LVSLas Vegas Sands

There may be risks and uncertainties associated with the evolving laws and regulations in China, including their interpretation and implementation with respect to the enforcement of laws, rules and regulations and the possibility of changes thereto with little advance notice. If, in the future, there were to be any significant governmental influence on, or in relation to our business or operations, or significant control over offerings of our securities or foreign investment in China-based issuers, this could potentially significantly limit or completely hinder our ability to offer or continue to offer securities to investors, cause the value of our securities to significantly decline or be worthless and affect our ability to list securities on a U.S. or other foreign exchange. For example, on August 20, 2021, the Standing Committee of the National People's People’s Congress (“SCNPC”) promulgated the Personal Information Protection Law of the PRC (“PIPL”), which became effective on November 1, 2021. As the first systematic and comprehensive law specifically for the protection of personal information in the PRC, the PIPL provides extraterritorial effect on the personal information processing activities. activities where certain conditions apply. Since some of our data processing activities outside mainland China from our Macao Operations relate to the offering of goods or services directed at natural persons in mainland China, our businesses from our Macao Operations operated outside mainland China are could potentially be subject to the requirements of PIPL. However, the implementation rules to the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the PIPL have not been finalized yet, and it remains unclear how the Chinese government will enforce such law. If the extraterritorial jurisdiction under the PIPL were to be extended to us, law extraterritorially remain unclear. While our Macao Operations would be subject operations have implemented certain measures to certain data privacy obligations, which could potentially result in a material change to our operations. These data comply with the cyber and privacy obligations would primarily include bearing contemplated in PIPL and related laws, regulations and measures, to the responsibility for our personal information processing activities, and adopting the necessary measures to safeguard the security of the personal information we process in compliance with the standards required under the PIPL, the failure of which may result in us being ordered to correct or suspend or terminate the provision of services, confiscation of illegal income, fines or other penalties. Specifically, if the PIPL were to become applicable to us, we would be required to (i) notify the individuals concerned of the processing of their personal information in detail and establish legal bases for such processing; (ii) improve internal data governance by implementing managerial and technical security measures and response plans for security incidents; (iii) designate a person in charge of personal information protection where we qualify as a “quantity processor” (to be defined by the CAC); (iv) establish a special agency or designate a representative within the territory of the PRC to be responsible for handling matters relating to personal information protection; (v) establish and make public the procedure for individuals to exercise their rights related to personal information; (vi) conduct an impact assessment on personal information protection before any high-risk processing activities; (vii) conclude an agreement with such vendor and supervise its processing where we entrust processing of personal information to any vendor; and (viii) meet one of the conditions prescribed by the PIPL where we transfer personal information outside the territory of the PRC due to business or other needs. In addition, under the PIPL, where an overseas organization or individual engages in personal information processing activities extent that infringe upon the personal information rights and interests of PRC citizens or endangering the national security and public interests of the PRC, the CAC may include such organization or individual in the list of subjects to whom provision of personal information is restricted or prohibited, announce the same, and take measures such as restricting or prohibiting provision of personal information to such organization or individual. Moreover, if the recent Chinese regulatory actions on data security or other data-related laws and regulations were to become applicable to us in the future, we they could become subject to certain cybersecurity and data privacy obligations, which could potentially result in a material change apply to our operations, there are still uncertainties in relation to the implementation and enforcement of the failure extraterritorial application of PIPL and related laws and regulations, with respect to meet such obligations could result in penalties cross-border data transfers and other regulatory actions against us and may materially and adversely affect our business and results of operations. cyber incident reporting requirements.

