| 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. 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. 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 $5.0 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 $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 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 $70.0 million . On May 28, 2013, a judgment was entered in the matter in the amount of $101.6 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 $1.0 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 their answering brief. On January 12, 2015, the defendants filed their reply brief. On January 27, 2015, Roundsquare filed their 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. No ruling date on Roundsquare's petition for a rehearing has been set, nor is one estimable. The Company believes that the Nevada Supreme Court had valid bases in law and fact to reverse the damages award. As a result, the Company believes that the likelihood that the amount of the original judgments 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 may be required to record a liability for an adverse outcome. 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 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. On March 16, 2011, an amended complaint was filed, which added Sheldon G. Adelson as a defendant and alleged a claim of defamation per se against him, LVSC and SCL. On June 9, 2011, the District Court dismissed the defamation claim and certified the decision as to Sheldon G. Adelson as a final judgment. On July 1, 2011, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal regarding the final judgment as to Sheldon G. Adelson. On August 26, 2011, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus instructing the District Court to hold an evidentiary hearing on whether personal jurisdiction exists over SCL and stayed the case until after the District Court’s decision. On January 17, 2012, plaintiff filed his opening brief with the Nevada Supreme Court regarding his appeal of the defamation claim against Mr. Adelson. On January 30, 2012, Mr. Adelson filed his reply to plaintiff's opening brief. On March 8, 2012, the District Court set a hearing date for the week of June 25-29, 2012, for the evidentiary hearing on personal jurisdiction over SCL. On May 24, 2012, the District Court vacated the hearing date previously set for June 25-29 and set a status conference for June 28, 2012. At the June 28 status hearing, the District Court set out a hearing schedule to resolve a discovery dispute and did not reset a date for the jurisdictional hearing. From September 10 to September 12, 2012, the District Court held a hearing to determine the outcome of certain discovery disputes and issued an order on September 14, 2012. In its order, the District Court fined LVSC $25,000 and, for the purposes of the jurisdictional discovery and evidentiary hearing, precluded the defendants from relying on the Macao Data Privacy Act as an objection or defense under its discovery obligations. On December 21, 2012, the District Court ordered the defendants to produce documents from a former counsel to LVSC containing attorney client privileged information. On January 23, 2013, the defendants filed a writ with the Nevada Supreme Court challenging this order (the “January Writ”). On January 29, 2013, the District Court granted defendants' motion for a stay of the order. On February 15, 2013, the Nevada Supreme Court ordered the plaintiff to answer the January Writ. On February 28, 2013, the District Court ordered a hearing on plaintiff’s request for sanctions and additional discovery (the “February 28 th Order”). On April 8, 2013, the defendants filed a writ with the Nevada Supreme Court challenging the February 28 th Order (the “April Writ”); and the Nevada Supreme Court ordered the plaintiff to answer the April Writ by May 20, 2013. The defendants also filed and were granted a stay of the February 28 th Order by the District Court until such time as the Nevada Supreme Court decided the April Writ. On June 18, 2013, the District Court scheduled the jurisdictional hearing for July 16-22, 2013 and issued an order allowing the plaintiff access to privileged communications of counsel to the Company (the “June 18 th Order”). On June 21, 2013, the Company filed another writ with the Nevada Supreme Court challenging the June 18 th Order (the “June Writ”). The Nevada Supreme Court accepted the June Writ on June 28, 2013, and issued a stay of the June 18 th Order. On June 28, 2013, the District Court vacated the jurisdictional hearing. On July 3, 2013, the Company filed a motion with the Nevada Supreme Court to consolidate the pending writs, each of which had been fully briefed to the Nevada Supreme Court on or before August 30, 2013. On October 9, 2013, the Nevada Supreme Court heard arguments on the January Writ and plaintiff’s appeal of the District Court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s defamation claim against Mr. Adelson. On January 29, 2014, the defendants filed Supplemental Authority and a Motion to Recall Mandate with the Nevada Supreme Court to (i) inform the Nevada Supreme Court of a recently decided U.S. Supreme Court case involving similar jurisdictional issues to this matter and (ii) given this new precedent, to review anew its August 26, 2011, writ of mandamus to the District Court, respectively. On February 27, 2014, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Company on the January Writ, which became effective on March 24, 2014. On March 3, 2014, the Nevada Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the April and June Writs. On May 30, 2014, the Nevada Supreme Court overturned the District