Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
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. Asian American Entertainment Corporation, Limited v. Venetian Macau Limited, et al. On January 19, 2012, Asian American Entertainment Corporation, Limited (“AAEC” or “Plaintiff”) filed a claim with the Macao First Instance Court against VML, LVS (Nevada) International Holdings, Inc. (“LVS (Nevada)”), Las Vegas Sands, LLC (“LVSLLC”) and Venetian Casino Resort (“VCR”) (collectively, the “Defendants”) for 3.0 billion patacas (approximately $372 million at exchange rates in effect on March 31, 2026), which alleged a breach of agreements entered into between AAEC and LVS (Nevada), LVSLLC and VCR (collectively, the “U.S. 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. As described below, a judgment in favor of the Defendants became final on March 4, 2026, and the Macao Second Instance Court certified that final judgment on March 13, 2026. The procedural history of the case is as follows. On March 24, 2014, the Macao First Instance Court issued a decision holding that AAEC’s claim against VML is unfounded and that VML be removed as a party to the proceedings. On May 8, 2014, AAEC lodged an appeal against that decision. Evidence gathering by the Macao First Instance Court commenced by letters rogatory, which was completed on March 14, 2019. On July 15, 2019, AAEC submitted a request to the Macao First Instance Court to increase the amount of its claim to 96.45 billion patacas (approximately $11.95 billion at exchange rates in effect on March 31, 2026), allegedly representing lost profits from 2004 to 2018, and reserving its right to claim for lost profits up to 2022. On September 4, 2019, the Macao First Instance Court allowed AAEC’s amended request. The U.S. Defendants appealed the decision allowing the amended claim on September 17, 2019; the Macao First Instance Court accepted the appeal on September 26, 2019. The trial began on June 16, 2021, and, after interim adjournments and delays resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, was completed on January 19, 2022. On April 28, 2022, the Macao First Instance Court entered a judgment for the U.S. Defendants. The Macao First Instance Court also held that Plaintiff litigated certain aspects of its case in bad faith. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the Macao First Instance Court’s judgment on May 13, 2022. On October 17, 2024, the Macao Second Instance Court issued an order rejecting Plaintiff’s appeal of the Macao First Instance Court’s April 28, 2022 judgment based on procedural defects, again found the Plaintiff to be litigating in bad faith, and declined to address the interlocutory appeals that had been filed by the parties. On April 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Macao Last Instance Court. On June 11, 2025, the Defendants filed a notice that Plaintiff’s liquidation had been registered with the Commercial Registry, and Plaintiff is no longer an existent legal entity. Plaintiff filed its appeal brief on June 18, 2025. By order dated July 14, 2025, the Macao Second Instance Court rejected AAEC’s appeal brief because AAEC did not exist at the time the brief was filed and concluded that AAEC’s shareholders automatically replaced AAEC as Plaintiff as a matter of Macao law. Because AAEC’s shareholders did not file a timely appeal brief, the Macao Second Instance Court dismissed the appeal to the Macao Court of Final Appeal that AAEC had noticed on April 7, 2025. On July 31, 2025, AAEC requested panel review of that ruling arguing, among other things, that the court should have allowed AAEC’s shareholders the opportunity to ratify the appeal brief previously filed. On August 29, 2025, the clerk for the Macao Second Instance Court issued an invoice for prepayment of court fees to AAEC’s shareholders relating to Plaintiff’s appeal. On September 18, 2025, the Macao Second Instance Court ruled that the request for panel review could proceed only after AAEC’s shareholders had paid the invoiced court fees relating to the appeal. On September 23, 2025, the Macao Second Instance Court sent Plaintiff’s counsel of record a copy of the September 18 order, along with the invoice for prepayment of court fees and a penalty. The deadline for AAEC’s shareholders to prepay court fees and an associated penalty for late payment was October 6, 2025. On October 13, 2025, the Macao Second Instance Court sent Plaintiff’s counsel of record another invoice for prepayment of court fees and another penalty. Following the resignation of the judge rapporteur who had overseen proceedings in the Macao Second Instance Court, the Judicial Magistrates Council appointed a new judge rapporteur on January 5, 2026. On January 22, 2026, the new judge rapporteur overruled his predecessor’s decision of September 18, 2025, ruling that AAEC’s request for panel review of the order dismissing AAEC’s appeal dated July 14, 2025 is not subject to prepayment of court fees. As Plaintiff’s counsel purported to request panel review on behalf of AAEC’s shareholders, the judge rapporteur ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to submit (i) the shareholders’ identities, (ii) powers of attorney authorizing counsel to represent the shareholders, (iii) evidence that the shareholders had ratified the actions that counsel purported to take on their behalf prior to obtaining powers of attorney and (iv) justification for seeking panel review prior to obtaining powers of attorney. Plaintiff’s counsel of record failed to comply with these requirements. On February 9, 2026, the judge rapporteur ruled that Plaintiff’s challenge was therefore invalid and would not be reviewed by the full panel of judges. The judgment in favor of Defendants became final on March 4, 2026, and the Macao Second Instance Court certified that final judgment on March 13, 2026. The final judgment resolves all issues concerning the merits of Plaintiff’s claim.

