UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

 

xANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 20072008

OR

 

¨TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Commission file number: 1-12882

BOYD GAMING CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

Nevada 88-0242733

(State or other jurisdiction of

incorporation or organization)

 

(I.R.S. Employer

Identification No.)

3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ninth Floor, Las Vegas NV 89169

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

(702) 792-7200

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

 

Title of Each Class

 

Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered

Common Stock, Par Value $.01 Per Share New York Stock Exchange

Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes   x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.    Yes  ¨    No  x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period thanthat the Registrantregistrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

 

Large accelerated Filer xAccelerated filer ¨
Large accelerated filer  xAccelerated filer  ¨Non-accelerated filer  ¨ Smaller reporting company  ¨
(Do not check if a smaller
reporting company)
 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).    Yes  ¨    No  x

As of June 29, 2007,30, 2008, the aggregate market value of the voting common stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant,registrant, based on the closing price on the New York Stock Exchange for such date, was approximately $2.8 billion.$706.8 million.

As of February 15, 2008,17, 2009, the Registrantregistrant had outstanding 87,754,57986,769,675 shares of Common Stock.

Documents Incorporated by ReferenceDOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the definitive Proxy Statement for the Registrant’s 2008registrant’s 2009 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A within 120 days after the Registrant’sregistrant’s fiscal year end of December 31, 20072008 are incorporated by reference into Part III of this report.

 

 

 


Boyd Gaming Corporation 20072008 Annual Report on Form 10-K

Table of Contents

 

      Page
No.

PART I

  

ITEM 1.

  Business  1

ITEM 1A.

  Risk Factors  108

ITEM 1B.

  Unresolved Staff Comments  19

ITEM 2.

  Properties  2019

ITEM 3.

  Legal Proceedings  2019

ITEM 4.

  Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders  2120

ITEM 4A.

  Executive Officers of the Registrant  21
PART II20

PART II

ITEM 5.

  Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities  2221

ITEM 6.

  Selected Financial Data  22

ITEM 7.

  Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations  24

ITEM 7A.

  Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosure About Market Risk  47

ITEM 8.

  Financial Statements and Supplementary Data  48

ITEM 9.

  Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure  4948

ITEM 9A.

  Controls and Procedures  49

ITEM 9B.

  Other Information  51
PART III  

ITEM 10.

  Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance  51

ITEM 11.

  Executive Compensation  51

ITEM 12.

  Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters  51

ITEM 13.

  Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence  51

ITEM 14.

  Principal Accounting Fees and Services  51
PART IV  

ITEM 15.

  Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules  52

Signature PageSignatures

  105102


PARTPart I

ITEM 1. Business

ITEM 1.Business

Overview

We areBoyd Gaming Corporation is a multi-jurisdictional gaming company that has been operating for approximately 30 years. As of December 31, 2007,2008, we wholly-owned and operated 15 casino entertainment facilities located in eight distinct gaming marketsNevada, Mississippi, Illinois, Louisiana and Indiana. In addition, we own and operate a pari-mutuel jai alai facility located in five states.Dania Beach, Florida, two travel agencies, and an insurance company that underwrites travel-related insurance. As of December 31, 2007,2008, we owned an aggregate of approximately 817,000808,200 square feet of casino space, containing approximately 23,00022,250 slot machines, 500450 table games and 7,3007,250 hotel rooms. We derive the majority of our gross revenues from our gaming operations, which produced approximately 75%74%, 74%75% and 74%, respectively, of gross revenues for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, and 2005.respectively. Food and beverage gross revenues, which produced approximately 12%13%, 13%12% and 13%, respectively, of gross revenues for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, and 2005,respectively, represent the only other revenue source which produced more than 10% of gross revenues during these periods.

We and MGM MIRAGE each ownare also a 50% ofpartner in a joint venture that owns a limited liability company, that owns and operatesoperating Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa (“Borgata”), a destination resort located in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Borgata commenced operations on July 3, 2003.

Significant developments affecting our business during the past five years are as follows:

 

We began construction on Echelon, our multi-billionmultibillion dollar Las Vegas Strip development project, in the second quarter of 2007 and plan to open2007. Echelon in the third quarter of 2010. Echelon will beis located on the former Stardust site, which we closed onin November 1, 2006 and demolished in March 2007. On August 1, 2008, due to the difficult environment in the capital markets, as well as weak economic conditions, we announced the delay of our Echelon development project. Due to the continued deterioration in credit market conditions and the economic outlook, it is unlikely that we will resume construction in 2009. Nonetheless, we remain committed to having a meaningful presence on the Las Vegas Strip. Over the course of 2009, we intend to prepare alternative development options to consider for Echelon, which may include developing the project in phases, alternative capital structures for the project, scope modifications to the project, or additional strategic partnerships, among others. We can provide no assurances as to when, or if, construction will resume on the project, or if we will be able to obtain alternative sources of financing for the project.

