LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP - Quarter Report: 2013 September (Form 10-Q)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-Q

For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2013

For the transition period from                      to                     

Commission file number 001-32373

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP.

(Exact name of registration as specified in its charter)

(702) 414-1000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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  x    No  ¨

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 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  x    No  ¨

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” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    Yes  ¨    No  x

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the Registrant’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

Table of Contents

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Table of Contents

2

Table of Contents

PART 1 FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1 — FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

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

3

Table of Contents

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

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

4

Table of Contents

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

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

5

Table of Contents

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EQUITY

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

6

Table of Contents

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

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

7

Table of Contents

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(UNAUDITED)

NOTE 1 — ORGANIZATION AND BUSINESS OF COMPANY

The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Las Vegas Sands Corp. (“LVSC”), a Nevada corporation, and its subsidiaries (collectively the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2012. The year-end balance sheet data was derived from audited financial statements, but does not include all disclosures required by accounting principles generally accepted 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 interim results reflected in the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements are not necessarily indicative of expected results for the full year. The Company’s common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “LVS.”

The shares of the Company’s subsidiary, Sands China Ltd. (“SCL,” the indirect owner and operator of the majority of the Company’s operations in the Macao Special Administrative Region (“Macao”) of the People’s Republic of China) are listed on The Main Board of The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (“SEHK”) and are not, and will not, be registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and may not be offered or sold in the U.S. absent a registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or an applicable exception from such registration requirements.

Operations

Macao

The Company currently owns 70.2% of SCL, which includes the operations of The Venetian Macao, Sands Cotai Central, Four Seasons Macao, Sands Macao and other ancillary operations that support these properties, as further discussed below. The Company operates the gaming areas within these properties pursuant to a 20-year gaming subconcession.

The Company owns and operates The Venetian Macao Resort Hotel (“The Venetian Macao”), which anchors the Cotai Strip, the Company’s master-planned development of integrated resort properties on an area of approximately 140 acres in Macao (consisting of parcels referred to as 1, 2, 3 and 5 and 6). The Venetian Macao (located on parcel 1) includes a 39-floor luxury hotel with over 2,900 suites; approximately 374,000 square feet of gaming space; a 15,000-seat arena; an 1,800-seat theater; 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.

In April and September 2012 and January 2013, the Company opened phases I, IIA and IIB, respectively, of its Sands Cotai Central integrated resort (located on parcels 5 and 6), which is situated across the street from The Venetian Macao and Four Seasons Macao. Phase I consists of a hotel tower on parcel 5, which includes approximately 600 five-star rooms and suites under the Conrad brand and approximately 1,200 four-star rooms and suites under the Holiday Inn brand; more than 350,000 square feet of meeting space; several food and beverage establishments; along with the 230,000-square-foot casino and VIP gaming areas. Phase IIA includes the first hotel tower on parcel 6, which features approximately 1,800 rooms and suites managed by Starwood Asia Pacific Hotels and Resorts Pte Ltd. and Sheraton Overseas Management Co. (collectively “Starwood”) under the Sheraton brand, along with the second casino and additional retail, entertainment, dining and meeting facilities. Phase IIB consists of the second hotel tower on parcel 6 and features approximately 2,100 rooms and suites managed by Starwood under the Sheraton brand. With the completion of phases I and II of the project, the integrated resort features approximately 300,000 square feet of gaming space, approximately 800,000 square feet of retail, dining and entertainment space, over 550,000 square feet of meeting facilities and a multipurpose theater (to open in 2014). The Company has commenced pre-construction activities on phase III of the project, which is expected to include a fourth hotel and mixed-use tower, located on parcel 5, to be managed by Starwood under the St. Regis brand and the total cost to complete is expected to be in excess of $450 million. As of September 30, 2013, the Company has capitalized costs of $4.09 billion for the entire project, including the land premium (net of amortization) and $129.5 million in outstanding construction payables.

8

Table of Contents

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)

(UNAUDITED)

The Company owns the Four Seasons Hotel Macao, Cotai Strip (the “Four Seasons Hotel Macao”), which features 360 rooms and suites managed and operated by Four Seasons Hotels Inc. and is located adjacent and connected to The Venetian Macao. Connected to the Four Seasons Hotel Macao, the Company owns and operates the Plaza Casino (together with the Four Seasons Hotel Macao and located on parcel 2, the “Four Seasons Macao”), which features approximately 108,000 square feet of gaming space; 19 Paiza mansions; retail space of approximately 260,000 square feet, which is connected to the mall at The Venetian Macao; several food and beverage offerings; and conference, banquet and other facilities. This integrated resort will also feature the Four Seasons Apartment Hotel Macao, Cotai Strip (the “Four Seasons Apartments”), an apart-hotel tower that consists of approximately 1.0 million square feet of Four Seasons-serviced and -branded luxury apart-hotel units and common areas. The Company has completed the structural work of the tower and is advancing its plans to monetize units within the Four Seasons Apartments.