The 2024 SCL In February 2025, MBS entered into a new facility agreement, the 2025 Singapore Credit Facility also makes available Facility, which provides for an HKD 12.95 SGD 3.75 billion (approximately $1.67 $2.92 billion at exchange rates in effect on December 31, 2024) unsecured 2025) term loan (the “2025 Singapore Term Loan Facility”) and makes available an SGD 750 million (approximately $584 million at exchange rates in effect on December 31, 2025) revolving credit facility (the “2025 Singapore Revolving Facility”) and an SGD 7.50 billion (approximately $5.84 billion at exchange rates in effect on December 31, 2025) term loan facility (the “2024 SCL “2025 Singapore Delayed Draw Term Loan Facility”). SCL may make a drawdown under Additionally, in February 2025, MBS drew down the 2024 SCL full amount of the 2025 Singapore Term Loan Facility and SGD 62 million (approximately $46 million at any exchange rates in effect at the time until August 31, 2025, for of the purpose of repaying transaction) from the 2025 Singapore Delayed Draw Term Loan Facility and used the proceeds to pay amounts outstanding under its unsecured $1.80 billion 5.125% Senior Notes. The final maturity date of such loan drawn the 2012 Singapore Credit Facility. MBS may draw under the 2024 SCL 2025 Singapore Revolving Facility to refinance outstanding indebtedness, pay certain fees, expenses and accrued interest, make dividend payments and for general corporate purposes. The proceeds from the 2025 Singapore Delayed Draw Term Loan Facility is may be used to finance development and construction costs, expenses, fees and other payments related to the date falling on MBS Expansion Project. In connection with entering into the fifth anniversary of 2025 Singapore Credit Facility, the date on which such loan is drawn. commitments under MBS’s amended and restated credit facility agreement, the 2012 Singapore Credit Facility, were terminated. Refer to “Part II — Item “Item 8 — Financial Statements and Supplementary Data — Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements — Note 12 11 — Debt” for further details.

In November 2023, September 2025, the FASB issued ASU 2023-07, Segment Reporting (Topic 280): Improvements 2025-06, Intangibles — Goodwill and Other — Internal-Use Software (Subtopic 350-40) (“ASU 2025-06”), which revises the approach to Reportable Segment Disclosures, which enhances reportable segment disclosure requirements primarily through expanded disclosures around significant segment expenses. The amendments are accounting for internal-use software costs by eliminating all references to the stages of software development projects, thereby making the guidance adaptable to a variety of software development methodologies. ASU 2025-06 will be effective for fiscal years annual periods beginning after December 15, 2023, 2027, and for interim periods within fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2024. The amendments should be applied retrospectively to all prior periods presented in the financial statements. those annual reporting periods, on a prospective, modified or retrospective basis, with early adoption permitted. The Company adopted is assessing the new accounting pronouncement on January 1, 2024. The adoption of this effect the guidance did not will have an effect on the Company’s financial position, condition, results of operations and cash flows. See “Note 20 — Segment Information” for additional disclosures.

On October 17, 2024, the Macao Second Instance Court issued an order rejecting Plaintiff's Plaintiff’s appeal of the Macao First Instance Court's Court’s April 28, 2022 judgment based on procedural defects, and again found the Plaintiff to be litigating in bad faith. faith, and declined to address the interlocutory appeals that had been filed by the parties. On October 29 and November 1, 2024, respectively, the U.S. Defendants and Plaintiff moved for clarification of the Second Instance Court’s decision not to hear certain interlocutory appeals. On November 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice stating that its time to appeal should not begin to run until after the Macao Second Instance Court resolves the clarification motions and that Plaintiff intends to file a notice of appeal at that time or, in the alternative, Plaintiff asked the Macao Second Instance Court to treat its November 5 filing as a notice of appeal. On November 14, 2024, Plaintiff applied to rectify both its notice of appeal and its request for clarification. On November 18, 2024, the U.S. Defendants responded to Plaintiff's Plaintiff’s request for clarification. The matter is currently pending before By order dated March 21, 2025, the Macao Second Instance Court. Court denied both motions for clarification, and it found that Plaintiff’s prior filings did not constitute a notice of appeal. On April 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Macao Last Instance Court, and the Defendants moved to stay proceedings pending completion of the judicial liquidation proceedings against AAEC. On April 28, 2025, the U.S. Defendants moved to strike Plaintiff’s notice of appeal.