Inside Asian Gaming

IAG JUN 2022年6月 亞博匯 11 請登錄asgam.com訂閱《亞博匯早報》 Sign up to receive IAG Breakfast Briefing at asgam.com MACAU COURT SAYS LVS-AAEC CONCESSION AGREEMENTS NON-BINDING 澳門法院判定LVS-AAEC之間協議不具約束力 THE FAILURE OF Las Vegas Sands Corp (LVS) and Asian American Entertainment Corporation (AAEC) to sign a formal agreement was a key factor in a Macau court ruling against the latter in its bid to claim up to MOP$96.5 billion (US$12.1 billion) in compensation, it has been revealed. The case relates to negotiations between the two parties in 2001 to conduct a joint bid for a Macau casino concession, which ultimately came to an end when LVS opted to partner with Galaxy Entertainment Group (GEG) instead. AAEC, headed by Taiwanese businessman Marshall Hao, had been seeking substantial compensation for alleged breach of contract. According to details of the ruling made public in early May, Macau’s Court of First Instance found that, although a letter of intent was signed by LVS and AAEC on 18 October 2001, none of the formal agreements initially conceived by the parties were ever signed. Instead, the parties had, until the relationship ended, remained in a phase of negotiation and preparation for the conclusion of various definitive agreements, and as such the letter of intent was not viewed by the court as binding. The court also found that, since efforts to conclude definitive agreements failed, the letter of intent expired on 15 January 2002. In issuing its ruling, the court said AAEC had “acted with malice in distorting the facts and seriously overestimated the amount of compensation,” and had therefore acted in bad faith. 亞美娛樂股份有限公司（A A E C） 針對威尼斯人 （澳門）股份有限公司（LVS）向初級法院提起訴訟的 官司，由開審至今歷時超過半年，最終初級法院判定亞 美娛樂敗訴，並且認為亞美娛樂構成惡意訴訟。 AAEC向澳門初級法院提起訴訟，指控LVS在2001 年底博彩特許經營權的公開招標中違反了與其訂立的聯 合競投賭牌合作意向書，轉而與銀河娛樂合作參加競投 並最終取得賭牌。 初級法院對案件作出審理並認為，雙方於2001年 10月18日簽訂了意向書，但雙方最初構想的各項最終協 議並沒有訂立，從2001年雙方開始接觸直至雙方關係中 斷為止，他們一直都處於各項最終協議的談判和預備階 段，因此該意向書並不是一份正式的合同，涉案的意向 書已於2002年1月15日自動失效。 初級法院亦認為，由於AAEC未能證明LVS於2002 年1月15日之前已與銀河娛樂接觸，亦未能證明銀河娛樂 的續後競投方案中涉及臨時設施以及擬興建的威尼斯人 度假村的內容是由其創作，因此法院認定並不存在LVS 違反意向書中具約束力的條款的情況，同時亦不存在對 任何法定義務的違反，因此判定AAEC提出違反相關義 務的損害賠償請求不可能成立。 另外，考慮到AAEC在訴訟過程中存有故意歪曲事 實和嚴重高估賠償金額的行為，初級法院認定原告構成 惡意訴訟。