The Company owns and operates the Sands Macao, the first Las Vegas-style casino in Macao. The Sands Macao offers approximately 249,000 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.

Singapore

The Company owns and operates the Marina Bay Sands in Singapore, which features three 55-story hotel towers (totaling approximately 2,600 rooms and suites), the Sands SkyPark (which sits atop the hotel towers and features an infinity swimming pool and several dining options), approximately 160,000 square feet of gaming space, an enclosed retail, dining and entertainment complex of approximately 800,000 net leasable square feet, a convention center and meeting room complex of approximately 1.2 million square feet, theaters and a landmark iconic structure at the bay-front promenade that contains an art/science museum. In April 2013, the Company paid 57.0 million Singapore dollars (“SGD,” approximately $45.4 million at exchange rates in effect on September 30, 2013) to the Casino Regulatory Authority in Singapore as part of the process to renew its gaming license, which now expires in April 2016.

United States

Las Vegas

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; 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; and two enclosed retail, dining and entertainment complexes, currently referred to as the Grand Canal Shoppes. The complex located within The Venetian Las Vegas (previously known as “The Grand Canal Shoppes”) and the complex located within The Palazzo (previously known as “The Shoppes at The Palazzo”) were sold to GGP Limited Partnership (“GGP,” see “— Note 2 — Property and Equipment, Net” regarding the sale of The Shoppes at The Palazzo).

9

Table of Contents

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)

(UNAUDITED)

Pennsylvania

The Company owns and operates the 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 features approximately 145,000 square feet of gaming space; a 300-room hotel tower; a 150,000-square-foot retail facility; an arts and cultural center; and a 50,000-square-foot multipurpose event center, which opened in May 2012. The Company owns 86% of the economic interest in 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 in the retail portion of the property through its ownership interest in Sands Bethworks Retail LLC.

Development Projects

Macao

The Company submitted plans to the Macao government for The Parisian Macao (located on parcel 3), an integrated resort that will be connected to The Venetian Macao and Four Seasons Macao. The Parisian Macao, which is currently expected to open in late 2015, is intended to include a gaming area (to be operated under the Company’s gaming subconcession), hotel and shopping mall. The Company expects the cost to design, develop and construct The Parisian Macao will be approximately $2.7 billion, inclusive of payments made for the land premium. The Company has commenced construction activities and has capitalized costs of $284.6 million, including the land premium (net of amortization), as of September 30, 2013. In addition, the Company will be completing the development of some public areas surrounding its Cotai Strip properties on behalf of the Macao government.

Under the Company’s land concession for Sands Cotai Central, the Company is required to complete the development by May 2014. The Company will be applying for an extension from the Macao government to complete Sands Cotai Central, as the Company will be unable to meet the May 2014 deadline. The land concession for The Parisian Macao contains a similar requirement, which was extended by the Macao government in July 2012, that the development be completed by April 2016. Should the Company determine that it is unable to complete The Parisian Macao by April 2016, the Company would then also expect to apply for another extension from the Macao government. If the Company is unable to meet The Parisian Macao deadline and the deadlines for either development are not extended, the Company could lose its land concessions for Sands Cotai Central or The Parisian Macao, which would prohibit the Company from operating any facilities developed under the respective land concessions. As a result, the Company could record a charge for all or some portion of its $4.09 billion or $284.6 million in capitalized construction costs and land premiums (net of amortization), as of September 30, 2013, related to Sands Cotai Central and The Parisian Macao, respectively.

United States

The Company was constructing a high-rise residential condominium tower (the “Las Vegas Condo Tower”), located on the Las Vegas Strip between The Palazzo and The Venetian Las Vegas. The Company 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 demand and conditions improve. As of September 30, 2013, the Company has capitalized construction costs of $178.8 million for this project. The impact of the suspension on the estimated overall cost of the project is currently not determinable with certainty. Should demand and conditions fail to improve or management decide to abandon the project, the Company could record a charge for all or some portion of the $178.8 million in capitalized construction costs as of September 30, 2013.

10

Table of Contents

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)

(UNAUDITED)

Other

The Company continues to aggressively pursue a variety of new development opportunities around the world.

Development Financing Strategy

Through September 30, 2013, the Company has funded its development projects primarily through borrowings under its credit facilities, operating cash flows, proceeds from its equity offerings and proceeds from the disposition of non-core assets.

