Item 3. — LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

In addition to the matters described below, we are party to various legal matters and claims arising in the ordinary course of business. Management has made certain estimates for potential litigation costs 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 adverse effect on our 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. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.

On February 5, 2007, Asian American Entertainment Corporation, Limited (“AAEC”) filed an action against LVSI, VCR, Venetian Venture Development, LLC (“Venetian Venture Development”), William P. Weidner and David Friedman in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the “District Court”). The plaintiffs assert (i) breach of contract by LVSI, VCR and Venetian Venture Development of an agreement under which AAEC would work to obtain a gaming license in Macau and, if successful, AAEC would jointly operate a casino, hotel and related facilities in Macau with Venetian Venture Development and Venetian Venture Development would receive fees and a minority equity interest in the venture and (ii) breach of fiduciary duties by all of the defendants. The plaintiffs have requested an unspecified amount of actual, compensatory and punitive damages, and disgorgement of profits related to the Company’s Macau gaming license. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on July 11, 2007. On August 1, 2007, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint against all defendants without prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed this decision and subsequently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Circuit Court”) decided that AAEC was not barred from asserting claims that the written agreement was breached prior to its expiration on January 15, 2002. The Circuit Court remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings on this issue and discovery has recently begun. The plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion to withdraw from representing the plaintiffs on December 15, 2009, and it was granted by the Magistrate on January 12, 2010. On February 11, 2010, the Magistrate filed a recommendation that the case be dismissed in the court docket. The plaintiffs had until February 28, 2010, to file any objections thereto. None were filed and the District Court entered an order on April 16, 2010, dismissing the case. The plaintiff’s did not timely file an appeal of the District Court’s order dismissing the case and this matter has been closed.

Table of Contents

On October 16, 2009, the Company received a letter from counsel to Far East Consortium International Ltd. (“FEC”) notifying the Company that it may pursue various claims seeking, among other things, monetary damages and an entitlement to an ownership interest in any development projects on parcel 3 in Macau, which the Company will own and operate. The Company believes such claims are based on a non-legally binding memorandum of agreement that expired by its terms in 2005. The Company intends to vigorously contest any claims or lawsuits that may be brought by FEC.

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. Mr. Jacobs is seeking unspecified damages. This action is in a preliminary stage. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.

On February 9, 2011, LVSC received a subpoena from the SEC requesting that the Company produce documents relating to its compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. 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 emanated from allegations contained in the lawsuit filed by Steven C. Jacobs described above. The Company intends to cooperate with the investigations.

The State Administration of Foreign Exchange in China (“SAFE”) regulates foreign currency exchange transactions and other business dealings in China. SAFE has made inquiries and requested and obtained documents relating to certain payments made by the Company’s wholly foreign-owned enterprises (“WFOEs”) to counterparties and other vendors in China. These WFOEs were established to conduct non-gaming marketing activities in China and to create goodwill in China and Macau for the Company’s operations in Macau. SAFE has concluded its investigation of these matters and imposed a penalty of approximately 10.8 million renminbi (approximately $1.6 million at exchange rates in effect on December 31, 2010) against one of the Company’s WFOEs. The penalty has been paid and this matter has been closed.

On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class action complaint in the 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 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.

Table of Contents

On August 31, 2010, the 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. 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. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously.