NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

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. and its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”) Company for the year ended December 31, 2004. The year-end balance sheet data was derived from audited financial statements but does not include all disclosures required by generally accepted accounting principles. 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.

Las Vegas Sands Corp. (“LVSC”) was incorporated in Nevada during August 2004 and completed an initial public offering of its common stock on December 20, 2004. Immediately prior to the initial public offering, LVSC acquired 100% of the capital stock of Las Vegas Sands, Inc. The acquisition of Las Vegas Sands, Inc. by LVSC has been accounted for as a reorganization of entities under common control, in a manner similar to pooling-of-interests. LVSC is traded on the NYSE under the symbol LVS. On July 28, 2005, Las Vegas Sands, Inc. was converted into a Nevada limited liability company and changed its name to Las Vegas Sands, LLC.

Las Vegas Properties

The Company owns and operates the Venetian Hotel Resort Casino (the “Venetian Casino Resort”), a Renaissance Venice-themed resort situated on the Las Vegas Strip (the “Strip”). The Venetian Casino Resort is located across from The Mirage and the Treasure Island Hotel and Casino. The Venetian Casino Resort includes the first all-suites hotel on the Strip with 4,027 suites (the “Hotel”); a gaming facility of approximately 116,000 square feet (the “Casino”); an enclosed retail, dining and entertainment complex of approximately 446,000 net leasable square feet (“The Grand Canal Shops” or the “Mall”), which was sold to a third party in 2004; a meeting and conference facility of approximately 650,000 square feet (the “Congress Center”); and an expo and convention center of approximately 1,150,000 square feet (the “Sands Expo Center”). The Company has begun design and construction work and has completed demolition and clearing on the site of the Palazzo Casino Resort (the “Palazzo” or the “Palazzo Casino Resort”), a second resort similar in size to the Venetian Casino Resort, which will be situated on a 14-acre site situated adjacent to the Venetian Casino Resort and the Sands Expo Center and across Sands Boulevard from the Wynn Las Vegas Resort. The Palazzo is expected to open during mid-2007. The Palazzo is expected to consist of an all-suite, 50-floor luxury hotel tower with approximately 3,025 rooms, a gaming facility of approximately 105,000 square feet, an enclosed shopping, dining and entertainment complex of approximately 375,000 square feet, which we have already pre-sold to a third party (the “Phase II Mall”). In addition, the Palazzo will include approximately 450,000 square feet of additional conference and meeting space, 300,000 square feet of which is now available. The Palazzo Casino Resort project is expected to cost approximately $1.7 billion (exclusive of land), of which the Phase II Mall is expected to cost approximately $280.0 million.

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)

NOTE 1 – ORGANIZATION AND BUSINESS OF COMPANY (Continued)

Macao Projects

We also own and operate the Sands Macao, a Las Vegas-style casino in Macao, China. We opened the Sands Macao on May 18, 2004. In addition to the Sands Macao, we are also constructing the Venetian Macao Hotel Resort Casino (the “Venetian Macao Resort”), an all-suites hotel, casino, and convention center complex, with a Venetian-style theme similar to that of our Las Vegas property. Under our gaming subconcession in Macao, we are obligated to develop and open the Venetian Macao Resort by June 2006 and a convention center by December 2006, and invest, or cause to be invested, at least 4.4 billion Patacas (approximately $527.6 million at exchange rates in effect on September 30, 2005) in various development projects in Macao by June 2009. We expect that the cost of the Sands Macao and the construction of the Venetian Macao Resort will satisfy these investment obligations but we will need an extension of the June 2006 construction deadline for the Venetian Macao Resort, which we currently expect to open in mid-2007. We have recently requested the extension from the Macao authorities. Unless we obtain an extension, we will lose our right to continue to operate the Sands Macao or any other facilities development under our Macao gaming concession and our investment to date in construction of the Venetian Macao Resort could be lost. In addition, we broke ground in October 2005 on an expansion of the Sands Macao that will enhance the size and scope of the property and increase gaming capacity by more than 65.0%. Construction of the Venetian Macao is progressing according to plan and we have decided to build out all 3,000 rooms in the initial phase, instead of the previously announced 1,500 rooms. We also plan to build a 400 room luxury hotel under the Four Seasons brand, which will also include approximately 600 serviced apartment units and over 100,000 square feet of retail space. We are also master planning two additional 3,000 room hotels, to be built in multiple phases, with serviced apartments and a combined 450,000 square feet of retail space across the Cotai Strip™ from the Venetian Macao. We will own these properties and operate them under the Shangri-La and Traders brands as well as other internationally recognized third party hotel brands. We expect to make land premium payments relating to the Venetian Macao Resort and other Macao properties under development in amounts to be determined. We currently estimate that the cost for the Venetian Macao Resort will be approximately $2.0 billion (exclusive of land) and that we will need to arrange additional debt financing to finance these costs. We have not yet finalized our estimate of the cost of the other Cotai Strip™ developments; however we will need to arrange additional debt financing to finance those costs as well.