The U.S. credit facility requires 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 5.0x for all quarterly periods through maturity. The Company can elect to contribute up to $50 million of cash on hand to its Las Vegas operations on a bi-quarterly basis; such contributions having the effect of increasing Adjusted EBITDA during the applicable quarter for purposes of calculating compliance with the maximum leverage ratio. The Company’s Macao facility also requires the Company’s Macao 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 periods ending September 30, 2013 through December 31, 2014, decreases to 3.5x for the quarterly periods ending March 31 through December 31, 2015, and then decreases to, and remains at, 3.0x for all quarterly periods thereafter through maturity. The Company’s Singapore credit facility (the “2012 Singapore Credit Facility”) requires operations of Marina Bay Sands 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 September 30, 2013, decreases to 3.5x for the quarterly periods ending December 31, 2013 through December 31, 2014, 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, it would be in default under the respective credit facilities. A default under the U.S. credit facility would trigger a cross-default under the Company’s airplane financings. 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 due and payable under such agreements, which could force the Company to restructure or alter its operations or debt obligations.

The Company held unrestricted cash and cash equivalents of $3.21 billion and restricted cash and cash equivalents of $7.3 million as of September 30, 2013. The Company believes the cash on hand and cash flow generated from operations will be sufficient to maintain compliance with the financial covenants of its credit facilities. The Company may need to arrange additional financing to fund the balance of its Cotai Strip developments. In the normal course of its activities, the Company will continue to evaluate its capital structure and opportunities for enhancements thereof, including evaluating strategic alternatives related to the Company’s Pennsylvania operations.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In February 2013, the FASB issued authoritative guidance on the reporting of reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income. The guidance requires an entity to present, either on the face of the statement where net income is presented or in the notes, significant amounts reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income by the respective line items of net income if the amount is reclassified to net income in its entirety in the same reporting period. The guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2012, with early adoption permitted. The adoption of this guidance did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

In July 2013, the FASB issued authoritative guidance on the presentation of an unrecognized tax benefit when a loss or tax credit carryforward exists. The guidance requires the netting of unrecognized tax benefits against a deferred tax asset for a loss or tax credit carryforward that would apply in settlement of the uncertain tax positions. The guidance is effective for annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2013, with early adoption permitted. The adoption of this guidance will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

11

Table of Contents

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)

(UNAUDITED)

NOTE 2 — PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT, NET

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

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

The $316.0 million in other construction in progress as of September 30, 2013, consists primarily of construction of the Las Vegas Condo Tower and various projects at The Venetian Macao.

Under generally accepted accounting principles, the sale of The Shoppes at The Palazzo has not been accounted for as a sale because the Company’s participation in certain potential future revenues constitutes continuing involvement. Therefore, $266.2 million of the proceeds allocated to the mall sale transaction has been recorded as deferred proceeds (a long-term financing obligation), which will accrue interest at an imputed rate and will be offset by (i) imputed rental income and (ii) rent payments made to GGP related to spaces leased back from GGP by the Company. The property and equipment legally sold to GGP totaling $242.1 million (net of $69.2 million of accumulated depreciation) as of September 30, 2013, will continue to be recorded on the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheet and will continue to be depreciated in the Company’s condensed consolidated income statement.

During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, and the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012, the Company capitalized interest expense of $0.9 million, $3.3 million, $9.9 million and $44.3 million, respectively. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, and the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012, the Company capitalized approximately $5.9 million, $16.9 million, $4.8 million and $13.2 million, respectively, of internal costs, consisting primarily of compensation expense for individuals directly involved with the development and construction of property.

In May 2012, the Company withdrew its appeal regarding the Company’s application not being approved by the Macao government for a land concession related to its Cotai Strip development (formerly referred to as parcels 7 and 8) and recorded an impairment loss of $100.7 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2012, related to the capitalized construction costs of its development on parcels 7 and 8. The Company also recorded a one-time impairment loss of $42.9 million related to the termination of the ZAiA show at The Venetian Macao during the nine months ended September 30, 2012.

The Company suspended portions of its development projects. As described in “— Note 1 — Organization and Business of Company,” the Company may be required to record an impairment charge related to these developments in the future.

12

Table of Contents

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)

(UNAUDITED)

NOTE 3 — LONG-TERM DEBT

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

As of September 30, 2013, $1.22 billion of long-term debt classified as current related to the Senior Secured Credit Facility.

Senior Secured Credit Facility

As of September 30, 2013, the Company had $45.5 million of available borrowing capacity under the Senior Secured Credit Facility, net of outstanding letters of credit.