Court’s dismissal of Mr. Jacob’s defamation claim against Mr. Adelson and remanded the claim for further determination. On June 17, 2014, Mr. Adelson filed a petition for rehearing with the Nevada Supreme Court and, on June 20, 2014, the Nevada Supreme Court ordered Mr. Jacobs to answer the petition for rehearing, which he did on July 7, 2014. On June 26, 2014, SCL filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to jurisdiction with the District Court, which was denied on July 29, 2014. On June 30, 2014, Mr. Jacobs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The defendants filed a notice of intent to oppose the motion for leave to file the second amended complaint. On July 1, 2014, Mr. Jacobs filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal of the defamation claim. On July 3, 2014, Mr. Adelson filed a notice of intent to oppose the motion to reconsider and requested oral argument. Also on July 3, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to continue the stay of the District Court’s March 26, 2013, order compelling the production of documents from Macao and a notice of intent to oppose plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the dismissal of his defamation claim against LVSC and SCL. On July 22, 2014, the defendants filed a motion for leave to file a reply in support of their petition for rehearing on the defamation claim with the Nevada Supreme Court. On July 22, 2014, SCL filed its reply in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on jurisdiction and opposition to plaintiff’s counter Motion for Summary Judgment. On July 25, 2014, the Nevada Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion for leave to file a reply. On July 29, 2014, the Nevada Supreme Court heard the Motions for Summary Judgment and denied them both. On August 7, 2014, the Nevada Supreme Court denied the writ challenging the District Court’s order on plaintiff’s March 26, 2013, Renewed Motion for Sanctions. On August 7, 2014, the Nevada Supreme Court granted in part defendants’ writ with respect to the District Court’s June 19, 2013, order requiring the production of privileged material. On August 7, 2014, the Nevada Supreme Court also denied rehearing on its reversal of the dismissal of the defamation claim by a vote of 4-3. On August 13, 2014, the District Court ruled that plaintiff could amend his complaint except for the defamation claim against Mr. Adelson until the remittitur from the Nevada Supreme Court was received. The District Court also allowed the sanctions hearing to move forward and reviewed documents in camera to determine whether they were properly withheld on privilege grounds. On September 4, 2014, SCL filed its pre-hearing memorandum regarding the sanctions hearing regarding plaintiff’s March 26, 2013, Renewed Motion for Sanctions. On September 12, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for release of the privileged documents from the District Court appointed document custodian on the grounds of waiver. On September 16, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking to stop defendants from modifying their privilege log and seeking a waiver of all privilege claims as a result of alleged deficiencies in the original privilege. On September 26, 2014, after the Nevada Supreme Court issued its remittitur, plaintiff filed his motion for leave to file a third amended complaint against LVSC, SCL and Mr. Adelson. On September 26, 2014, the defendants filed their opposition to plaintiff’s motion for release of documents on the grounds of waiver. On October 3, 2014, the plaintiff filed his reply in support of his two waiver motions relating to the documents held by the District Court appointed custodian. On October 9, 2014, the District Court granted plaintiff's motion in part and denied the remainder. On October 10, 2014, Mr. Adelson filed his opposition to plaintiff's motion to file a third amended complaint, which SCL and LVSC joined on October 14, 2014. On October 17, 2014, SCL filed a motion to reconsider the District Court’s March 27, 2013, order concerning a discovery dispute. On October 30, 2014, the plaintiff filed his reply in support of his motion to file a third amended complaint. On November 5, 2014, the District Court ordered that SCL waived privilege on three confidential reports. On November 7, 2014, the District Court granted plaintiff's motion to file a third amended complaint. On November 7, 2014, defendants filed a motion for partial re-consideration of the November 5, 2014, order waiving privilege. On January 6, 2015, the District Court scheduled a sanctions hearing for February 9, 2015, and the evidentiary hearing on jurisdiction for April 20, 2015. On January 12, 2015, defendants each filed their motions to dismiss the third amended complaint. Defendants’ motions to dismiss the third amended complaint were fully briefed on February 19, 2015, and the District Court heard oral argument on February 27, 2015. In an order entered on March 30, 2015, the District Court denied Mr. Adelson’s motion to dismiss the defamation claim, but granted his motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiff’s wrongful discharge claim on the ground that Mr. Adelson was not the plaintiff’s employer. The District Court denied LVSC’s motion to dismiss and strike certain allegations in the complaint. The District Court reserved judgment on SCL’s motion to dismiss until after it ruled on jurisdiction. On April 7, 2015, LVSC filed a motion for reconsideration of the order on the limited ground that the District Court had erroneously stated that LVSC was in fact plaintiff’s employer rather than stating that plaintiff had alleged that he was LVSC’s employee. Plaintiff