Subsidiaries

The condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of LVSC and its subsidiaries (the “Subsidiaries”), including Las Vegas Sands, LLC, formerly known as Las Vegas Sands, Inc. (“Las Vegas Sands Opco”), Venetian Casino Resort, LLC (“Venetian”), Interface Group-Nevada, Inc. (“Interface”), Interface Employee Leasing, LLC, Mall Intermediate Holding Company, LLC (“Mall Intermediate”), Grand Canal Shops Mall Subsidiary, LLC, Grand Canal Shops Mall MM Subsidiary, Inc., Venetian Hotel Operations, LLC (“Mall Construction”), Las Vegas Sands (Wolverhampton) Limited, Las Vegas Sands (Stoke City) Limited, Las Vegas Sands (Sunderland City) Limited, Las Vegas Sands (Ibrox) Limited, Las Vegas Sands (Sheffield) Limited, Las Vegas Sands (Murrayfield) Limited, Las Vegas Sands (Reading) Limited, Las Vegas Sands (UK) Limited, Lido Intermediate Holding Company, LLC (“Lido Intermediate”), Lido Casino Resort Holding Company, LLC, Lido Casino Resort, LLC (the “Phase II Subsidiary”), Lido Casino Resort MM, Inc., Sands Pennsylvania, Inc., Phase II Mall Holding, LLC, Phase II Mall Subsidiary, LLC, Venetian Transport, LLC (“Venetian Transport”), Venetian Venture Development, LLC (“Venetian Venture”), Venetian Venture Development Intermediate Limited, Venetian Venture Development Intermediate I, Venetian Venture Development Intermediate II, Venetian Global Holdings Limited, Venetian Macao Finance Company, VI Limited, Venetian Macao Limited (“Venetian Macao”), Venetian Cotai Limited, Venetian Marketing, Inc. (“Venetian Marketing”), Venetian Far East Limited, Venetian Operating Company, LLC (“Venetian Operating”), Venetian Resort Development Limited, World Sourcing Services Limited, Sands Garden City Pte. Ltd., Silver State Marble, LLC, V-HK Services Limited, Venetian Zhuhai Development Limited, VI Limited and TK Las Vegas, LLC. Each of LVSC and the Subsidiaries is a separate legal entity and the assets of each such entity are intended to be available only to the creditors of such entity, except to the extent of guarantees on indebtedness. See “Note 4 – Long-Term Debt.”

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)

NOTE 1 – ORGANIZATION AND BUSINESS OF COMPANY (Continued)

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In December 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised 2004), “Share-Based Payment” (“SFAS 123R”), which supersedes Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees” (“APB 25”). This statement requires compensation costs related to share based payment transactions to be recognized in financial statements. The provisions of this statement are effective as of the first annual reporting period that begins after June 15, 2005. This statement requires public entities to measure the cost of employee services received in exchange for an award of equity instruments based on the grant-date fair value of the award (with limited exceptions). This cost will be recognized over the period during which an employee is required to provide service in exchange for the award. This statement also addresses the accounting for the tax effects of share-based compensation awards. We currently expect to adopt this standard on January 1, 2006 and we expect to expense the cost of share-based compensation awards issued after January 1, 2006. Additionally, we expect to recognize compensation cost for the portion of awards outstanding on January 1, 2006 for which the requisite service has not been rendered as the requisite service is to be rendered on or after January 1, 2006. We are currently evaluating the provisions of SFAS 123R to determine its impact on our future consolidated financial statements.

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005, outstanding options to purchase 147,820 and 22,820 shares of common stock, respectively, were not included in the calculation of diluted earnings per share because their effect was antidilutive. For the three months ended September 30, 2004, outstanding options to purchase 3,170,105 shares of common stock were not included in the calculation of diluted loss per share because their effect was antidilutive.

The Company has elected to follow APB 25 and accounts for its stock-based compensation to employees using the intrinsic value method. Under this method, compensation expense is the difference between the market value of the Company’s stock and the stock option’s exercise price at the measurement date. Under APB 25, if the exercise price of the stock options is equal to or greater than the market price of the underlying stock on the date of grant, no compensation expense is recognized.