2011 VML Credit Facility

As of September 30, 2013, the Company had $500.0 million of available borrowing capacity under the 2011 VML Credit Facility.

2012 Singapore Credit Facility

As of September 30, 2013, the Company had SGD 492.7 million (approximately $392.7 million at exchange rates in effect on September 30, 2013) of available borrowing capacity under the 2012 Singapore Credit Facility, net of outstanding banker’s guarantees.

13

Table of Contents

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)

(UNAUDITED)

Cash Flows from Financing Activities

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

Fair Value of Long-Term Debt

The estimated fair value of the Company’s long-term debt as of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, was approximately $9.68 billion and $10.12 billion, respectively, compared to its carrying value of $9.73 billion and $10.20 billion, respectively. The estimated fair value of the Company’s long-term debt is based on level 2 inputs (quoted prices in markets that are not active).

NOTE 4 — EQUITY AND EARNINGS PER SHARE

Common Stock

Dividends

On March 29, June 28 and September 27, 2013, the Company paid a dividend of $0.35 per common share as part of a regular cash dividend program. During the nine months ended September 30, 2013, the Company recorded $866.4 million as a distribution against retained earnings (of which $453.1 million related to the Principal Stockholder’s family).

On March 30, June 29 and September 28, 2012, the Company paid a dividend of $0.25 per common share as part of a regular cash dividend program. During the nine months ended September 30, 2012, the Company recorded $617.4 million as a distribution against retained earnings (of which $323.5 million related to the Principal Stockholder’s family).

In October 2013, the Company’s Board of Directors declared a quarterly dividend of $0.35 per common share (a total estimated to be approximately $287 million) to be paid on December 31, 2013, to shareholders of record on December 20, 2013.

Repurchase Program

In June 2013, the Company’s Board of Directors approved a share repurchase program, which expires in June 2015, with an initial authorization of $2.0 billion. Repurchases of the Company’s common stock are made at the Company’s discretion in accordance with applicable federal securities laws in the open market or otherwise. The timing and actual number of shares to be repurchased in the future will depend on a variety of factors, including the Company’s financial position, earnings, legal requirements, other investment opportunities and market conditions. During the nine months ended September 30, 2013, the Company repurchased 5,479,601 shares of its common stock for $346.3 million (including commissions) under this program. All share repurchases of the Company’s common stock have been recorded as treasury shares.

14

Table of Contents

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)

(UNAUDITED)

Warrants

On March 2, 2012, the Principal Stockholder’s family exercised all of their outstanding warrants to purchase 87,500,175 shares of the Company’s common stock for $6.00 per share and paid $525.0 million in cash as settlement of the warrant exercise price. Additionally, during the nine months ended September 30, 2012, 39,070 warrants were exercised to purchase an aggregate of 655,496 shares of the Company’s common stock at $6.00 per share and $3.9 million in cash was received as settlement of the warrant exercise price. No warrants were exercised during the nine months ended September 30, 2013.

Other Equity Transactions

In July 2012, the Company purchased a Boeing 747 airplane from an entity controlled by the Principal Stockholder for $34.0 million, based on independent third party appraisals. In accordance with accounting standards regarding transactions between entities under common control, the Company recorded the cost of the airplane at the Principal Stockholder’s book value at the date of the transaction, which was $15.4 million. The $18.6 million difference between the amount paid and the book value of the airplane (a gain to the Principal Stockholder) was recorded as a deemed distribution to the Principal Stockholder during the nine months ended September 30, 2012.

The Company believes that the purchase of the airplane allows it to meet the increased demand for high-end premium direct customer travel driven from the Company’s expanding global gaming operations and is an important component in creating the ultimate trans-Pacific transportation experience for its customers. The Company believes it would have been more costly to acquire the airplane in the open market due to the limited supply of similar aircraft with luxury features.

Noncontrolling Interests

On February 28 and June 21, 2013, SCL paid a dividend of 0.67 Hong Kong dollars (“HKD”) and HKD 0.66 per share, respectively (a total of $1.38 billion), to SCL shareholders (of which the Company retained $970.2 million). On February 28 and June 22, 2012, SCL paid a dividend of HKD 0.58 per share (a total of $1.2 billion) to SCL shareholders (of which the Company retained $844.4 million).

During the nine months ended September 30, 2013 and 2012, the Company distributed $7.8 million and $7.6 million, respectively, to certain of its noncontrolling interests.

Earnings Per Share

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

15

Table of Contents

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)

(UNAUDITED)

Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income

As of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, accumulated other comprehensive income consisted solely of foreign currency translation adjustments.

