In Macau and local legislators may reportedly be forced to utilize existing legal means so as to implement a proposal that would limit the amount licensed casino operators are permitted to pay their shareholders in dividends.
According to a report from Inside Asian Gaming, the disbursement proposition is one of the more controversial ideas being touted as part of the enclave’s ongoing endeavor to update its existing casino regulatory framework. The source detailed that this suggestion is contained within a series of amendments that are currently going through a 45-day public consultation due to end on October 29.
Concluding concessions:
Macau is currently home to an estate of 41 casinos run under 20-year licenses issued to six operators encompassing Sands China Limited, MGM China Holdings Limited, Melco Resorts and Entertainment Limited, Galaxy Entertainment Group Limited, SJM Holdings Limited and Wynn Macau Limited. However, all of these enterprises are to see their existing franchises expire from next June with any subsequent certifications set to include an obligation to follow updated rules that could well encompass the dividend proposition.
Unique undertaking:
Oliveira and Proenca reportedly instead proclaimed that Macau could bring in the proposed dividend scheme via existing rules so as not to upset the fundamental rights of casino shareholders under the free enterprise system that is guaranteed by Macau’s foundational Basic Law. They purportedly divulged that the government could alternatively insert specific investment obligations or non-gaming spending targets into any future gambling licenses or include prudential rules regarding concessionaires’ debt and asset to equity ratios.
Oliveira and Proenca’s statement reportedly read… Come from Sports betting site VPbet
“It is questionable if the proposed measure will efficiently accomplish its underlying policy goals. It is also clear that such goals, being legitimate, are potentially better achieved by other mechanisms available under Macau’s legal system that do not interfere with the no less legitimate shareholders’ right to distribute dividends.”