Had the Company accounted for the plan under the fair value method allowed by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation” (“SFAS 123”), the Company’s net income (loss), and earnings (loss) per share would have been adjusted to the following pro forma amounts (in thousands, except per share data):

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)

NOTE 2 – STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY AND PER SHARE DATA (Continued)

The estimated grant date fair value of options granted during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005 were $14.48 and $15.25 per share, respectively, and were computed using the Black Scholes option-pricing model with the following weighted average assumptions: risk free interest rate of 3.95%; no expected dividend yields; expected volatility of 32.40% and expected life of 6 years.

During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005 and the three and nine months ended September 30, 2004, the Company capitalized interest expense of $6.4 million, $15.5 million, $0.4 million, and $2.7 million, respectively.

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)

NOTE 4 – LONG-TERM DEBT (Continued)

2005 Refinancing Transactions

On June 4, 2002, the Company issued $850.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 11.0% mortgage notes due 2010 (the “11% Mortgage Notes”) and on August 20, 2004, Las Vegas Sands Opco and Venetian entered into a $1.0 billion Senior Secured Credit Facility (the “Prior Senior Secured Credit Facility”).

On February 1, 2005, the Company completed the exercise of an equity claw back under the 11% Mortgage Notes indenture pursuant to which the Company retired $291.1 million of the 11% Mortgage Notes and paid $32.0 million of redemption premiums with the proceeds from its initial public offering.

On February 10, 2005, the Company sold in a private placement transaction $250.0 million in aggregate principal amount of its 6.375% Senior Notes due 2015 (the “Senior Notes”) with an original issue discount of $2.3 million. Net proceeds after offering costs and original issue discount were $244.8 million. The Company, the subsidiary guarantors (including Las Vegas Sands Opco and Venetian) and the initial purchasers of the Senior Notes also entered into a registration rights agreement. Under the registration rights agreement, the Company and each subsidiary guarantor granted certain exchange and registration rights to the holders of the Senior Notes. On July 21, 2005, the Company completed an exchange offer to exchange the 6.375% Senior Notes for a new series of 6.375% Senior Notes with substantially the same terms that were registered under the Securities Act of 1933.

On February 22, 2005, Las Vegas Sands Opco and Venetian entered into the Senior Secured Credit Facility (the “Senior Secured Credit Facility”), which amended and restated their $1.0 billion Prior Senior Secured Credit Facility. The Senior Secured Credit Facility consists of a $970.0 million funded term loan (the “Term B Facility”), a $200.0 million Term B Delayed Draw Facility that was fully drawn in August 2005 and a $450.0 million revolving credit facility (the “Revolving Facility”). As of September 30, 2005, no amounts have been drawn under the Revolving Facility. Las Vegas Sands Opco has guaranteed borrowings under a $50.0 million credit facility of its wholly owned subsidiary, Venetian Intermediate, to fund construction and development costs of the Macao Casino. These guarantees are supported by $50.0 million of letters of credit that were issued under the Revolving Facility. As a result of the issuance of these letters of credit, the amount available for working capital loans under the Revolving Facility is $400.0 million as of September 30, 2005.

On February 22, 2005, Las Vegas Sands Opco and Venetian repurchased $542.3 million in aggregate principal amount of their 11% Mortgage Notes pursuant to a tender offer plus a make-whole premium and accrued interest of $90.3 million, with proceeds from the Senior Notes offering, initial public offering, cash on hand and proceeds from the Senior Secured Credit Facility. On March 24, 2005, Las Vegas Sands Opco and Venetian redeemed the remaining $10.2 million aggregate principal amount of the outstanding 11% Mortgage Notes plus a make-whole premium and accrued interest of $1.7 million with cash on hand.

On May 23, 2005, the Company utilized existing cash to retire the $120.0 million Venetian Macao Senior Secured Notes. The Company incurred a charge of $4.2 million for loss on early retirement of indebtedness during the second quarter of 2005 as a result of retiring the Venetian Macao Senior Secured Notes.

The indebtedness under the Senior Secured Credit Facility is guaranteed by certain of the Company’s domestic subsidiaries (the “Guarantors”). The obligations under the Senior Secured Credit Facility and the guarantees of the Guarantors are secured by a first-priority security interest in substantially all of the Company’s and Guarantors’ assets, other than capital stock. Borrowings under the term loan facilities and revolving loan facilities bear interest, at the Company’s option, at either an adjusted Eurodollar rate or at an alternative base rate, plus a spread of 1.75% or 0.75%, respectively, which spreads will decrease by 0.25% if the loans achieve a rating of Ba2 or higher by Moody’s and BB or higher by S&P subject to certain additional conditions. The Senior Secured Credit Facility contains certain covenants and events of default customary for such financings. The average interest rate for the Senior Secured Credit Facility was 5.0% during the nine months ended September 30, 2005.