NOTE 5 — VARIABLE INTEREST ENTITIES

The Company consolidates any variable interest entities (“VIEs”) in which it is the primary beneficiary and discloses significant variable interests in VIEs of which it is not the primary beneficiary, if any, which management determines such designation based on accounting standards for VIEs.

The Company has entered into various joint venture agreements with independent third parties. The operations of these joint ventures have been consolidated by the Company due to the Company’s significant investment in these joint ventures, its power to direct the activities of the joint ventures that would significantly impact their economic performance and the obligation to absorb potentially significant losses or the rights to receive potentially significant benefits from these joint ventures. The Company evaluates its primary beneficiary designation on an ongoing basis and assesses the appropriateness of the VIE’s status when events have occurred that would trigger such an analysis.

As of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company’s joint ventures had total assets of $105.5 million and $94.5 million, respectively, and total liabilities of $121.9 million and $95.8 million, respectively.

NOTE 6 — INCOME TAXES

The Company’s major tax jurisdictions are the U.S., Macao and Singapore. In January 2013, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) completed its examination of tax years 2005 through 2009. The Company decreased its unrecognized tax benefits by $9.3 million due to the conclusion of the IRS audit. The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore is performing a compliance review of the Marina Bay Sands tax return for tax years 2010 and 2011. The Company is subject to examination for tax years after 2007 in Macao and Singapore and for tax years after 2009 in the U.S. The Company believes it has adequately reserved for its uncertain tax positions; however, there is no assurance that the taxing authorities will not propose adjustments that are different from the Company’s expected outcome, which would impact the provision for income taxes.

Since January 1, 2012, the Company no longer considers the current portion of the tax earnings and profits of certain of its foreign subsidiaries to be permanently reinvested. The Company has not provided a deferred tax provision for these foreign earnings as the Company expects there will be sufficient U.S. foreign tax credits to offset the U.S. income tax that would result from the repatriation of foreign earnings. The Company recorded valuation allowances on the net deferred tax assets of its U.S. operations and certain foreign jurisdictions. Management will reassess the realization of deferred tax assets based on the accounting standards for income taxes each reporting period and to the extent it becomes “more-likely-than-not” that the deferred tax assets are realizable, the Company will reduce the valuation allowance as appropriate.

In October 2013, the Company received a third 5-year income tax exemption in Macao 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 2018. In February 2011, the Company entered into an agreement with the Macao government, effective through the end of 2013, that provides for an annual payment of 14.4 million patacas (approximately $1.8 million at exchange rates in effect on September 30, 2013) as a substitution for a 12% tax otherwise due from Venetian Macau Limited (“VML”) shareholders on dividend distributions paid from VML gaming profits. The Company will request an extension of the agreement with the Macao government through 2018 to correspond to the income tax exemption for gaming operations; however, there is no assurance that the Company will receive the extension.

In September 2013, the Company and the IRS entered into a Pre-Filing Agreement providing that the Macao special gaming tax (35% of gross gaming revenue) qualifies as a tax paid in lieu of an income tax and could be claimed as a U.S. foreign tax credit.

16

Table of Contents

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)

(UNAUDITED)

NOTE 7 — STOCK-BASED EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION

Stock-based compensation activity under the LVSC 2004 and SCL Equity Plans 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:

17

Table of Contents

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)

(UNAUDITED)

NOTE 8 — FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS

Under applicable accounting guidance, 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. Applicable accounting guidance 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 (in thousands):

NOTE 9 — 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 or cash flows.

18

Table of Contents

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)

(UNAUDITED)

On October 15, 2004, Richard Suen and Round Square Company Limited (“RSC”) 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 of Clark County”), 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 of Clark County for a new trial. In its decision reversing the monetary judgment against the Company, the Nevada Supreme Court also made several other rulings which may affect the outcome of the new trial, 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 of Clark County. On February 27, 2012, the District Court of Clark County 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 of Clark County granted both requests. The retrial began on March 27 and on May 14, 2013, the jury returned a verdict in favor of RSC 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 of Clark County 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 of Clark County denied the Company’s motion. On October 17, 2013, the 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. The Company intends to appeal the jury verdict and the award of the costs and fees. The Company believes that it has valid bases in law and fact to appeal these verdicts. As a result, the Company believes that the likelihood that the amount of the 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 of Clark County 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 of Clark County 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 of Clark County 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, Mr. Jacobs 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 Mr. Jacobs’ opening brief. On March 8, 2012, the District Court of Clark County 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 of Clark County 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 of Clark County 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 of Clark County 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 of Clark County 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 of Clark County 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

