Las Vegas Sands - 10-Q quarterly report FY

 

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes þ     No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 ofRegulation S-Tduring the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  Yes o     No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” inRule 12b-2of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

 

(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined inRule 12b-2of the Exchange Act).  Yes o     No þ

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the Registrant’s classes of common stock, as of August 3, 2009.

 

 

 

 

 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

 

The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in the Annual Report onForm 10-Kof Las Vegas Sands Corp., a Nevada corporation (“LVSC”), and its subsidiaries (collectively the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2008. The Company’s common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “LVS.”

The year-end balance sheet data was derived from audited financial statements, but does not include all disclosures required by generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America. In the opinion of management, all adjustments and normal recurring accruals considered necessary for a fair statement of the results for the interim period have been included. The Company evaluated events and transactions, including the estimates used to prepare the condensed consolidated financial statements, through August 7, 2009, the date the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Qfor the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009, was issued. The interim results reflected in the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements are not necessarily indicative of expected results for the full year.

 

The Company owns and operates The Venetian Resort Hotel Casino (“The Venetian Las Vegas”), a Renaissance Venice-themed resort; The Palazzo Resort Hotel Casino (“The Palazzo”), a resort featuring modern European ambience and design reminiscent of affluent Italian living; and an expo and convention center of approximately 1.2 million square feet (the “Sands Expo Center”). These Las Vegas properties, situated on or near the Las Vegas Strip, form an integrated resort with approximately 7,100 suites; approximately 225,000 square feet of gaming space; a meeting and conference facility of approximately 1.1 million square feet; an enclosed retail, dining and entertainment complex located within The Venetian Las Vegas of approximately 440,000 net leasable square feet (“The Grand Canal Shoppes”), which was sold to GGP Limited Partnership (“GGP”) in 2004; and an enclosed retail and dining complex located within The Palazzo of approximately 400,000 net leasable square feet (“The Shoppes at The Palazzo”), which was sold to GGP in February 2008. See ‘‘— Note 2 — Property and Equipment, Net” regarding the sale of The Shoppes at The Palazzo.

 

The Company is in the process of developing Sands Casino Resort Bethlehem (the “Sands Bethlehem”), a gaming, hotel, retail and dining complex located on the site of the historic Bethlehem Steel Works in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Sands Bethlehem is also expected to be home to the National Museum of Industrial History, an arts and cultural center, and the broadcast home of the local PBS affiliate. The Company owns 86% of the economic interest of the gaming, hotel and entertainment portion of the property through its ownership interest in Sands Bethworks Gaming LLC and more than 35% of the economic interest of the retail portion of the property through its ownership interest in Sands Bethworks Retail, LLC.

On May 22, 2009, the Company opened the casino component of Sands Bethlehem, featuring 3,000 slot machines (with the ability to increase to 5,000 slot machines six months after the opening date) and several food and beverage offerings, as well as the parking garage and surface parking. Construction activities on the remaining components, which include a 300-room hotel, an approximate 200,000-square-foot retail facility, a 50,000-square-foot multipurpose event center and a variety of additional dining options, have been suspended temporarily and are intended to recommence when capital markets and general economic conditions improve. As of June 30, 2009, the Company has capitalized construction costs of $561.7 million for this project (including $84.1 million in

 

 

outstanding construction payables). The Company expects to spend approximately $110 million on additional costs to prepare the remaining portion of the site for delay, furniture, fixtures and equipment (“FF&E”) and other costs, and to pay outstanding construction payables, as noted above. The impact of the suspension on the estimated overall cost of the project’s remaining components is currently not determinable with certainty.

 

The Company owns and operates the Sands Macao, the first Las Vegas-style casino in the Macau Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China (“Macau”), pursuant to a20-yeargaming subconcession. The Sands Macao offers approximately 229,000 square feet of gaming space and a 289-suite hotel tower, as well as several restaurants, VIP facilities, a theater, and other high-end services and amenities.

The Company also owns and operates The Venetian Macao Resort Hotel (“The Venetian Macao”), which anchors the Cotai Strip^tm, the Company’s master-planned development of integrated resort properties in Macau. With a theme similar to that of The Venetian Las Vegas, The Venetian Macao includes a 39-floor luxury hotel with over 2,900 suites; approximately 550,000 square feet of gaming space; a 15,000-seat arena; retail and dining space of approximately 1.0 million square feet; and a convention center and meeting room complex of approximately 1.2 million square feet.

On August 28, 2008, the Company opened the Four Seasons Hotel Macao, Cotai Strip^tm(the “Four Seasons Macao”), which is located adjacent to The Venetian Macao. The Four Seasons Macao features 360 rooms and suites managed by Four Seasons Hotels Inc.; 19 Paiza mansions; approximately 70,000 square feet of gaming space; several food and beverage offerings; conference and banquet facilities; and retail space of approximately 211,000 square feet, which is connected to the mall at The Venetian Macao. The property will also feature the Four Seasons Apartments Macao, Cotai Strip^tm(the “Four Seasons Apartments”), which consist of approximately 1.0 million square feet of Four Seasons-serviced and -branded luxury apartment hotel units and common areas. The Company intends to sell shares in the subsidiary that will own the Four Seasons Apartments, which shares will entitle the holder to the exclusive use of a unit within the Four Seasons Apartments. As of June 30, 2009, the Company has capitalized construction costs of $976.8 million for this project (including $92.1 million in outstanding construction payables). The Company expects to spend approximately $260 million on additional costs to complete the Four Seasons Apartments, including FF&E, pre-opening costs and additional land premiums, and to pay outstanding construction payables, as noted above.