conceded that point in his response filed on April 20, 2015. A hearing was held on the motion for reconsideration on April 21, 2015. The sanctions hearing was held over six days, beginning on February 9 and ending on March 3, 2015. On March 6, 2015, the District Court issued a decision and order imposing sanctions on SCL for violating its September 14, 2012 Order, which the District Court construed as prohibiting SCL from redacting any documents produced in response to jurisdictional discovery requests to comply with the Macao Data Privacy Act. On March 6, 2015, the District Court ordered additional discovery to be provided by SCL. The District Court also ordered SCL to pay a total of $250,000 to five different law-related entities. Finally, the District Court imposed evidentiary sanctions on SCL, prohibiting it from offering any affirmative evidence at the hearing on jurisdiction scheduled to begin on April 20, 2015, and stating that it would adversely infer, subject to SCL’s ability to rebut the inference within the evidentiary constraints imposed on it, that any document redacted to comply with the Macao Data Privacy Act would support plaintiff’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over SCL and would contradict SCL’s denial. SCL sought a stay of the order from the District Court on March 13, 2015, and when that was denied, sought a stay from the Nevada Supreme Court on March 16, 2015. The Nevada Supreme Court granted a partial stay on March 17, 2015, staying SCL’s obligation to pay $250,000 and to run additional searches, but declining to stay the April 20, 2015 hearing on jurisdiction. SCL filed a petition for mandamus in the Nevada Supreme Court on March 20, 2015. Plaintiff filed his response on March 27, 2015, and SCL filed its reply on March 31, 2015. On April 2, 2015, the Nevada Supreme Court denied the mandamus petition with respect to everything but the $250,000 sanction and lifted the stay except with respect to that sanction. The jurisdictional hearing began on April 20, 2015, and concluded on May 7, 2015. On May 28, 2015, the District Court issued an order finding specific and general jurisdiction over SCL. On June 19, 2015, SCL filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking review of the decision. On June 23, 2015, the Nevada Supreme Court entered an Order Directing Answer to the jurisdictional writ petition and staying the May 28, 2015 order. Also on June 23, 2015, SCL filed a writ petition challenging the District Court's order requiring the deposition of an SCL independent board member on U.S. soil. In conjunction with the June 23 writ petition, SCL also moved to stay the scheduled deposition and plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion. The Nevada Supreme Court filed its June 23, 2015 order granting the emergency stay, accepting the writ and accepting plaintiff's opposition to the motion to stay as the answer to the June 23 petition. On June 26, 2015, defendants filed a writ petition challenging the expedited trial date and discovery schedule set by the District Court, followed by a June 29, 2015 motion to stay all proceedings pending a decision on the writ petition. Plaintiff opposed the motion to stay on June 30, 2015. On July 1, 2015, the Nevada Supreme Court entered an order consolidating the three pending writ petitions, granting in part the stay sought in conjunction with the June 26 petition, ordering briefing on that petition. The Nevada Supreme Court's July 1, 2015 order vacated the expedited trial date and the pretrial motions set by the District Court. On July 22, 2015, the plaintiff filed his answer to the writ petition challenging the expedited trial date and related pretrial deadlines, and on July 23, plaintiff answered the writ petition challenging the May 28 jurisdiction order. On September 1, 2015, the Nevada Supreme Court held a consolidated oral argument on all three pending writ petitions. On September 18, 2015, plaintiff filed, with leave of court, a Fifth Amended Complaint, adding VML as a defendant on the two breach of contract claims alleged in the complaint. The Fifth Amended Complaint alleges that LVSC entered into a term sheet with plaintiff in which it promised certain benefits in the event that plaintiff was terminated without cause. Plaintiff claims that, in connection with SCL’s initial public offering, LVSC assigned the term sheet to both SCL and VML, which (together with LVSC) allegedly assumed liability for breaches of the term sheet. In Count I of the Fifth Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleges that he was terminated without cause and that LVSC, SCL and VML breached the term sheet by not paying the severance required under those circumstances. In Count II, plaintiff claims that certain stock options in SCL purportedly awarded to him should have vested when he was terminated and seeks damages from LVSC, SCL and VML for SCL’s refusal to recognize the options. Count III is a claim for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against LVSC, SCL and VML. Count IV repeats plaintiff’s earlier claim for tortious discharge in violation of public policy and is alleged against LVSC alone. Count V repeats plaintiff’s claims for defamation per se and is alleged against Mr. Adelson, LVSC and SCL. Count VI repeats a tortious discharge in violation of public policy claim against Mr. Adelson, which the District Court previously dismissed with prejudice. On November 13, 2015, the District Court granted Mr. Adelson's motion to strike Count VI in light of its prior dismissal of that count. Count VII alleges aiding and abetting tortious discharge in violation of public policy against SCL. Count VIII alleges a conspiracy