verified amended consolidated complaint. The plaintiffs have twice agreed to stay the proceedings. A 120-day stay was entered by the District Court in October 2011. It was extended for another 90 days in February 2012 and expired in May 2012. The parties agreed to an extension of the May 2012 deadline that expired on October 30, 2012. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 1, 2012, based on the fact that the plaintiffs have suffered no damages. On January 23, 2013, the District Court denied the motion to dismiss in part, deferred the remainder of the motion to dismiss and stayed the proceedings until July 22, 2013. The District Court granted several successive stays since that time, but lifted the stay on April 25, 2017, following an in-chambers status check. On July 20, 2017, the District Court ordered counsel of record for all parties to appear for an August 10, 2017 status check. This consolidated 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. Nasser Moradi, et al. v. Adelson, et al. 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 members of the Board of Directors at the time. The complaint raises substantially similar claims as alleged in the Kohanim and Gaines actions. 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. 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 members of the Board of Directors at the time, 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. On April 22, 2011, John Zaremba filed a shareholder derivative action (the “Zaremba 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 members of the Board of Directors at the time, 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. On August 25, 2011, the U.S. District Court consolidated the Moradi, LAMPERS and Zaremba actions and such actions are reported as one consolidated matter. On November 17, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss or alternatively to stay the federal action due to the parallel District Court action described above. On May 25, 2012, the case was transferred to a new judge. On August 27, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted the motion to stay pending a further update of the Special Litigation Committee due on October 30, 2012. On October 30, 2012, the defendants filed the update asking the judge to determine whether to continue the stay until January 31, 2013, or to address motions to dismiss. On November 7, 2012, the U.S. District Court denied defendants request for an extension of the stay but asked the parties to brief the motion to dismiss. On November 21, 2012, defendants filed their motion to dismiss. On December 21, 2012, plaintiffs filed their opposition and on January 18, 2013, defendants filed their reply. On May 31, 2013, the case was reassigned to a new judge. On April 11, 2014, the judge denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice and ordered the case stayed pending the outcome of the District Court action in Kohanim described above. Pursuant to a series of court orders, the parties have filed a number of status reports during the pendency of the stay, including most recently on June 16, 2017.This consolidated 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. W.A. Sokolowski and Curtis Action on behalf of Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. Adelson, et al. and Las Vegas Sands Corp. On July 5, 2016, W.A. Sokolowski filed a shareholder derivative action (“Sokolowski III”) on purported behalf of the Company in the District Court, Clark County Nevada, against Sheldon G. Adelson, Michael A. Leven, Jason N. Ader, Irwin Chafetz, Charles D. Forman, Irwin A. Siegel, George P. Koo, Charles A. Koppelman, Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Robert G. Goldstein, Micheline Chau, Steven L. Gerard, George Jamieson, David Levi, and George P. Koo, each of whom is serving or previously served on the Board of Directors (collectively, the “Directors”); as well as against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”), the Company’s former auditor, and a partner of PwC. On September 16, 2016, Sokolowski filed an amended complaint ("Sokolowski IV") with additional nominal plaintiff Curtis Acton, adding former Director Wing T. Chau as a defendant. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by failing to prevent certain alleged misrepresentations and wrongdoing by the Company’s management, wasting corporate assets in litigating the Jacobs lawsuit, and concealing certain alleged facts in connection with audits performed by PwC. The amended complaint seeks, among other things the appointment of a conservator or special master to oversee the Company’s discussions with governmental agencies as well as to recover for the Company unspecified damages, including restitution and disgorgement of compensation, and also seeks to recover attorneys’ fees, costs and related expenses for the nominal plaintiffs. Many of the allegations duplicate allegations Sokolowski made in a previous case, Sokolowski v. Adelson, No. 2:14-cv-00111-JCM-NJK (D. Nev.) (“Sokolowski I and II”), in which final judgment was entered against him. In Sokolowski IV, nominal plaintiffs also complain that the Company wrongfully caused Sokolowski to lose Sokolowski I and II. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on October 24, 2016. On January 4, 2017, the court entered an order dated December 29, 2016, granting the motion to dismiss. The court also granted PwC’s motion to dismiss. On January 24, 2017, the court entered a Final Judgment On All Claims For All Parties dated January 23, 2017. On January 27, 2017, as amended January 31, 2017, nominal plaintiffs filed an appeal of the judgment and orders. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their appeal with prejudice on June 2, 2017. 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 VCR (collectively, the “Defendants”). The claim is for 3.0 billion patacas (approximately $373 million at exchange rates in effect on June 30, 2017) 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 that 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. Evidence gathering by the Macao Judicial Court has 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 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 at 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 that the court file be transferred back to the Macao Judicial Court. 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. By a letter dated April 14, 2016, such confirmation has been 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 yet 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.

