Wynn, MGM Both Liable for VIP Room Losses

A Macau court has ruled against Wynn Macau and MGM China in their claims for compensation for lost deposits due to the Dore theft incident or in VIP rooms (l. MGM Cotai) of the now-shuttered Suncity junket operator.

Wynn, MGM Both Liable for VIP Room Losses

Macau’s Court of Final Appeal has ruled that Wynn Macau and MGM China are jointly liable for lost deposits in the Dore Entertainment embezzlement case and VIP rooms of the now-closed Suncity junket operator.

According to Macau Business, nine cases were reviewed by the court in January and February: eight Dore and Wynn Resorts (Macau) S.A., and the remainder involved Suncity and Macau concessionaire MGM Grand Paradise, S.A.

Wynn was sued by several people who claimed to be investors or hold credit in accounts maintained by Dore Entertainment, a junket operator at Wynn Macau. The plaintiffs alleged that Dore failed to honor the withdrawal of funds deposited with the junket after a Dore employee stole almost HK$700 million (US$89.1 million) in 2015.

Last November, the court ruled that Wynn Macau was jointly liable alongside Dore Entertainment for repayment of the money, which amounted to US$1.2 million, including interest.

In its ruling, the court joined the decision concerning the Wynn Macau/ Dore and MGM/ Suncity cases in a single decision.

“With the authorization and consent of Wynn and MGM, Dore and Sun City became casino gaming promoters operating with the aforementioned gaming concessionaires, having created VIP lounges at Wynn and MGM, respectively, and offering, through such VIP lounges, the services of depositing and withdrawing game chips to their members,” the ruling said.

“The plaintiffs of the nine cases mentioned above were all members of the VIP lounges of Dore or Suncity, and had deposited, in VIP lounges live game chips in amounts between HK$1 million and HK$6 million.”

The Court of First Instance ruled that in five of the cases, the gaming concessionaires were jointly liable to third parties for those obligations, a decision later seconded by the Court of Second Instance. Two other cases were dismissed because of lack of evidence.

According to the latest ruling, “It would not be logical that the development of the activities included in the gaming concession could be carried out for the benefit of the concessionaire by other entities contracted for this purpose, without resulting in any liability for the damage caused by the activity that these same entities could cause.”

“Consequently, the Collective Court ruled that gaming concessionaires are jointly and severally liable towards third parties for the obligations resulting from the activity carried out by their gaming promoters”.

Wynn Macau CEO Craig Billings had recently stated that the group was not expecting any “material exposure at this time” from lawsuits associated with the Dore case.