 

Given the challenging conditions in the capital markets and the global economy and their impact on the Company’s ongoing operations, the Company revised its development plan to suspend portions of its development projects and focus its development efforts on those projects with the highest rates of expected return on invested capital. Should general economic conditions fail to improve, if the Company is unable to obtain sufficient funding such that completion of its suspended projects is not probable, or should management decide to abandon certain projects, all or a portion of the Company’s investment to date on its suspended projects could be lost and would result in an impairment charge. In addition, the Company may be subject to penalties under the termination clauses in its construction contracts or under its management contracts with certain hotel management companies.

 

 

The Company had been constructing a St. Regis-branded high-rise residential condominium tower, the St. Regis Residences at The Venetian Palazzo (the “St. Regis Residences”), located between The Palazzo and The Venetian Las Vegas on the Las Vegas Strip. As part of the Company’s revised development plan, it has suspended construction activities for the project due to reduced demand for Las Vegas Strip condominiums and the overall

 

 

decline in general economic conditions. The Company intends to recommence construction when these conditions improve and expects that it will take approximately 18 months from that point to complete construction of the project. As of June 30, 2009, the Company has capitalized construction costs of $183.0 million for this project (including $10.1 million in outstanding construction payables). The Company expects to spend approximately $20 million on additional costs to prepare the site for delay and to complete construction of the podium portion (which is part of The Shoppes at The Palazzo and includes already leased retail and entertainment space), and to pay outstanding construction payables, as noted above. The impact of the suspension on the estimated overall cost of the project is currently not determinable with certainty.

 

The Company submitted plans to the Macau government for its other Cotai Strip developments, which represent five integrated resort developments, in addition to The Venetian Macao and Four Seasons Macao, on an area of approximately 200 acres (which are referred to as parcels 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8). Subject to the approval from the Macau government, the developments are expected to include hotels, exhibition and conference facilities, gaming areas, showrooms, shopping malls, spas, restaurants, entertainment facilities and other amenities. The Company had commenced construction or pre-construction for these five parcels and planned to own and operate all of the gaming areas in these developments under the Company’s Macau gaming subconcession.

As part of its revised development plan, the Company intends to sequence the construction of its developments on parcels 5 and 6 due to difficulties in the capital markets and the overall decline in general economic conditions. Phase I of the project includes a hotel tower to be managed by Shangri-La Hotels and Resorts (“Shangri-La”) under its Shangri-La and Traders brands and two hotel towers to be managed by Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide (“Starwood”) under its Sheraton brand, along with the podium that encompasses gaming areas, associated public areas, portions of the shopping mall, meeting space and a theater. Phase II of the project includes a fourth hotel tower, which will be managed by Starwood under its St. Regis brand, along with additional meeting space and completion of the shopping mall. Construction of phase I has been suspended while the Company pursues project-level financing; however, there can be no assurance that such financing will be obtained. The Company expects that if and when financing is obtained, it will take several months to mobilize and then approximately 12 to 18 months from that point to complete construction of phase I. Construction of phase II of the project has been suspended until conditions in the capital markets and general economic conditions improve. As of June 30, 2009, the Company has capitalized construction costs of $1.72 billion for this project (including $155.0 million in outstanding construction payables). The Company expects to spend approximately $420 million on additional costs to prepare the site for delay and to pay outstanding construction payables, as noted above. The impact of the revised development plan on the estimated overall cost of the project is currently not determinable with certainty. The Company’s management agreements with Shangri-La and Starwood impose certain deadlines and opening obligations on the Company, and certain past and/or anticipated delays, as described above, may represent a default under one or more of these agreements, allow the hotel management companies to terminate their agreement and/or subject the Company to penalties.

The Company had commenced pre-construction on parcels 7, 8 and 3 and has capitalized construction costs of $115.7 million for parcels 7 and 8 and $35.6 million for parcel 3 as of June 30, 2009. The Company intends to commence construction after necessary government approvals are obtained, regional and global economic conditions improve, future demand warrants it and additional financing is obtained.

The impact of the delayed construction on the Company’s previously estimated cost to complete its Cotai Strip developments is currently not determinable with certainty. As of June 30, 2009, the Company has capitalized an aggregate of $5.47 billion in costs for its Cotai Strip developments, including The Venetian Macao and Four Seasons Macao. The Company will need to arrange additional financing to fund the balance of its Cotai Strip developments and there is no assurance that the Company will be able to obtain any of the additional financing required.