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 June 30, 2017. 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 that 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 that 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 document discovery. The Company has accrued a nominal amount for estimated costs related to this legal matter as of June 30, 2017. In the event that 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.

Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. v. Las Vegas Sands Corp., Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner

On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged 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 sought, 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 alleged 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 was substantially similar to the Fosbre complaint, discussed above, sought, 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. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases are reported as one consolidated matter. 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, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part, and denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. On November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the allegations remaining in the amended complaint. On July 11, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing defendants’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the U.S. District Court’s order dated August 24, 2011, striking additional portions of the plaintiffs' complaint and reducing the class period to a period of February 4 to November 6, 2008. On August 7, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a purported class action second amended complaint (the “Second Amended Complaint”) seeking to expand their allegations back to a time period of 2007 (having previously been cut back to 2008 by the U.S. District Court) essentially alleging very similar matters that had been previously stricken by the U.S. District Court. On October 16, 2012, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs responded to the motion to dismiss on November 1, 2012, and defendants filed their reply on November 12, 2012. On November 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted a stay of discovery under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act pending a decision on the new motion to dismiss and therefore, the discovery process was suspended. On April 16, 2013, the case was reassigned to a new judge. On July 30, 2013, the U.S. District Court heard the motion to dismiss and took the matter under advisement. On November 7, 2013, the judge granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss. On December 13, 2013, the defendants filed their answer to the Second Amended Complaint. Discovery in the matter resumed. On January 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the certified class period, which was granted by the U.S. District Court on June 15, 2015. Fact discovery closed on July 31, 2015, and expert discovery closed on December 18, 2015. On January 22, 2016, defendants filed motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motions for summary judgment on March 11, 2016. Defendants filed their replies in support of summary judgment on April 8, 2016. Summary judgment in favor of the defendants was entered on January 4, 2017. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on February 2, 2017, and their opening brief in support of their appeal on July 14, 2017. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously.

Benyamin Kohanim v. Adelson, et al.

On March 9, 2011, Benyamin Kohanim filed a shareholder derivative action (the “Kohanim action”) on behalf of the Company in the 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 members of the Board of Directors at the time. 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 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. 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. 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 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 members of the Board of Directors at the time. The complaint raises substantially similar claims as alleged in the Kohanim action. The complaint seeks to recover for the Company unspecified damages, and also seeks to recover attorneys’ fees, costs and related expenses for the plaintiffs. The Kohanim and Gaines actions have been consolidated and are reported as one consolidated matter. On July 25, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a first verified amended consolidated complaint. The plaintiffs have twice agreed to stay the proceedings. A 120-day stay was entered by the District Court in October 2011. It was extended for another 90 days in February 2012 and expired in May 2012. The parties agreed to an extension of the May 2012 deadline that expired on October 30, 2012. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 1, 2012, based on the fact that the plaintiffs have suffered no damages. On January 23, 2013, the District Court denied the motion to dismiss in part, deferred the remainder of the motion to dismiss and stayed the proceedings until July 22, 2013. The District Court granted several successive stays since that time, but lifted the stay on April 25, 2017, following an in-chambers status check. On July 20, 2017, the District Court ordered counsel of record for all parties to appear for an August 10, 2017 status check. This consolidated 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.