between LVSC and SCL to tortiously discharge plaintiff in violation of public policy. LVSC, SCL and Mr. Adelson have answered the Fifth Amended Complaint and LVSC has re-filed its previously filed counterclaim against plaintiff. On October 19, 2015, VML moved to quash service of the summons and on October 21, 2015, further moved to dismiss all claims against VML. VML also filed a peremptory challenge to the judge presiding over the case, causing it to be reassigned to another judge. On October 27, 2015, the new judge struck the peremptory challenge and the case was reassigned to the original judge. On November 3, 2015, VML filed a petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus in the Nevada Supreme Court challenging the decision to strike its peremptory challenge; at the same time, VML filed a motion with the Nevada Supreme Court to stay all proceedings before the original judge pending the outcome of its writ petition. On November 4, 2015, the Nevada Supreme Court granted a stay with respect to proceedings against VML only and directed plaintiff to answer the writ petition within 30 days. Instead of answering, on December 18, 2015, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed VML from the action, without prejudice and then filed a notice with the Nevada Supreme Court claiming that VML’s petition was moot. On December 30, 2015, VML filed a motion with the Nevada Supreme Court asking it to grant its writ petition or, in the alternative, to permit the dismissal of VML only if it is with prejudice. The Nevada Supreme Court dismissed VML's writ petition as moot on March 17, 2016, declining to reach the question of whether VML's dismissal should be with prejudice. On November 4, 2015, the Nevada Supreme Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the three pending writ petitions filed by SCL that were argued on September 1, 2015. The Nevada Supreme Court held that the District Court had erred in concluding that it had general and transient jurisdiction over SCL, but held that plaintiff had met his burden of making a preliminary showing of specific jurisdiction over SCL in Nevada with respect to the particular claims plaintiff had made. The Nevada Supreme Court held that defendants’ writ petition addressing the expedited trial date was moot in light of the District Court’s order vacating that date; the Nevada Supreme Court noted, however, that defendants were correct that the previous stay of proceedings tolled the five-year time period for bringing the case to trial. The Nevada Supreme Court granted SCL’s writ petition to overturn the District Court’s order compelling one of SCL’s independent directors to appear for a deposition on U.S. soil. The Nevada Supreme Court also ruled on the previously stayed $250,000 sanction, upholding the amount but requiring the payment to be reallocated on remand. Finally, the Nevada Supreme Court denied defendants’ request that the case be reassigned to a different judge. On November 17, 2015, plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing en banc in the Nevada Supreme Court, asking the Nevada Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling on the location of the deposition of SCL’s independent director. On November 24, 2015, SCL filed a petition for rehearing en banc in the Nevada Supreme Court, asking the Nevada Supreme Court to reconsider its conclusion that plaintiff had met his burden of making a preliminary showing of specific jurisdiction over SCL. On December 23, 2015, the Nevada Supreme Court issued an order requiring answers to both petitions for rehearing. Plaintiff filed his answer on January 8, 2016, and SCL filed its answer on January 22, 2016. On February 24, 2016, the Nevada Supreme Court granted plaintiff’s petition for rehearing concluding SCL is responsible for producing its director for a noticed deposition, the location of which may be determined by the District Court. On the same day, the Nevada Supreme Court denied SCL’s petition for rehearing regarding the finding of specific jurisdiction over SCL. On November 19, 2015, SCL filed its answer to plaintiffs’ Fifth Amended Complaint, denying each of plaintiff’s claims and raising a number of affirmative and other defenses. Discovery is ongoing with respect to the Company and SCL. The District Court has entered a scheduling order under which discovery will close on May 5, 2016, and the case is to be tried to a jury beginning on or after June 27, 2016. On December 18, 2015, plaintiff served a notice of the deposition of a Company executive. On December 31, 2015, counsel for the executive and defendants filed a motion for protective order. The District Court denied the motion in part and ordered the executive to appear for a deposition prior to January 12, 2016. The executive appeared for a deposition on January 11, 2016. When questions were posed during the deposition regarding the executive’s alleged communications with third parties, including the media, about media coverage of the court and the Jacobs case and about the purchase of the Las Vegas Review-Journal by members of the Adelson family, counsel for the executive instructed him not to answer. At a hearing the next day, the District Court “overruled” counsel’s instruction to the executive, but devised a procedure under which the executive’s counsel could refer objections to questions about his alleged communications with third parties, including the media, concerning the Jacobs litigation to a discovery master and/or a different judge, rather than to the presiding judge. On January 13, 2016, the executive filed a motion to expand the scope of the issues that would be referred to a discovery master to include all of the questions