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)

NOTE 5 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Construction Litigation

The following disclosure summarizes our previous disclosure regarding this matter and discusses recent developments since the filing of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.

The construction of the principal components of the Venetian Casino Resort was undertaken by Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. (“Bovis”) pursuant to a construction management agreement, as amended. Bovis’ obligations were guaranteed by its corporate parent companies. In 1999, Venetian Casino Resort, LLC filed a complaint against Bovis in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada relating to the construction of the Venetian Casino Resort. In response, Bovis filed a complaint against Venetian Casino Resort, LLC in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada (the “State Court Action”). Commencing in 2000, the construction manager and we engaged in certain arbitration proceedings ordered by the federal court. Pursuant to agreement between the parties, certain claims brought by Bovis relating to infrastructure for the Palazzo, which is currently under construction (the “Lido Claims”), were severed from the State Court Action and were scheduled for trial in January 2006. As noted below, the Lido Claims have been fully resolved.

In connection with these disputes, Bovis and its subcontractors filed certain mechanics liens against the Venetian Casino Resort. We have purchased surety bonds for virtually all of the claims underlying these liens. As a result, there can be no foreclosure of the Venetian Casino Resort in connection with the claims of the construction manager and its subcontractors. However, we will be required to pay or immediately reimburse the bonding company if and to the extent that the underlying claims are judicially determined to be valid. It is likely to take a significant amount of time for their validity to be judicially determined.

We have purchased an insurance policy for loss coverage in connection with all litigation relating to the construction of the Venetian Casino Resort (the “Insurance Policy”). Under the Insurance Policy, we will self-insure the first $45.0 million of covered losses (excluding defense costs) and the insurer will insure defense costs and other covered losses up to the next $80.0 million. Approximately $29.0 million of the $80.0 million of policy limits has been utilized to date in connection with the litigation, primarily for defense costs. The Insurance Policy provides coverage (subject to certain exceptions) for amounts determined in the construction litigation to be owed to Bovis, and lien claims of, or acquired by, Bovis as well as any defense costs. The principal exclusions from coverage are lien claims of Bovis’ subcontractors directly against us (“Direct Claims”) and Lido Claims. However, up to $36.5 million in Direct Claims and $8.5 million in Lido Claims can be applied to satisfaction of the $45.0 million self-insured retention under the Insurance Policy. Payments we made in connection with the resolution of the Lido Claims satisfied $8.5 million of our self-insured retention. Payments we have made in connection with the resolution of certain Direct Claims have satisfied an additional $5.6 million of our self-insured retention. Our remaining self-insured retention is $30.9 million.

After trial in the State Court Action, the jury awarded Bovis approximately $44.0 million in damages and awarded us approximately $2.0 million in damages. We have filed a notice of appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court.

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)

NOTE 5 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)

Notwithstanding the entry of judgment in the State Court Action, we have continued to pursue certain claims in the federal court ordered arbitration proceedings, which we believe may provide a basis for reducing the amount awarded to Bovis in the State Court Action. The complexities of the matter include the magnitude of the remaining open items in the federal arbitration proceedings, which we believe must be considered in any ultimate award between the parties, the magnitude of the Direct Claims, the payment of which we contend should reduce the amount awarded to Bovis in the State Court Action, and the issues raised on appeal. However, following a periodic review of the matter and based upon recent activities in relation to the matter, we estimate that our range of loss in this matter as of the end of the third quarter 2005 is from $30.9 million to approximately $103.9 million, before the benefit of the approximately $51.0 million of the remaining policy limits under the Insurance Policy. The Insurance Policy is available for claims in excess of $30.9 million, subject to certain exceptions and policy limits.

We have recorded a $23.7 million accrual in the third quarter 2005 financial statements which, when added to the prior existing $7.2 million accrual for unpaid construction costs which have not yet been paid pending outcome of the litigation, equals the $30.9 million balance of our self-insured retention under the Insurance Policy.

During the third quarter 2005, we resolved three related litigation matters consisting of the Lido Claims and two Direct Claims. The Company paid $13.5 million to resolve the Lido Claims and $5.6 million to resolve the two Direct Claims.

In connection with the aforementioned aggregate $30.9 million accruals and the $18.1 million aggregate settlement payments, the Company has capitalized $30.1 million of these amounts as building related construction costs and treated $12.7 million of these amounts as interest expense. In addition, the Company recorded $5.3 million of depreciation expense during the quarter associated with the additional capitalized building related construction costs.