 

 

The Company has received a land concession from the Macau government to build on parcels 1, 2 and 3, including the sites on which The Venetian Macao (parcel 1) and Four Seasons Macao (parcel 2) are located. The Company does not own these land sites in Macau; however, the land concession, which has an initial term of 25 years and is renewable at the Company’s option in accordance with Macau law, grants the Company exclusive use of the land. As specified in the land concession, the Company is required to pay premiums for each parcel, which are either payable in a single lump sum upon acceptance of the land concession by the Macau government or in eight semi-annual installments (provided that the outstanding balance is due upon the completion of the corresponding integrated resort), as well as annual rent for the term of the land concession. In October 2008, the Macau government amended the Company’s land concession to allow the Company to subdivide the parcel into four separate units under Macau’s horizontal property regime, consisting of retail, hotel/casino, Four Seasons Apartments and parking areas.

The Company does not yet have all of the necessary Macau government approvals to develop its planned Cotai Strip developments on parcels 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8. The Company has received a land concession for parcel 3, as previously noted, but has yet to be granted land concessions for parcels 5, 6, 7 and 8. The Company is in the process of negotiating with the Macau government to obtain the land concession for parcels 5 and 6, and will subsequently negotiate the land concession for parcels 7 and 8. Based on historical experience with the Macau government with respect to the Company’s land concessions for the Sands Macao and parcels 1, 2 and 3, management believes that the land concessions for parcels 5, 6, 7 and 8 will be granted; however, if the Company does not obtain these land concessions, the Company could forfeit all or a substantial part of its $1.83 billion in capitalized costs, as of June 30, 2009, related to its developments on parcels 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Under the Company’s land concession for parcels 1, 2 and 3, the Company is required to complete the development of parcel 3 by August 2011. The Company believes that if it is not able to complete the development of parcel 3 by the deadline, it will be able to obtain an extension from the Macau government; however, no assurances can be given that an extension will be granted. If the Company is unable to meet the August 2011 deadline and that deadline is not extended or the portion of the land concession related to parcel 3 is not separated from parcels 1 and 2, it could lose its land concession for parcels 1, 2 and 3, which would prohibit the Company from continuing to operate The Venetian Macao, Four Seasons Macao or any other facilities developed under the land concession. As a result, the Company could forfeit all or a substantial portion of its $3.64 billion in capitalized costs, as of June 30, 2009, related to its developments on parcels 1, 2 and 3.

 

The Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Marina Bay Sands Pte. Ltd. (“MBS”), entered into a development agreement (the “Development Agreement”) with the Singapore Tourism Board (the “STB”) to build and operate an integrated resort called Marina Bay Sands in Singapore. Marina Bay Sands is expected to include three 55-story hotel towers (totaling approximately 2,600 rooms and suites), a casino, an enclosed retail, dining and entertainment complex of approximately 800,000 net leasable square feet, a convention center and meeting room complex of approximately 1.3 million square feet, theaters and a landmark iconic structure at the bay-front promenade that will contain an art/science museum. The Company is continuing to finalize various design aspects of the integrated resort and is in the process of finalizing cost estimates for the project. As of June 30, 2009, the Company has capitalized 4.28 billion Singapore dollars (“SGD,” approximately $2.94 billion at exchange rates in effect on June 30, 2009) in costs for this project, including the land premium and SGD 541.9 million (approximately $372.6 million at exchange rates in effect on June 30, 2009) in outstanding construction payables. The Company expects to spend approximately SGD 4.1 billion (approximately $2.8 billion at exchange rates in effect on June 30, 2009) through 2011 on additional costs to complete the construction of the integrated resort, FF&E, pre-opening and other costs, and to pay outstanding construction payables, as noted above; approximately SGD 1.7 billion (approximately $1.1 billion at exchange rates in effect on June 30, 2009) is expected to be spent in 2009. As the Company has obtained Singapore-denominated financing and primarily pays its costs in Singapore dollars,

 

 

its exposure to foreign exchange gains and losses is expected to be minimal. Based on its current development plan, the Company is targeting to open a majority of the project in the first quarter of 2010.

 

The Company has entered into a non-binding letter of intent with the Zhuhai Municipal People’s Government of China to work together to create a master plan for, and develop, a leisure and convention destination resort on Hengqin Island, which is located within mainland China, approximately one mile from the Cotai Strip. In January 2007, the Company was informed that the Zhuhai Government established a Project Coordination Committee to act as a government liaison empowered to work directly with the Company to advance the development of the project. Under the revised development plan, the Company has suspended the project indefinitely.

 

When the current economic environment and access to capital improve, the Company may continue exploring the possibility of developing and operating additional properties, including integrated resorts, in additional Asian and U.S. jurisdictions, and in Europe.

 

Through June 30, 2009, the Company has funded its development projects primarily through borrowings under its U.S., Macau and Singapore credit facilities, operating cash flows, proceeds from the Company’s recent equity offerings and proceeds from the disposition of non-core assets.

