Richard Suen scores another victory over Sands in Vegas court

TAGs: Las Vegas Sands, Macau, richard suen, sheldon adelson

richard-suen-las-vegas-sands-lawsuitLas Vegas Sands keeps swinging at a chance to belt its Richard Suen problem out of the park and yet it just keeps on striking out.

The Vegas-based casino operator once again found itself on the short end of the stick after Clark County District Judge Rob Bare denied its request to set aside the $101.6 million it was obliged to pay to the Hong Kong businessman who contends that he was instrumental in Sands acquiring a gaming license in Macau. For its part, Sands continues to argue that it doesn’t owe Suen a penny more than nothing because the latter didn’t do jack squat in helping the company receive its Macau casino license.

But every time this matter goes to the courts, every decision has gone Suen’s way, much to the chagrin of Las Vegas Sands. The businessman was initially awarded $43.8 million back in 2008, only to have that verdict overturned by the Nevada Supreme Court two years later. Undaunted, he filed a new suit earlier this year and the won that one too with Sands being ordered to pay $70 million.  Predictably, Sands appealed that decision but only to find itself in a deeper hole after Judge Bare decided to tack on another $31.6 million in interest of 5.25 percent ($8,400 per day since 2004) bringing up the total amount the casino is being ordered to pay at $101.6 million.

Every time Sands comes up to the plate with a new lawsuit of its own, it ends up whiffing with its swing worse than Josh Hamilton these days. But just like the slugger that keeps believing that the next swing will be a bone crusher, the casino operator is determined to once again appeal the judge’s decision to not only set aside the $101.6 million jury award to Suen but to also order a new trilal or at the very least, cut the jury award.

“Nothing has changed,” Sands spokesman Ron Reese told Bloomberg. “We will absolutely appeal.”

Maybe try to bring up the pitch count this time?


views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of