Nasser Moradi, et al. v. Adelson, et al.

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 members of the Board of Directors at the time. The complaint raises substantially similar claims as alleged in the Kohanim and Gaines actions. 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. 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 members of the Board of Directors at the time, 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. On April 22, 2011, John Zaremba filed a shareholder derivative action (the “Zaremba 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 members of the Board of Directors at the time, 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. On August 25, 2011, the U.S. District Court consolidated the Moradi, LAMPERS and Zaremba actions and such actions are reported as one consolidated matter. On November 17, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss or alternatively to stay the federal action due to the parallel District Court action described above. On May 25, 2012, the case was transferred to a new judge. On August 27, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted the motion to stay pending a further update of the Special Litigation Committee due on October 30, 2012. On October 30, 2012, the defendants filed the update asking the judge to determine whether to continue the stay until January 31, 2013, or to address motions to dismiss. On November 7, 2012, the U.S. District Court denied defendants request for an extension of the stay but asked the parties to brief the motion to dismiss. On November 21, 2012, defendants filed their motion to dismiss. On December 21, 2012, plaintiffs filed their opposition and on January 18, 2013, defendants filed their reply. On May 31, 2013, the case was reassigned to a new judge. On April 11, 2014, the judge denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice and ordered the case stayed pending the outcome of the District Court action in Kohanim described above. Pursuant to a series of court orders, the parties have filed a number of status reports during the pendency of the stay, including most recently on June 16, 2017.This consolidated 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.

W.A. Sokolowski and Curtis Action on behalf of Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. Adelson, et al. and Las Vegas Sands Corp.

On July 5, 2016, W.A. Sokolowski filed a shareholder derivative action (“Sokolowski III”) on purported behalf of the Company in the District Court, Clark County Nevada, against Sheldon G. Adelson, Michael A. Leven, Jason N. Ader, Irwin Chafetz, Charles D. Forman, Irwin A. Siegel, George P. Koo, Charles A. Koppelman, Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Robert G. Goldstein, Micheline Chau, Steven L. Gerard, George Jamieson, David Levi, and George P. Koo, each of whom is serving or previously served on the Board of Directors (collectively, the “Directors”); as well as against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”), the Company’s former auditor, and a partner of PwC. On September 16, 2016, Sokolowski filed an amended complaint ("Sokolowski IV") with additional nominal plaintiff Curtis Acton, adding former Director Wing T. Chau as a defendant. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by failing to prevent certain alleged misrepresentations and wrongdoing by the Company’s management, wasting corporate assets in litigating the Jacobs lawsuit, and concealing certain alleged facts in connection with audits performed by PwC. The amended complaint seeks, among other things the appointment of a conservator or special master to oversee the Company’s discussions with governmental agencies as well as to recover for the Company unspecified damages, including restitution and disgorgement of compensation, and also seeks to recover attorneys’ fees, costs and related expenses for the nominal plaintiffs. Many of the allegations duplicate allegations Sokolowski made in a previous case, Sokolowski v. Adelson, No. 2:14-cv-00111-JCM-NJK (D. Nev.) (“Sokolowski I and II”), in which final judgment was entered against him. In Sokolowski IV, nominal plaintiffs also complain that the Company wrongfully caused Sokolowski to lose Sokolowski I and II. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on October 24, 2016. On January 4, 2017, the court entered an order dated December 29, 2016, granting the motion to dismiss. The court also granted PwC’s motion to dismiss. On January 24, 2017, the court entered a Final Judgment On All Claims For All Parties dated January 23, 2017. On January 27, 2017, as amended January 31, 2017, nominal plaintiffs filed an appeal of the judgment and orders. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their appeal with prejudice on June 2, 2017.

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 VCR (collectively, the “Defendants”). The claim is for 3.0 billion patacas (approximately $373 million at exchange rates in effect on June 30, 2017) 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 that 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. Evidence gathering by the Macao Judicial Court has 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 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 at 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 that the court file be transferred back to the Macao Judicial Court. 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. By a letter dated April 14, 2016, such confirmation has been 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 yet 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.