The U.S. credit facility and FF&E facility require the Company’s Las Vegas operations to comply with certain financial covenants at the end of each quarter, including maintaining a maximum leverage ratio of net debt, as defined, to trailing twelve-month adjusted earnings before interest, income taxes, depreciation and amortization, as defined (“Adjusted EBITDA”). The maximum leverage ratio is 7.0x for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009, decreases to 6.5x for the quarterly periods ending September 30 and December 31, 2009, and decreases by 0.5x every subsequent two quarterly periods until it decreases to, and remains at, 5.0x for all quarterly periods thereafter through maturity (commencing with the quarterly period ending March 31, 2011). The Macau credit facility requires the Company’s Macau operations to comply with similar financial covenants, including maintaining a maximum leverage ratio of debt to Adjusted EBITDA. The maximum leverage ratio is 4.0x for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009, decreases to 3.5x for the quarterly periods ending September 30 and December 31, 2009, and then decreases to, and remains at, 3.0x for all quarterly periods thereafter through maturity. If the Company is unable to maintain compliance with the financial covenants under these credit facilities, the Company would be in default under the respective credit facilities. A default under the domestic credit facilities would trigger a cross-default under the Company’s airplane financings, which, if the respective lenders chose to accelerate the indebtedness outstanding under these agreements, would result in a default under the Company’s senior notes. A default under the Macau credit facility would trigger a cross-default under the Company’s ferry financing. Any defaults or cross-defaults under these agreements would allow the lenders, in each case, to exercise their rights and remedies as defined under their respective agreements. If the lenders were to exercise their rights to accelerate the due dates of the indebtedness outstanding, there can be no assurance that the Company would be able to repay or refinance any amounts that may become accelerated under such agreements, which could force the Company to restructure or alter its operations or debt obligations.

The Company completed a $475.0 million convertible senior notes offering and a $2.1 billion common and preferred stock and warrants offering in 2008. A portion of the proceeds from these offerings was used domestically to exercise the EBITDAtrue-upprovision (as defined below) during the quarterly periods ended September 30, 2008 and March 31, 2009, and additional proceeds were contributed to Las Vegas Sands, LLC (“LVSLLC”) to reduce its net debt in order to maintain compliance with the maximum leverage ratio for the quarterly periods ended March 31 and June 30, 2009. An additional portion of the proceeds was used in Macau to exercise the EBITDAtrue-upprovision during the quarterly periods ended December 31, 2008 and June 30, 2009, and cash on hand was used to

 

 

pay down $125.0 million of indebtedness under the Macau credit facility during the six months ended June 30, 2009, in order to maintain compliance with the maximum leverage ratio for the quarterly periods ended March 31 and June 30, 2009.

In order to fund the Company’s revised development plan as discussed above and comply with the maximum leverage ratio covenants of its U.S. and Macau credit facilities for the remaining quarterly periods in 2009 and beyond, the Company will utilize cash on hand, cash flow from operations and available borrowings under its credit facilities. The Company will also need to execute some, or a combination, of the following measures: (i) achieve increased levels of Adjusted EBITDA at its Las Vegas and Macau properties, primarily through aggressive cost-cutting measures and implementation of efficiency initiatives; (ii) obtain an amendment under the Macau credit facility, which would include, among other things, increasing the maximum leverage ratio for each quarterly period through the end of 2010, (iii) obtain additional debtand/orequity financing through the sale of a minority interest in certain of the Company’s Macau assets, the latter of which would require consent from regulating authorities and lenders under the Macau credit facility; (iv) elect to contribute up to $50 million and $20 million of cash on hand to the Las Vegas and Macau operations, respectively, on a bi-quarterly basis (such contributions having the effect of increasing Adjusted EBITDA by the corresponding amount during the applicable quarter for purposes of calculating compliance with the maximum leverage ratio (the “EBITDAtrue-up”));or (v) execute a debt reduction plan. If the aforementioned measures are not sufficient to fund the Company’s revised development plan and maintain compliance with its financial covenants, the Company may also need to execute some, or a combination, of the following measures: (i) further decrease the rate of spending on its global development projects; (ii) obtain additional financing at the parent company or Macau level, the proceeds of which could be used to reduce or repay debt in Las Vegasand/orMacau; (iii) successfully complete the sale of certain non-core assets (e.g. the malls at The Venetian Macao and Four Seasons Macao or shares related to the Four Seasons Apartments), a portion of the proceeds of which would be used to repay debt in Macau; (iv) elect to delay payment of dividends on its preferred stock; or (v) seek a waiver or amendment under the U.S. credit facility; however, there can be no assurance that the Company will be able to obtain such waiver or amendment. Management believes that successful execution of some combination of the above measures will be sufficient for the Company to fund its commitments and maintain compliance with its financial covenants.

The Company is currently seeking an amendment to its Macau credit facility to, among other things, obtain the necessary approvals to allow for a potential sale of a minority interest in certain of the Company’s Macau assets and modify certain financial covenants and definitions, as noted above. Management expects to complete the amendment process prior to September 30, 2009; however, there can be no assurance that the Company will be able to obtain terms favorable to the Company or at all.

 

In September 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements,” which defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. SFAS No. 157 applies under other accounting pronouncements that require or permit fair value measurement; however, it does not require any new fair value measurements. The provisions of SFAS No. 157 are effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007, and interim periods within those fiscal years. In January 2008, the FASB deferred the effective date for one year for certain non-financial assets and non-financial liabilities, except those that are recognized or disclosed at fair value in the financial statements on a recurring basis (at least annually). The adoption of SFAS No. 157 did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. See “— Note 7 — Fair Value Measurements” for disclosures required by this standard.