The low end of the range assumes that we pay the remaining balance of the self-insured retention under the Insurance Policy and that we incur no liability in excess of that self-insured retention plus the remaining policy limits under the Insurance Policy.

The high end of the range assumes that (i) we lose all remaining arbitration matters and related pending actions and appeals that counsel has advised are possible of loss, and that are not already included in the State Court Action; and (ii) we are not permitted to offset against the State Court Action award amounts we pay for Direct Claims consisting of interest and attorneys’ fees, but we are permitted to offset the remaining amounts of the Direct Claims. Substantially all of our attorneys’ fees and costs related to the defense and prosecution of claims arising out of this matter are being paid by the Insurance Policy.

There are three ways the state court judgment may change before it can be executed on by Bovis. First, if we are successful in proving our remaining claims in the federal court ordered arbitrations, the arbitration credit awards, in total, could, in our opinion, offset up to $27.0 million of the verdict. Second, we believe that certain elements of the verdict should be preempted because they are duplicative of items ordered to arbitration by federal court before the state court jury trial began. It is our position that the arbitration awards should be substituted for the portions of the verdict which overlap. In a March 2004 hearing, the state court judge acknowledged that the verdict and the judgment on the verdict will need to be adjusted after the completion of the arbitrations. Third, any amounts of principal and interest which we are obligated to pay to Bovis’ sub-contractors as a result of the Direct Claims for which we do not receive indemnity from Bovis should, in our opinion, be offset against principal and interest awarded in the state court judgment.

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)

NOTE 5 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)

From the summer of 2000 to the present, we actively defended approximately 25 Direct Claims lawsuits in Nevada State Court brought by various Bovis sub-contractors, which brought claims directly against us for monies due the sub-contractors from Bovis as permitted by Nevada lien law, pre- and post-judgment interest on such amounts and related claims. A number of Direct Claim trials ended in judgments in favor of the sub-contractors in the aggregate amounts of approximately $29.0 million including awarded interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. This amount also includes a stipulated judgment amount for a portion of a claim brought by a sub-contractor, the remaining portions of which claim are still to be tried. We are appealing all of these judgments (except the stipulated judgment). We cannot predict the outcomes of our appeals at this time. Our costs of appeal are being paid by the Insurance Policy and payments, if any, we make following the conclusion of the appeals will be credited toward our self-insured retention under the Insurance Policy, along with other payments relating to Direct Claims, up to an aggregate of $36.5 million ($5.6 million of which has already been credited).

Litigation Relating to Macao Casino

The following disclosure summarizes our previous disclosure regarding this matter and discusses recent developments since the filing of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.

In October 15, 2004, Richard Suen and Round Square Company Limited filed an action against LVSC, Las Vegas Sands Opco, Sheldon Adelson, and William Weidner in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, 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. We intend to defend this matter vigorously. In March 2005, LVSC was dismissed as a party without prejudice based on a stipulation to do so between the parties. On May 17, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The defendants responded with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On August 23, 2005, the court postponed ruling on the motion to dismiss and allowed for limited discovery in order to address defendant’s assertion that plaintiffs cannot plead fraud with sufficient particularity. A hearing on the motion to dismiss has been scheduled for January 9, 2006. Other than the motion to dismiss, there is currently no pending activity in the matter. This action is in a preliminary stage and the Company’s legal counsel is currently not able to determine the probability of the outcome of this action.

Shareholder Derivative Litigation

Two shareholder derivative complaints, brought by plaintiffs Lily Walker and James Roberts, Jr., were filed in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada in August 2005 against Las Vegas Sands Corp. (as a nominal defendant) and several of it’s officers and directors, including Sheldon G. Adelson, Irwin Chafetz, Charles D. Forman, Robert G. Goldstein, Michael A. Leven, James J. Purcell, Irwin A. Siegel, Bradley H. Stone, and William P. Weidner.  The two actions were consolidated under the lead case, and are now captioned “ In re Las Vegas Sands Corp. Shareholder Litigation ” Case No . A507820. The consolidated complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment causes of action, including that the compensation paid to certain of the Company’s officers pursuant to their employment and other agreements was excessive, and that the approval of this compensation by certain directors was improper.  The individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the allegations of the consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim in October 2005, to which the Company filed a joinder.  The Company expects the pending motion to be heard and decided in December 2005 at the earliest.  This action is in a preliminary stage and the Company’s legal counsel is currently not able to determine the probability of the outcome of this action.

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)

NOTE 5 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)

Other Litigation

The Company is involved in other litigation 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 position, results of operations or cash flows.