Las Vegas Sands Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, develops, owns, and operates integrated resorts in Asia and the U.S. Its integrated resorts feature accommodations, gaming, entertainment and retail malls, convention and exhibition facilities, celebrity chef restaurants, and other amenities.

According to a press release dated May 25, 2010, the Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) increasing competition in Macau was steadily eroding the Company’s foothold in the region, which undermined Defendants’ representations that everything was proceeding according to plan; (ii) the Company was facing a significant liquidity crisis as a result of its ongoing expenditure of capital in Macau and Singapore, which forced the Company to divert funds from other operations to develop its Asian properties; (iii) the Company could not, in fact, weather the economic downturn, because the credit markets were drying up and Las Vegas Sands had failed to timely access those markets; and (iv) increasing visitor restrictions in Macau, which Defendants represented would not impact the Company as significantly as its competitors (or otherwise publicly dismissed), were expected by Defendants to have just as devastating an effect on Las Vegas Sands.

On November 6, 2008, the Company’s auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”), expressed doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern, prompting PwC to issue a going concern qualification which alerted shareholders to the true extent of the Company’s perilous condition. In response, the trading price of Las Vegas Sands common stock plummeted nearly 33%.

On August 31, 2010, Judge Kent J. Dawson granted Movant Pension and Retirement Group’s motion to consolidate and to be appointed lead Counsel. On November 1, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint. The Defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss on January 10, 2011.

According to the Order signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on August 24, 2011, the Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.

On July 11, 2012, the Court issued an Order denying in part and granting in part Defendant's motion for reconsideration. The Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

On November 7, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motions to dismiss.

On January 3, 2017, the Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed this case. A Notice of Appeal of this decision was filed on February 2. On May 1, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court.