In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 141R, “Business Combinations,” which requires an acquirer to recognize the identifiable assets acquired, the liabilities assumed, any noncontrolling interest in the acquiree at the acquisition date, to be measured at their fair values as of that date, with limited exceptions specified in the statement. SFAS No. 141R applies prospectively to business combinations for which the acquisition date is on or after the

 

 

beginning of an entity’s fiscal year that begins after December 15, 2008. The adoption of SFAS No. 141R did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 160, “Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements — An Amendment of ARB No. 51,” which establishes accounting and reporting standards for the noncontrolling interest in a subsidiary and for the deconsolidation of a subsidiary. Specifically, this statement requires the recognition of a noncontrolling interest (previously referred to as minority interest) as equity in the consolidated financial statements and separate from the parent’s equity. The amount of net income attributable to the noncontrolling interest is included in consolidated net income on the face of the income statement. SFAS No. 160 clarifies that changes in a parent’s ownership interest in a subsidiary that do not result in deconsolidation are equity transactions if the parent retains its controlling financial interest. In addition, this statement requires that a parent recognize a gain or loss in net income when a subsidiary is deconsolidated and requires expanded disclosures regarding the interests of the parent and the interests of the noncontrolling owners. SFAS No. 160 is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning on or after December 15, 2008. As required by this standard, the prior period noncontrolling interest amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current period presentation; however, such amounts have not changed.

In March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 161, “Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,” which requires enhanced disclosures about an entity’s derivative and hedging activities, thereby improving the transparency of financial reporting. The objective of the guidance is to provide users of financial statements with: an enhanced understanding of how and why an entity uses derivative instruments; how derivative instruments and related hedged items are accounted for; and how derivative instruments and related hedged items affect an entity’s financial position, financial performance and cash flows. SFAS No. 161 also requires several additional quantitative disclosures in the financial statements. SFAS No. 161 is effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2008. The adoption of SFAS No. 161 did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

In April 2008, the FASB issued Staff Position (“FSP”)No. FAS 142-3,“Determination of the Useful Life of Intangible Assets,” which amends the factors that should be considered in developing renewal or extension assumptions used to determine the useful life of a recognized intangible asset under SFAS No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets.” The intent of this FSP is to improve the consistency between the useful life of a recognized intangible asset under SFAS No. 142 and the period of expected cash flows used to measure the fair value of the asset under SFAS No. 141R. FSPNo. 142-3is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning on or after December 15, 2008. The adoption of FSPNo. 142-3did not have an effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

In April 2009, the FASB issued FSPNo. FAS 107-1and APB28-1,“Interim Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments,” which requires quarterly disclosures of the fair value of all financial instruments that are not reflected at fair value in the financial statements, as well as additional disclosures about the method(s) and significant assumptions used to estimate the fair value. Prior to the issuance of this FSP, such disclosures, including quantitative and qualitative information about fair value estimates, were only required on an annual basis. FSPNo. FAS 107-1and APB 28-1is effective for interim reporting periods ending after June 15, 2009. The adoption of FSPNo. FAS 107-1and APB 28-1did not have a material effect on the Company’s disclosures. See “— Note 3 — Long-Term Debt” for disclosures required by this FSP.

In May 2009, the FASB issued SFAS No. 165, “Subsequent Events,” which establishes general standards of accounting for and disclosure of events that occur after the balance sheet date but before financial statements are issued or are available to be issued. SFAS No. 165 is effective for interim reporting periods ending after June 15, 2009. The adoption of SFAS No. 165 did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition, result of operations or cash flows. See “— Overview” for disclosures required by this standard.

 

 

In June 2009, the FASB issued SFAS No. 167, “Amendments to FASB Interpretation No. 46(R),” which changes the approach to determining the primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity (“VIE”) and requires companies to more frequently assess whether they must consolidate VIEs. SFAS 167 is effective for annual periods beginning after November 15, 2009. The Company does not expect the adoption of SFAS No. 167 will have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

 

Property and equipment consists of the following (in thousands):

Construction in progress consists of the following (in thousands):

As of June 30, 2009, the Company has received proceeds of $295.4 million from the sale of The Shoppes at The Palazzo; however, the final purchase price will be determined in accordance with the agreement (the “Agreement”) between Venetian Casino Resort, LLC (“VCR”) and GGP based on net operating income (“NOI”) of The Shoppes at The Palazzo calculated 30 months after the closing date of the sale, as defined under the Agreement and subject to certain later audit adjustments. In April 2009, GGP and its subsidiary that owns The Shoppes at The Palazzo filed voluntary petitions under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (the “Chapter 11 Cases”). Additionally, given the economic and market conditions facing retailers on a national and local level, tenants are facing economic challenges that have effected, and may effect in the future, the calculation of NOI. During the three months ended June 30, 2009, the Company learned that one tenant filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and another tenant has delayed its construction plans, creating a question as to whether the rent of the latter tenant will be included in the NOI calculation. As these tenants leased significant space in The Shoppes at The Palazzo, management adjusted its projection of the ultimate proceeds that the Company will receive to an amount that is below the costs incurred to construct and develop The Shoppes at The Palazzo. Based upon current estimates of NOI and capitalization rates, the Company has recognized an impairment loss of $94.0 million during the three months ended June 30, 2009. Approximately $294.6 million of property and equipment (including $149.1 million of construction in

 

 

progress and net of $14.5 million of accumulated depreciation), which was sold to GGP, is included in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2009. The Company will continue to review the Chapter 11 Cases and the projected financial performance of the tenants to be included in the NOI calculation, and will adjust the estimates of NOI and capitalization rates as additional information is received. The Company may be required to record further impairment charges in the future depending on changes in the projections.