19

Table of Contents

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)

(UNAUDITED)

Supreme Court challenging this order (the “January Writ”). On January 29, 2013, the District Court of Clark County 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 of Clark County 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 of Clark County until such time as the Nevada Supreme Court decides the April Writ. On June 18, 2013, the District Court of Clark County 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 of Clark County 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 have now been fully briefed to the Nevada Supreme Court). On October 9, 2013, the Nevada Supreme Court heard arguments on the January Writ and plaintiff’s appeal of the District Court of Clark County’s dismissal of plaintiff’s defamation claim against Mr. Adelson. The Nevada Supreme Court has taken both matters under advisement pending a decision. Mr. Jacobs is seeking unspecified damages in this matter. 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:

The investigation by the Audit Committee is now completed. The Company is cooperating with all investigations. Based on proceedings to date, management is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter, the extent of materiality, or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any.

20

Table of Contents

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)

(UNAUDITED)

On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the “U.S. District Court”), against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other means from August 1, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The complaint sought, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On July 21, 2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other means from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008. The complaint, which was substantially similar to the Fosbre complaint, discussed above, sought, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases are reported as one consolidated matter. On November 1, 2010, a purported class action amended complaint was filed in the consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner. The amended complaint alleges that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false and misleading information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other means from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On January 10, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part, and denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. On November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the allegations remaining in the amended complaint. On July 11, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing Defendants’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court’s Order dated August 24, 2011, striking additional portions of the plaintiff’s complaint and reducing the class period to a period of February 4 to November 6, 2008. On August 7, 2012, the plaintiff filed a purported class action second amended complaint (the “Second Amended Complaint”) seeking to expand their allegations back to a time period of 2007 (having previously been cut back to 2008 by the U.S. District Court) essentially alleging very similar matters that had been previously stricken by the U.S. District Court. On October 16, 2012, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs responded to the motion to dismiss on November 1, 2012, and defendants filed their reply on November 12, 2012. On November 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted a stay of discovery under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act pending a decision on the new motion to dismiss and therefore, the discovery process has been suspended. On April 16, 2013, the case was reassigned to a new judge. On July 30, 2013, the U.S. District Court heard the motion to dismiss and took the matter under advisement. This consolidated 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 March 9, 2011, Benyamin Kohanim filed a shareholder derivative action (the “Kohanim action”) on behalf of the Company in the District Court of Clark County against Sheldon G. Adelson, Jason N. Ader, Irwin Chafetz, Charles D. Forman, George P. Koo, Michael A. Leven, Jeffrey H. Schwartz and Irwin A. Siegel, the members of the Board of Directors at the time. The complaint alleges, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties in failing to properly implement, oversee and maintain internal controls to ensure compliance with the FCPA. The complaint seeks to recover for the Company unspecified damages, including restitution and disgorgement of profits, and also seeks to recover attorneys’ fees, costs and related expenses for the plaintiff. On April 18, 2011, Ira J. Gaines, Sunshine Wire and Cable Defined Benefit Pension Plan Trust dated 1/1/92 and Peachtree Mortgage Ltd. filed a shareholder derivative action (the “Gaines action”) on behalf of the Company in the District Court of Clark County against Sheldon G. Adelson, Jason N. Ader, Irwin Chafetz, Charles D. Forman, George P. Koo, Michael A. Leven, Jeffrey H. Schwartz and Irwin A. Siegel, the members of the Board of Directors at the time. The complaint raises substantially similar claims as alleged in the Kohanim action. The complaint seeks to recover for the Company unspecified damages, and also seeks to recover attorneys’ fees, costs and related expenses for the plaintiffs. The Kohanim and Gaines actions have been consolidated and are reported as one consolidated matter. On July 25, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a first verified amended consolidated complaint. The plaintiffs have twice agreed to stay the proceedings. A 120-day stay was entered by the Court in October 2011. It was extended for another 90 days in February 2012 and expired in May 2012. The parties agreed to an extension of the May 2012 deadline that expired on October 30, 2012. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 1, 2012, based on the fact that the plaintiffs have suffered no damages. On January 23, 2013, the Court denied the motion to dismiss in part, deferred the remainder of the motion to dismiss and stayed the proceedings until a July 22, 2013 status hearing. On July 22, 2013, the Court extended the stay until December 2, 2013. This consolidated 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.