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 January 19, 2012, Asian American Entertainment Corporation, Limited (“AAEC” or “Plaintiff”) filed a claim with the Macao First Instance Court against VML, LVS (Nevada) International Holdings, Inc. (“LVS (Nevada)”), Las Vegas Sands, LLC (“LVSLLC”) and Venetian Casino Resort (“VCR”) (collectively, the “Defendants”) for 3.0 billion patacas (approximately $372 million at exchange rates in effect on March 31, 2026), which alleged a breach of agreements entered into between AAEC and LVS (Nevada), LVSLLC and VCR (collectively, the “U.S. 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. As described below, a judgment in favor of the Defendants became final on March 4, 2026, and the Macao Second Instance Court certified that final judgment on March 13, 2026.

The procedural history of the case is as follows. On March 24, 2014, the Macao First Instance Court issued a decision holding that AAEC’s claim against VML is unfounded and that VML be removed as a party to the proceedings. On May 8, 2014, AAEC lodged an appeal against that decision.

Evidence gathering by the Macao First Instance Court commenced by letters rogatory, which was completed on March 14, 2019. On July 15, 2019, AAEC submitted a request to the Macao First Instance Court to increase the amount of its claim to 96.45 billion patacas (approximately $11.95 billion at exchange rates in effect on March 31, 2026), allegedly representing lost profits from 2004 to 2018, and reserving its right to claim for lost profits up to 2022. On September 4, 2019, the Macao First Instance Court allowed AAEC’s amended request. The U.S. Defendants appealed the decision allowing the amended claim on September 17, 2019; the Macao First Instance Court accepted the appeal on September 26, 2019.

On April 28, 2022, the Macao First Instance Court entered a judgment for the U.S. Defendants. The Macao First Instance Court also held that Plaintiff litigated certain aspects of its case in bad faith. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the Macao First Instance Court’s judgment on May 13, 2022.

On October 17, 2024, the Macao Second Instance Court issued an order rejecting Plaintiff’s appeal of the Macao First Instance Court’s April 28, 2022 judgment based on procedural defects, again found the Plaintiff to be litigating in bad faith, and declined to address the interlocutory appeals that had been filed by the parties.

On April 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Macao Last Instance Court. On June 11, 2025, the Defendants filed a notice that Plaintiff’s liquidation had been registered with the Commercial Registry, and Plaintiff is no longer an existent legal entity. Plaintiff filed its appeal brief on June 18, 2025. By order dated July 14, 2025, the Macao Second Instance Court rejected AAEC’s appeal brief because AAEC did not exist at the time the brief was filed and concluded that AAEC’s shareholders automatically replaced AAEC as Plaintiff as a matter of Macao law. Because AAEC’s shareholders did not file a timely appeal brief, the Macao Second Instance Court dismissed the appeal to the Macao Court of Final Appeal that AAEC had noticed on April 7, 2025.

On July 31, 2025, AAEC requested panel review of that ruling arguing, among other things, that the court should have allowed AAEC’s shareholders the opportunity to ratify the appeal brief previously filed. On August 29, 2025, the clerk for the Macao Second Instance Court issued an invoice for prepayment of court fees to AAEC’s shareholders relating to Plaintiff’s appeal. On September 18, 2025, the Macao Second Instance Court ruled that the request for panel review could proceed only after AAEC’s shareholders had paid the invoiced court fees relating to the appeal. On September 23, 2025, the Macao Second Instance Court sent Plaintiff’s counsel of record a copy of the September 18 order, along with the invoice for prepayment of court fees and a penalty. The deadline for AAEC’s shareholders to prepay court fees and an associated penalty for late payment was October 6, 2025. On October 13, 2025, the Macao Second Instance Court sent Plaintiff’s counsel of record another invoice for prepayment of court fees and another penalty.

Following the resignation of the judge rapporteur who had overseen proceedings in the Macao Second Instance Court, the Judicial Magistrates Council appointed a new judge rapporteur on January 5, 2026. On January 22, 2026, the new judge rapporteur overruled his predecessor’s decision of September 18, 2025, ruling that AAEC’s request for panel review of the order dismissing AAEC’s appeal dated July 14, 2025 is not subject to prepayment of court fees. As Plaintiff’s counsel purported to request panel review on behalf of AAEC’s shareholders, the judge rapporteur ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to submit (i) the shareholders’ identities, (ii) powers of attorney authorizing counsel to represent the shareholders, (iii) evidence that the shareholders had ratified the actions that counsel purported to take on their behalf prior to obtaining powers of attorney and (iv) justification for seeking panel review prior to obtaining powers of attorney. Plaintiff’s counsel of record failed to comply with these requirements. On February 9, 2026, the judge rapporteur ruled that Plaintiff’s challenge was therefore invalid and would not be reviewed by the full panel of judges. The judgment in favor of Defendants became final on March 4, 2026, and the Macao Second Instance Court certified that final judgment on March 13, 2026. The final judgment resolves all issues concerning the merits of Plaintiff’s claim.