The $210.1 million in other construction in progress consists primarily of the construction of the St. Regis Residences and other projects in Las Vegas and at The Venetian Macao. During the three months ended June 30, 2009, the Company recognized an impairment loss of $57.2 million on capitalized costs, which were included in other construction in progress, related to a planned expansion of the Sands Expo Center for which the Company recently decided to suspend such project indefinitely.

The cost of property and equipment that the Company is leasing to tenants as part of its Macau mall operations as of June 30, 2009, was $382.8 million with accumulated depreciation of $36.0 million.

During the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, and the three and six months ended June 30, 2008, the Company capitalized interest expense of $14.1 million, $28.2 million, $31.6 million and $62.2 million, respectively.

As described in “— Note 1 — Organization and Business of Company — Development Projects,” the Company revised its development plan to suspend portions of its development projects given the conditions in the capital markets and the global economy and their impact on the Company’s ongoing operations. If circumstances change, the Company may be required to record impairment charges related to these developments in the future.

 

Long-term debt consists of the following (in thousands):

 

 

As of June 30, 2009, the Company had $104.3 million of available borrowing capacity under the U.S. credit facility, net of outstanding letters of credit and undrawn amounts committed to be funded by Lehman Brothers Commercial Paper Inc.

On April 15, 2009, the Company amended its U.S. credit facility to allow the Company to repurchase up to $800.0 million in aggregate stated principal amount of term loans (which include the term B and delayed draws I and II) on or prior to September 30, 2010. The amendment provides that any term loans purchased by the Company shall be immediately forgiven and cancelled.

As of June 30, 2009, the Company had $123.1 million of available borrowing capacity under the Macau credit facility, net of undrawn amounts committed to be funded by Lehman Brothers Commercial Paper Inc.

As noted above, the Company is currently seeking an amendment to its Macau credit facility to, among other things, obtain the necessary approvals to allow for a potential sale of a minority interest in certain of the Company’s Macau assets and modify certain financial covenants and definitions, including increasing the maximum leverage ratio for the quarterly periods through the end of 2010.

 

As of June 30, 2009, the Company had SGD 1.90 billion (approximately $1.30 billion at exchange rates in effect on June 30, 2009) of available borrowing capacity under the Singapore permanent facilities, net of outstanding banker’s guarantees and undrawn amounts committed to be funded by Lehman Brothers Finance Asia Pte. Ltd.

 

Cash flows from financing activities related to long-term debt are as follows (in thousands):

 

The estimated fair value of the Company’s long-term debt at June 30, 2009, was approximately $8.74 billion, compared to its carrying value of $10.78 billion. At December 31, 2008, the estimated fair value of the Company’s long-term debt was approximately $6.31 billion, compared to its carrying value of $10.47 billion. The estimated fair value of the Company’s long-term debt is based on quoted market prices, if available, or by pricing models based on the value of related cash flows discounted at current market interest rates.

 

Preferred stock dividend activity for 2009 is as follows (in thousands):

During the six months ended June 30, 2009, holders of the preferred stock exercised 1,106,301 warrants to purchase an aggregate of 18,438,384 shares of the Company’s common stock at $6.00 per share and tendered 1,106,301 shares of preferred stock as settlement of the warrant exercise price. Subsequent to June 30, and through August 7, 2009, the date the condensed consolidated financial statements were issued, no additional warrants were exercised.

During the three months ended March 31, 2009, the Company incorrectly included $6.8 million of preferred stock dividends in its computation of net loss attributable to common stockholders, which overstated the Company’s basic and diluted loss per share by $0.02, but had no effect on total assets, liabilities, stockholders’ equity, net loss or cash flows. These dividends had been included previously in the determination of diluted loss per share for the year ended December 31, 2008. Because the amount involved is not material to the Company’s financial statements, the Company will correct the amounts for the three months ended March 31, 2009, when it discloses the amounts as a comparable period in future filings.

 

During the six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company paid approximately $13,000 in personal payroll taxes on behalf of one of its executive officers related to certain vested restricted stock and in return, the Company received 2,253 shares of its common stock as settlement for the liability.

 

At June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, the accumulated other comprehensive income balance, included in equity, consisted solely of foreign currency translation adjustments. Comprehensive income (loss) includes net loss and all other non-stockholder changes in equity. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, comprehensive loss amounted to $160.0 million and $216.9 million, respectively, of which $157.7 million and $213.3 million, respectively, was attributable to Las Vegas Sands Corp. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2008, comprehensive income (loss) amounted to ($2.3) million and $11.0 million, respectively, of which ($6.5) million and $6.8 million, respectively was attributable to Las Vegas Sands Corp.

 

The Company’s Principal Stockholder provides an airplane to an executive of the Company for his personal use as a condition of his employment with the Company. The cost of providing this airplane for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, was $0.2 million, which has been recorded as a non-cash equity contribution to the Company and is included in corporate expense.

