Macau’s Court of Second Instance (TSI) has upheld the lower court ruling against Asian American’s multi-billion-dollar compensation claims regarding the granting of a gaming sub-concession to Venetian Macau S.A., a subsidiary of US casino giant Las Vegas Sands (LVS), back in 2002.

Asian American Entertainment Corporation (AAEC) is now planning to take the case to the SAR’s top court for a final ruling, the lawyer representing the company confirmed to Macau News Agency.

AAEC, a company owned by Taiwanese businessman Marshall Hao Shi-shen, sought at least USD 7.5 billion (MOP 60) in compensation for damages stemming from an alleged violation of agreements with LVS, after the US company shifted its partnership to Galaxy.

The partnership between AAEC and Galaxy eventually collapsed, with Macau authorities granting Galaxy a casino concession and Venetian becoming a sub-concessionaire.

In April 2022, Macau’s Court of First Instance ruled against AAEC’s claims, a decision that has now been upheld by the intermediate court. The content of the TSI’s decision has not yet been made public, and AAEC lawyer Jorge Menezes told MNA that he has yet to read the judgment. While stressing that he “will not comment on the contents of the case,” Menezes indicated that “the likelihood of an AAEC appeal is close to 100 per cent.”

“We will fight until the Court of Final Appeal orders that justice be done,” he added.

Local media outlets GGRAsia, Macau Daily Times, and public broadcaster TDM also reported earlier, over the weekend, that AAEC plans to take the case to the city’s Court of Final Appeal (TUI).

AAEC has 10 days to file a leave to appeal request, which is automatically granted by law. After the TSI informs AAEC that the appeal has been accepted, the company has 30 days to submit its statement outlining the grounds for appeal, with LVS then having another 30 days to file its counterstatement.

The intermediate court also ruled that other appeals filed earlier by AAEC and LVS were deemed irrelevant following the previous lower court decision.

Jorge Menezes said he understands that “all LVS interlocutory appeals against court decisions unfavourable to LVS be disregarded: since LVS was not ordered to pay damages such appeals became useless.” However, he added, “I do not envisage a reason – and I’m looking forward to be illuminated by the judgment – of why the other AAEC appeal pending would not deserve a decision from the Court.”

The LVS vs AAEC lawsuit was launched in the U.S. in 2007 but was later dismissed due to the statute of limitations and procedural reasons, before being lodged in Macau in 2012. The long-delayed court case eventually began in June 2021, with the lower court ruling delivered in April 2022.