LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP

Note 15 —Leases

Lessee

The Company has operating and finance leases for various real estate (including leasehold interests in land) and equipment. Certain of these lease agreements include rental payments adjusted periodically for inflation, rental payments based on usage and rental payments contingent on certain events occurring. Certain of the Company’s leases include options to extend the lease term byone month to 10 years. The Company’s lease agreements do not contain any material residual value guarantees or material restrictive covenants.

Nassau Coliseum

In conjunction with the Nassau Coliseum transaction, the seller assigned to the Company its lease of the land on which the related assets, including the Nassau Coliseum and other improvements, are affixed (the “Original Lease”). Immediately following this assignment, the Company entered into a new land lease agreement with Nassau County, for the use and exclusive right to develop and operate assets on the land for 99 years (the “99-Year Lease”), which commenced on June 2, 2023.

On April 18, 2023, Hofstra University (“Hofstra”) filed a petition against the Nassau County Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”) in the New York Supreme Court, County of Nassau, asserting, among other things, that certain meetings held by the Planning Commission concerning the 99-Year Lease and certain related transactions were not properly noticed and/or held, and that appropriate materials concerning the meetings were not made available to the public by the Planning Commission in connection with the meetings. On May 31, 2023, Hofstra filed an amended petition that, among other things, added additional respondents and sought to invalidate certain votes held by Nassau County and the Nassau County Legislature. Neither the original petition nor the amended petition named the Company as a respondent to the proceeding.

In a decision and order dated November 9, 2023, the New York Supreme Court annulled various votes held by the Nassau County Legislature, annulled the 99-Year Lease and remitted the matter to the Planning Commission and the Nassau County Legislature to conduct a proper public hearing in accordance with all relevant statutes and rules, including the Nassau County Administrative Code and the Open Meetings Law, and for the issuance of a positive declaration pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. On November 10, 2023, the respondents appealed the decision and order, and on November 21, 2023, Hofstra cross-appealed. On December 13, 2023, the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department denied respondents’ motion to stay enforcement of the decision and order pending the appeal, but granted a calendar preference, indicating that the appeal will be calendared expeditiously after all briefs have been filed. With the annulment of the 99-Year Lease noted above, the Company believed it had become the lessee under the Original Lease. This was accounted for as a lease modification on December 14, 2023. Prior to the annulment of the 99-Year Lease, the Company made the required lease payments, including a one-time rent payment of $54 million. On January 29, 2024, Hofstra filed a motion seeking a declaration that the Court’s prior order included the annulment of Nassau County’s consent and the putative assignment to the Company of the Original Lease.

On February 23, 2024, the New York Supreme Court ruled the Original Lease had been terminated and the Company currently had no leasehold interest in the land upon which the Nassau Coliseum sits. On February 27, 2024, the respondents appealed the decision, order and interlocutory judgment. On March 29, 2024, the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department denied respondents’ motion to stay enforcement of the decision, order and interlocutory judgment. Subsequent to this order, the Company entered into a use and occupancy permit (the “Permit”) with Nassau County to allow the Company to continue operating the Nassau Coliseum for a nominal $1 fee. The Company considered the accounting guidance under ASC 842, Leases, and determined the Permit met the definition of a lease as it conveyed the right to control the use of the associated assets for a specified period of time. Consequently, the Original Lease was deemed to be modified, maintaining the operating lease classification. At the request of the Nassau County respondents, the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department deemed their appeal withdrawn on June 23, 2025.

On August 16, 2024, the Company entered into a lease agreement with Nassau County for the use and exclusive right to operate assets on approximately 72 acres of land, including the Nassau Coliseum and other improvements thereon (the “42-Year Lease”), which has a 42-year lease term (inclusive of three 5-year extensions). The Company is required to make annual rent payments in the amounts and at the times specified in the 42-Year Lease.

On October 23, 2024, the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department issued a decision and order reversing the New York Supreme Court’s November 9, 2023 decision and order annulling the 99-Year Lease. The Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department held that because the Company was a party to the 99-Year Lease that was annulled, the Company is a necessary party to the action, and remitted the matter to the New York Supreme Court to add the Company as a respondent to the proceeding. On

November 13, 2024, the New York Supreme Court directed the Clerk of Court to add the Company to the proceeding as a respondent and amended the case caption. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended petition on January 17, 2025. On May 5, 2025, the New York Supreme Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss. On May 23, 2025, the Company filed a motion for leave to renew its prior motion to dismiss. On June 5, 2025, the Company appealed the May 5 decision and order denying its motion to dismiss. On August 13, 2025, the New York Supreme Court granted the Company’s motion to renew, but, upon renewal, adhered to its prior decision denying the Company’s motion to dismiss. On September 5, 2025, the Nassau County respondents appealed the decision and order on the Company’s motion to renew. On September 8, 2025, the Company appealed the decision and order on its motion to renew. These appeals remain pending.