 

The weighted average number of common and common equivalent shares used in the calculation of basic and diluted loss per share consisted of the following:

 

The Company’s major tax jurisdictions are the U.S., Macau and Singapore. In the U.S., the Company is under examination for years after 2004. In Macau and Singapore, the Company is subject to examination for years after 2003.

The Company received a five-year tax exemption in Macau that exempts the Company from paying corporate income tax on profits generated by gaming operations. The Company will continue to benefit from this tax exemption through the end of 2013.

Effective January 1, 2007, the Company adopted the provisions of FASB Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes — an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109.” As of June 30, 2009, the balance of unrecognized tax benefits was $53.5 million, an increase of $21.2 million as compared to $32.3 million as of December 31, 2008. Of the increase, unrecognized tax benefits of $16.7 million were for tax positions taken in prior periods of which $5.6 million would affect the effective tax rate, if recognized. The Company does not expect a significant increase or decrease in unrecognized tax benefits over the next twelve months.

 

 

Stock-based compensation activity is as follows (in thousands, except weighted average grant date fair values):

The fair value of each option grant was estimated on the grant date using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model with the following weighted average assumptions:

 

Under SFAS No. 157, fair value is defined as the exit price, or the amount that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants as of the measurement date. SFAS No. 157 also establishes a valuation hierarchy for inputs in measuring fair value that maximizes the use of observable inputs (inputs market participants would use based on market data obtained from sources independent of the Company) and minimizes the use of unobservable inputs (inputs that reflect the Company’s assumptions based upon the best information available in the circumstances) by requiring that the most observable inputs be used when available. Level 1 inputs are quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. Level 2 inputs are quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active, and inputs (other than quoted prices) that are observable for the assets or liabilities, either directly or indirectly. Level 3 inputs are unobservable inputs for the assets or liabilities. Categorization within the hierarchy is based upon the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement.

 

The following table provides the assets carried at fair value measured on a recurring basis (in thousands):

 

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. 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 or cash flows.

 

Lido Casino Resort, LLC (“Lido”), formerly a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company and now merged into VCR, and its construction manager, Taylor International Corp. (“Taylor”), on one side, and Malcolm Drilling Company, Inc. (“Malcolm”), the contractor on The Palazzo project responsible for completing certain foundation work, filed claims against each other in an action filed in 2006 in Clark County District Court. On April 24, 2009, the Company reached a settlement of this matter with Malcolm for approximately $10.6 million, which was paid in May 2009. Of the $10.6 million, $9.9 million has been capitalized as building-related construction costs and $0.7 million has been recorded as interest expense as of and for the six months ended June 30, 2009. The Company does not expect to incur any further charges in connection with this matter.

 

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 as 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 has begun the appeals process, including its filings on July 15, 2008, with the trial court of a motion for judgment as a matter of law or in the alternative, a new trial and a motion to strike, alterand/or amend the judgment. The grounds for these motions include (i) insufficient evidence that Richard Suen conferred a benefit on LVSI, (ii) the improper admission of testimony, (iii) the court’s refusal to give jury instructions that the law presumes that government officials have performed their duties regularly, and that the law has been obeyed, and (iv) jury instructions that improperly permitted the plaintiff to recover for the services of others. These motions were heard by the trial court on December 8, 2008, and were denied. The Company intends to continue to vigorously pursue available appeals up to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Company believes that it has

 

valid bases in law and fact to overturn or appeal the verdict. As a result, the Company believes that the likelihood that the amount of the judgment will be affirmed is not probable, and, accordingly, that the amount of any loss cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Because the Company believes that this potential loss is not probable or estimable, it has not recorded any reserves or contingencies related to this legal matter. In the event that the Company’s assumptions used to evaluate this matter as neither probable nor estimable change in future periods, it will be required to record a liability for an adverse outcome.

On January 26, 2006, Clive Basset Jones, Darryl Steven Turok (a/k/a Dax Turok) and Cheong Jose Vai Chi(a/k/a Cliff Cheong), filed an action against LVSC, LVSLLC, Venetian Venture Development, LLC (“Venetian Venture Development”) and various unspecified individuals and companies in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada. The plaintiffs assert breach of an agreement to pay a success fee in an amount equal to 5% of the ownership interest in the entity that owns and operates the Macau gaming subconcession as well as other related claims. On June 3, 2009, the Company reached a settlement of this matter for $42.5 million, of which $12.5 million has been paid and the remaining $30.0 million is due in March 2010. The charge has been recorded in corporate expense during the three months ended June 30, 2009. The Company does not expect to incur any further charges in connection with this matter.

On February 5, 2007, Asian American Entertainment Corporation, Limited (“AAEC”) filed an action against LVSI, VCR, 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. It is difficult to discern any claim during that period from the face of their complaint; however, management believes that the plaintiff’s case against the Company is without merit. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously.

