Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action Suit Against Las Vegas Sands Corp.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (“Robbins Geller”) ( http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/lasvegassands/) today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Las Vegas Sands Corp. (“Las Vegas Sands” or the “Company”) (NYSE:LVS) between August 1, 2007 and November 6, 2008, inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at [e-mail]. If you are a member of this Class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/lasvegassands/. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Las Vegas Sands and certain of its officers and executives with violations of the Exchange Act. Las Vegas Sands and its subsidiaries own and operate resort and gaming properties in Las Vegas, Macao and Singapore.

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.