On December 6, 2024, the Incorporated Village of Garden City (“Garden City”) filed a petition in the New York Supreme Court, County of Nassau, which, among other things, challenges the validity of the 42-Year Lease. Garden City’s petition names the Company as a respondent, along with several Nassau County governmental entities, including the Planning Commission, Nassau County Planning Division, Nassau County Real Estate Planning and Development Department, Nassau County Legislature, Nassau County Open Space and Parks Advisory Committee, and Nassau County. Garden City’s petition asserts, among other things, that the Nassau County Legislature failed to comply with state environmental law statutes when considering the 42-Year Lease, that the Nassau County Planning Commission and Legislature did not properly consider the 42-Year Lease, and that the Permit violates the New York State Constitution. The petition also seeks a declaration that the 42-Year Lease is void and of no further force or effect. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended petition on April 14, 2025. On November 25, 2025, the New York Supreme Court issued a decision and order granting the Company and Nassau County respondents’ motions to dismiss in full. On December 19, 2025, Garden City filed a motion for leave to reargue and appealed the decision and order. The Company intends to respond to the motion for leave to reargue.

On October 8, 2025, Garden City filed another petition in the New York Supreme Court, County of Nassau, which, among other things, challenges the environmental review issued by the Nassau County Legislature and the Town of Hempstead related to the rezoning of approximately 85 acres including and surrounding the Nassau Coliseum site. Garden City’s petition names the Company as a respondent, along with the Town Board of the Town of Hempstead, the Nassau County Legislature, the Nassau County Executive and Nassau County. Garden City’s petition alleges that Nassau County and the Town of Hempstead failed to properly assess the environmental impacts of the potential pursuit of a casino and the related rezoning of the Nassau Coliseum site after the Company withdrew from the project. The Company intends to respond to Garden City’s new petition.

In April 2025, the Company announced its decision to cease pursuit of a casino license from the State of New York in light of concerns regarding a lower anticipated return on investment due to various factors, including the impact of the potential legalization of online gaming on the New York market. The Company continues to consider potential acquirors and other development opportunities for the Nassau Coliseum site. There is no assurance the Company will be able to accomplish a sale or other development opportunity or to resolve certain matters associated with the right to lease the underlying land from Nassau County.

In the accompanying consolidated balance sheets, the 42-Year Lease ROU asset is included in “Property and equipment, net” and the noncurrent portion of the related finance lease liability is included in “Debt.” As of December 31, 2025, the related ROU asset and finance lease liability were $121 million.

The future minimum lease payments are $1 million for the year ending December 31, 2026, $3 million for the year ending December 31, 2027, $6 million for each of the years ending December 31, 2028 through 2030, and $325 million thereafter.

Lessee Disclosures

Leases recorded on the balance sheet consist of the following (excluding the leasehold interests in land assets classified as operating leases; see “Note 7 —Leasehold Interests in Land, Net”):

(1)Finance lease ROU assets are recorded net of accumulated amortization of $28 million and$27 million as of December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively.

Other information related to lease term and discount rate is as follows:

The components of lease expense are as follows:

Supplemental cash flow information related to leases is as follows:

As of December 31, 2025, the Company has short-term lease commitments of $31 million.

Maturities of lease liabilities are summarized as follows:

Lessor

The Company leases space at several of its Integrated Resorts to various third parties as part of its mall operations that are recorded within mall revenues, as well as restaurant and retail space that are recorded within convention, retail and other revenues. These leases are non-cancelable operating leases with remaining lease periods that vary fromone month to 15 years. The leases include minimum base rents with escalated contingent rent clauses.

Lease revenue consists of the following:

Future minimum rentals (excluding the escalated contingent rent clauses) on non-cancelable leases are as follows:

The cost and accumulated depreciation of property and equipment the Company is leasing to third parties are as follows:

Note 16 —Commitments and Contingencies