21

Table of Contents

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)

(UNAUDITED)

On April 1, 2011, Nasser Moradi, Richard Buckman, Douglas Tomlinson and Matt Abbeduto filed a shareholder derivative action (the “Moradi action”), as amended on April 15, 2011, on behalf of the Company in the U.S. District Court, against Sheldon G. Adelson, Jason N. Ader, Irwin Chafetz, Charles D. Forman, George P. Koo, Michael A. Leven, Jeffrey H. Schwartz and Irwin A. Siegel, the members of the Board of Directors at the time. The complaint raises substantially similar claims as alleged in the Kohanim and Gaines actions. The complaint seeks to recover for the Company unspecified damages, including exemplary damages and restitution, and also seeks to recover attorneys’ fees, costs and related expenses for the plaintiffs. On April 18, 2011, the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System filed a shareholder derivative action (the “LAMPERS action”) on behalf of the Company in the U.S. District Court, against Sheldon G. Adelson, Jason N. Ader, Irwin Chafetz, Charles D. Forman, George P. Koo, Michael A. Leven, Jeffrey H. Schwartz and Irwin A. Siegel, the members of the Board of Directors at the time, and Wing T. Chao, a former member of the Board of Directors. The complaint raises substantially similar claims as alleged in the Kohanim, Moradi and Gaines actions. The complaint seeks to recover for the Company unspecified damages, and also seeks to recover attorneys’ fees, costs and related expenses for the plaintiff. On April 22, 2011, John Zaremba filed a shareholder derivative action (the “Zaremba action”) on behalf of the Company in the U.S. District Court, against Sheldon G. Adelson, Jason N. Ader, Irwin Chafetz, Charles D. Forman, George P. Koo, Michael A. Leven, Jeffrey H. Schwartz and Irwin A. Siegel, the members of the Board of Directors at the time, and Wing T. Chao, a former member of the Board of Directors. The complaint raises substantially similar claims as alleged in the Kohanim, Moradi, Gaines and LAMPERS actions. The complaint seeks to recover for the Company unspecified damages, including restitution, disgorgement of profits and injunctive relief, and also seeks to recover attorneys’ fees, costs and related expenses for the plaintiff. On August 25, 2011, the U.S. District Court consolidated the Moradi, LAMPERS and Zaremba actions and such actions are reported as one consolidated matter. On November 17, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss or alternatively to stay the federal action due to the parallel state court action described above. On May 25, 2012, the case was transferred to a new judge. On August 27, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted the motion to stay pending a further update of the Special Litigation Committee due on October 30, 2012. On October 30, 2012, the defendants filed the update asking the judge to determine whether to continue the stay until January 31, 2013, or to address motions to dismiss. On November 7, 2012, the U.S. District Court denied defendants request for an extension of the stay but asked the parties to brief the motion to dismiss. On November 21, 2012, defendants filed their motion to dismiss. On December 21, 2012, plaintiffs filed their opposition and on January 18, 2013, defendants filed their reply. On May 31, 2013, the case was reassigned to a new judge. This consolidated 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.

22

Table of Contents

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)

(UNAUDITED)

On March 23, 2012, Ernest Kleinschmidt filed a shareholder derivative action (the “Kleinschmidt action”) on behalf of the Company in the District Court of Clark County against Sheldon G. Adelson, Michael A. Leven, Irwin A. Siegel, Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Jason N. Ader, Charles D. Forman, Irwin Chafetz and George P. Koo, who are currently members of the Board of Directors, and Wing T. Chao, Andrew R. Heyer, James Purcell, Bradley H. Stone and William P. Weidner, who are former members of the Board of Directors and/or executives of the Company. The complaint alleges, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties for disseminating false and misleading information, failure to maintain internal controls and failing to properly oversee and manage the Company, and unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified damages, direction to LVSC to take unspecified actions to improve its corporate governance and internal procedures, restitution and disgorgement of profits, and attorneys’ fees, costs and related expenses for the plaintiff. On June 29, 2012, the defendants who had been served at that time including nominal defendant LVSC and defendants Michael A. Leven, Irwin A. Siegel, Jason N. Ader, Charles D. Forman, Irwin Chafetz, George P. Koo, James Purcell, Bradley H. Stone and William P. Weidner filed a motion to dismiss. On July 20 and July 25, 2012, defendants Jeffery H. Schwartz and Wing T. Chao, respectively, each filed a substantially similar motion to dismiss. On October 10, 2012, the case was transferred to business court within the District Court of Clark County. On October 12, 2012, the case was reassigned to a new judge. On January 14, 2013, the District Court of Clark County filed its order dismissing the entire case for failure to make a demand on the Board of Directors of LVSC with 5 of 6 claims dismissed with prejudice as being time barred under applicable statutes of limitations. The sixth claim for unjust enrichment was allowed to be re-filed, but only after demand on the Board of Directors of LVSC is made. The Company received a letter from the plaintiffs lawyers dated February 9, 2013, making their demand on the Board of Directors of LVSC for the unjust enrichment claim that the District Court of Clark County previously dismissed without prejudice. In addition, on February 19, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court appealing the dismissal of the case. Plaintiff’s opening brief in the Nevada Supreme Court was due on August 12, 2013, and the response briefs were due per the court’s calendar. On September 4, 2013, the appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court was dismissed. Based on proceedings to date, management is 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 January 19, 2012, Asian American Entertainment Corporation, Limited (“AAEC”) filed a claim (the “Macao action”) with the Macao Judicial Court (Tribunal Judicial de Base) against VML, LVS (Nevada) International Holdings, Inc. (“LVS (Nevada)”), Las Vegas Sands, LLC (“LVSLLC”) and Venetian Casino Resort, LLC (“VCR” and collectively, the “Defendants”). The claim is for 3.0 billion patacas (approximately $375.6 million at exchange rates in effect on September 30, 2013) as compensation for damages resulting from the alleged breach of agreements entered into between AAEC and the Defendants for their joint presentation of a bid in response to the public tender held by the Macao government for the award of gaming concessions at the end of 2001. On July 4, 2012, the Defendants filed their defense to the Macao action with the Macao Judicial Court. AAEC then filed a reply that included several amendments to the original claim, although the amount of the claim was not amended. On January 4, 2013, the Defendants filed an amended defense to the amended claim with the Macao Judicial Court. The Macao 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.