On January 2, 2008, Hong Kong ferry operator Norte Oeste Expresso Ltd. (“Northwest Express”) filed an action against the Chief Executive of the Macau Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, with the Company’s indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, Cotai Waterjets (Macau) Limited (“Cotai Waterjets”), as an interested party, challenging the award of a ferry concession to Cotai Waterjets to operate a ferry service between Hong Kong and Macau. The basis of the legal challenge is that under Macau law, all concessions related to the provision of a public service must be awarded through a public tender process. On February 19, 2009, the Court of Second Instance in Macau held that it was unlawful for the Macau government to have granted the ferry concession to Cotai Waterjets without engaging in a public tender process, and that the ferry concession award to Cotai Waterjets was void. The Company relied on the advice of counsel in obtaining the ferry concession and believes that it has complied with all applicable laws, procedures and Macau practice. The Company believes that all concessions to operate ferries to and from Macau were awarded in the same fashion as the concession awarded to Cotai Waterjets. The Company and the Macau government have appealed the decision to the Court of Final Appeal in Macau. The Company will cooperate with the Macau government during the appeal period to resolve this matter. The Company expects to continue to operate its ferry service until a decision on the appeal is rendered or the matter is otherwise resolved. If the decision is upheld by the Court of Final Appeal, the Cotai Waterjets ferry concession may be void, absent other action by the Macau government. If the Company is unable to continue to operate its ferry service, it will need to develop alternative means of transporting visitors to its Cotai Strip properties. If the Company

 

is unable to do so, a resulting significant loss of visitors to its Cotai Strip properties and any potential impairment charges could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

 

On November 26, 2008, January 16, 2009 and February 6, 2009, various plaintiffs filed shareholder derivative actions on behalf of the Company in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, against Sheldon G. Adelson, Irwin Chafetz, Charles D. Forman, George P. Koo, Michael A. Leven, James L. Purcell, Irwin A. Siegel, William P. Weidner and Andrew Heyer, all of whom were current or former members of the Board of Directors at the time the suits were filed. The complaints all alleged, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with (i) the Company’s ongoing construction and development projects and (ii) the Company’s securing debt and equity financing during 2008.

The parties in all three actions stipulated to the entry of an order consolidating their cases into a single proceeding now styled In re Las Vegas Sands Corp. Derivative Litigation. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on March 20, 2009, against the same defendants noted above. The substantive allegations of such complaint are similar to those of the original complaints. A motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint was filed on April 17, 2009. This motion, and any responses and replies thereto that may be filed, are expected to be argued on August 27, 2009. As the Company is only a nominal defendant in this litigation, management believes the likelihood of a material loss, if any, to the Company is remote.

 

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. The Company is fully cooperating with these pending inquiries. The Company does not believe that the resolution of these pending inquiries will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

 

The Company entered into the Development Agreement with the STB, which requires the Company to construct and operate the Marina Bay Sands in accordance with the Company’s originally submitted proposal for the integrated resort and in accordance with the agreement. The Company is continuing to finalize various design aspects of the integrated resort and is in the process of finalizing its cost estimates for the project. The Company entered into the SGD 5.44 billion (approximately $3.74 billion at exchange rates in effect on June 30, 2009) Singapore permanent facility agreement to fund a significant portion of the construction, operating and other development costs of the Marina Bay Sands.

 

The Company has entered into agreements with Starwood and Shangri-La to manage hotels and serviced luxury apartment hotel units on the Company’s Cotai Strip parcels 5 and 6, and for Starwood to brand the Company’s Las Vegas condominium project (the St. Regis Residences) in connection with the sales and marketing of these condominium units. Due to the suspension of the Company’s projects in Macau and Las Vegas, the Company is negotiating amendments to its agreements with Starwood, which it expects to be finalized in 2009. If negotiations are unsuccessful or if the Company does not obtain a similar amendment to its agreement withShangri-La,certain past and/or anticipated delays may permit these hotel management companies to terminate their agreements with the Company, which would result in the Company having to find new managers and brands for the above-described projects. Such measures could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial

 

condition, results of operations and cash flows, including requiring the Company to write-off its $20.0 million investment related to the St. Regis Residences.

 

The Company’s principal operating and developmental activities occur in three geographic areas: United States, Macau and Singapore. The Company reviews the results of operations for each of its key operating segments: The Venetian Las Vegas, which includes the Sands Expo Center; The Palazzo; Sands Bethlehem; Sands Macao; The Venetian Macao; Four Seasons Macao; and Other Asia (comprised primarily of the Company’s ferry operations). The Company also reviews construction and development activities for each of its primary projects: The Venetian Las Vegas; The Palazzo; Sands Bethlehem; Sands Macao; The Venetian Macao; Four Seasons Macao; Other Asia (comprised of the ferry operations and various other operations that are ancillary to the Company’s properties in Macau); Marina Bay Sands in Singapore; Other Development Projects (on Cotai Strip parcels 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8); and Corporate and Other (comprised primarily of airplanes and the St. Regis Residences). The Venetian Las Vegas and The Palazzo operating segments are managed as a single integrated resort and have been aggregated as one reportable segment (the “Las Vegas Operating Properties”), considering their similar economic characteristics, types of customers, types of service and products, the regulatory business environment of the operations within each segment and the Company’s organizational and management reporting structure. The information as of December 31, 2008, and for the six months ended June 30, 2008, has been reclassified to conform to the current presentation. The Company’s segment information is as follows as of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, and for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 (in thousands):