his counsel had instructed him not to answer, on the ground that comments the court had made to the media called into question the executive’s ability to obtain a fair and impartial hearing of his objections. On the same day, the Company filed a motion to disqualify the judge based on comments the court made to the media and during hearings related to the deposition of the executive, which raised reasonable doubts about the court’s impartiality. On January 15, 2016, the judge filed an affidavit regarding her contacts with the media involving this case and denying any bias. The motion to disqualify was set for hearing on February 18, 2016, before the Chief Judge of the District Court, but on January 29, 2016, the Chief Judge denied the motion to disqualify without providing the Company the opportunity to respond to the presiding judge’s affidavit. On February 9, 2016, the Company filed a motion requesting the Chief Judge withdraw and reconsider the order denying the Company’s motion to disqualify the presiding judge. On February 12, 2016, the presiding judge filed an additional affidavit further denying any bias toward or against defendants. On the same day, the Company filed a request for the motion for reconsideration to be heard in open court. On February 16, 2016, in support of the motion for reconsideration, the Company filed a declaration of a legal scholar confirming the presiding judge’s contacts with the media created the appearance of partiality. On February 17, 2016, from chambers, the Chief Judge denied the Company’s request for reconsideration finding the record showed no evidence of judicial bias. On February 19, 2016, plaintiff filed a reply to the Company’s counterclaim. On February 23, 2016, defendants filed a writ petition in the Nevada Supreme Court challenging the Chief Judge’s denial of the disqualification of the presiding judge. In conjunction with the writ, the defendants also filed an emergency motion to stay the proceedings in the District Court. Although the Nevada Supreme Court denied that motion, the District Court decided on March 10, 2016, not to conduct any hearings or to rule on any pending motions until the Nevada Supreme Court rules on the disqualification issue. The Nevada Supreme Court held oral arguments on defendants' writ petition on April 5, 2016. Discovery has continued and additional motions relating to discovery issues have been filed, although the District Court has not ruled on any of them. On March 8, 2016, defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiff's claim that certain stock options in SCL purportedly awarded to him should have vested when he was terminated. Plaintiff filed his opposition to that motion on April 1, 2016, and filed a countermotion for a determination that if the jury finds he was terminated without cause, then he would be entitled to prevail on his claim to the SCL options. Defendants filed their reply in support of their motion and their opposition to plaintiff's countermotion on April 19, 2016. On April 14, 2016, defendants filed a motion to continue the trial date and to extend the current discovery deadlines. Plaintiff filed his opposition to defendants' motion to continue the trial and extend discovery on May 2, 2016. On January 29, 2016, Mr. Jacobs filed a complaint against VML in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the "U.S. District Court") alleging a breach of contract claim similar to the one he had brought against VML in the District Court and then dismissed. VML filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was fully briefed on March 31, 2016. The Company intends to defend the matter vigorously. Mr. Jacobs is seeking unspecified damages against VML. 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 or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously. On February 9, 2011, LVSC received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) requesting that the Company produce documents relating to its compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”). The Company has also been advised by the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) that it is conducting a similar investigation. It is the Company’s belief that the subpoena may have emanated from the lawsuit filed by Steven C. Jacobs described above. After the Company’s receipt of the subpoena from the SEC on February 9, 2011, the Board of Directors delegated to the Audit Committee, comprised of three independent members of the Board of Directors, the authority to investigate the matters raised in the SEC subpoena and related inquiry of the DOJ. As part of the 2012 annual audit of the Company’s financial statements, the Audit Committee advised the Company and its independent accountants that it had reached certain preliminary findings, including that there were likely violations of the books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA and that in recent years, the Company has improved its practices with respect to books and records and internal controls. Based on the information provided to management by the Audit Committee and its counsel, the Company believes, and the Audit Committee concurs, that the preliminary findings: • do not have a material impact on the financial statements of the Company; • do not warrant any restatement of the Company’s past financial statements; and • do not represent a material weakness in the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting as of March 31, 2016 . On April 7, 2016, the SEC announced a comprehensive civil administrative settlement with the Company in which the Company neither admitted nor denied allegations related to the internal controls and books and records provi |