As previously disclosed by the Company, on February 5, 2007, AAEC brought a similar claim (the “Prior Action”) in the U.S. District Court, against LVSI (now known as LVSLLC), VCR and Venetian Venture Development, LLC, which are subsidiaries of the Company, and William P. Weidner and David Friedman, who are former executives of the Company. The U.S. District Court entered an order on April 16, 2010, dismissing the Prior Action. On April 20, 2012, LVSLLC, VCR and LVS (Nevada) filed an injunctive action (the “Nevada Action”) against AAEC in the U.S. District Court seeking to enjoin AAEC from proceeding with the Macao Action based on AAEC’s filing, and the U.S. District Court’s dismissal, of the Prior Action. On June 14, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued an order that denied the motions requesting the Nevada Action, thereby effectively dismissing the Nevada Action.

On August 1, 2012, SCL filed an announcement with the SEHK stating that SCL’s subsidiary, VML, has received a notification from the Office for Personal Data Protection of the Macao government (the “OPDP”) indicating that the OPDP has launched an official investigation procedure in relation to the alleged transfer from Macao by VML to the United States of certain data contrary to the Personal Data Protection Act (Macau). On April 13, 2013, the OPDP presented its findings and VML received a cumulative fine of 40,000 patacas (approximately $5,008 at exchange rates in effect on September 30, 2013). VML paid the fine as levied by the OPDP.

The Company has received subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney’s Office (the “USAO”) requesting the production of documents relating to two prior customers of the Company’s properties. In August 2013, the USAO completed its investigation and entered into an agreement with the Company, whereby the Company agreed to voluntarily return $47.4 million to the U.S. Treasury, which represented funds received from or on behalf of one of its customers, and provide written reports to the USAO regarding certain of its casino-related activities. The amount has been paid during the quarter ended September 30, 2013, and the matter has been closed.

23

Table of Contents

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)

(UNAUDITED)

NOTE 10 — SEGMENT INFORMATION

The Company’s principal operating and developmental activities occur in three geographic areas: Macao, Singapore and the United States. The Company reviews the results of operations for each of its operating segments: The Venetian Macao; Sands Cotai Central; Four Seasons Macao; Sands Macao; Other Asia (comprised primarily of the Company’s ferry operations and various other operations that are ancillary to the Company’s properties in Macao); Marina Bay Sands; The Venetian Las Vegas, which includes the Sands Expo Center; The Palazzo; and Sands Bethlehem. 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 services and products, the regulatory business environment of the operations within each segment and the Company’s organizational and management reporting structure. The Company also reviews construction and development activities for each of its primary projects under development, some of which have been suspended, in addition to its reportable segments noted above. The Company’s primary projects under development are The Parisian Macao and phase III of Sands Cotai Central in Macao, and the Las Vegas Condo Tower (included in Corporate and Other) in the U.S. The corporate activities of the Company are also included in Corporate and Other. The information for the nine months ended September 30, 2012, has been reclassified to conform to the current presentation. The Company’s segment information as of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, and for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 and 2012, is as follows (in thousands):

24

Table of Contents

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)

(UNAUDITED)