 

OnOur new hotel at Blue Chip Casino, Hotel & Spa opened on January 22, 2009. This expansion added a 22-story hotel, which includes 300 guest rooms, a spa and fitness center, additional meeting and event space, as well as new dining and nightlife venues.

In 2008, we completed the launch of our nationwide branding initiative and loyalty program. Players are now able to use their “Club Coast” or “B Connected” cards to earn and redeem points at any wholly-owned Boyd Gaming property in Nevada, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana and Mississippi.

The Water Club, an 800-room boutique hotel expansion project at Borgata, opened in June 2008. The expansion includes five swimming pools, a state-of-the-art spa, additional meeting and retail space, and a separate porte-cochere and front desk.

In February 27, 2007, we completed our exchange transaction with Harrah’s Operating Company, Inc., a subsidiary of Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc., or Harrah’s, whereby we exchanged ourthe Barbary Coast Hotel and Casino and its related 4.2 acres of land for approximately 24 acres located north of and contiguous to our Echelon development project on the Las Vegas Strip in a nonmonetary, tax-free transaction.

 

OnIn October 25, 2006, we sold ourthe South Coast Hotel and Casino for total consideration of approximately $513 million, consisting of approximately $401 million in cash and approximately 3.4 million shares of our common stock valued at $112 million.

 

OnIn January 31, 2006, we expanded our Blue Chip Casino, Hotel and Casino& Spa through the construction of a single-level boat that allowed us to expand our casino and increase the number of slot machines by approximately 25%.casino. In connection with this expansion, we also added a new parking structure and enhanced the land-based pavilion.

 

OnIn July 1, 2004, we consummated a $1.3 billion merger in stock and cash with Coast Casinos, Inc. (“Coast”), or Coast, pursuant to which Coast became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Boyd Gaming Corporation.

 

-1-


OnIn May 19, 2004, we acquired all of the outstanding limited and general partnership interests of the partnership that owned the Shreveport Hotel and Casino in Shreveport, Louisiana, for approximately $197 million. After the acquisition, we renamed the property Sam’s Town Hotel and Casino.

We are subject to a variety of regulations in the jurisdictions in which we operate and are required to be licensed by certain authorities in order to conduct gaming operations. A more detailed description of the regulations to which we are subject is contained in Exhibit 99.1 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K, which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference.

For further information related to our segment information for revenues, net income and total assets as of and for the three years in the period ended December 31, 2007,2008, see Note 1817 to our Consolidated Financial Statements presented in Part IV, Item 15, “ExhibitsExhibits and Financial Statement Schedules.

Business Strategy and Competitive Strengths

We believe that the following factors have contributed to our success in the past and are central to our future success:

 

we emphasize slot revenues, the most consistently profitable segment of the gaming industry;

 

we have comprehensive marketing and promotion programs;

 

our four primary Las Vegas properties are well-positioned to capitalize on the Las Vegas locals market, making us a leader in historically one of the strongest and fastest-growing gaming markets in the United States;market;

 

our downtown Las Vegas properties focus their marketing programs on, and derive a majority of their revenues from, a unique niche—niche — customers from Hawaii;

 

our operations are geographically diversified within the United States;

 

we have the ability to develop new facilities and expand certain existing properties;

weproperties and make opportunistic and strategic acquisitions; and

 

we have an experienced management team.

-2-


Properties

The following table sets forth certain information regarding our wholly-owned properties (listed by the segment in which each such property is reported) and Borgata, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007.2008.

 

 Year
Opened or
Acquired
 Casino
Space
(Sq. Ft.)
 Slot
Machines
 Table
Games
 Hotel
Rooms
 Land
(Acres)
 Hotel
Occupancy
 Average
Daily
Rate
  Year
Opened or
Acquired
  Casino
Space
(Sq. ft.)
  Slot
Machines
  Table
Games
  Hotel
Rooms
  Land
(Acres)
  Hotel
Occupancy
 Average
Daily
Rate

LAS VEGAS LOCALS

                       

Gold Coast Hotel and Casino

 2004 85,500 2,048 51 711 26 94% $68  2004  85,500  2,019  49  711  26  91% $63

The Orleans Hotel and Casino

 2004 137,000 3,000 60 1,886 77 94% $79  2004  137,000  2,844  60  1,885  77  91% $68

Sam's Town Hotel and Gambling Hall

 1979 133,000 2,866 36 646 63 96% $56

Sam’s Town Hotel and Gambling Hall

  1979  133,000  2,834  34  646  63  92% $52

Suncoast Hotel and Casino

 2004 95,000 2,397 41 426 49 93% $93  2004  95,000  2,353  36  426  49  90% $85

Eldorado Casino

 1993 16,000 493 6 —   4 —     —    1993  16,000  482  6  —    4   

Jokers Wild Casino

 1993 22,500 514 7 —   15 —     —    1993  22,500  513  6  —    15   

DOWNTOWN LAS VEGAS

                       

California Hotel and Casino

 1975 36,000 1,146 34 781 16 94% $34  1975  36,000  1,123  29  781  16  89% $35

Fremont Hotel and Casino

 1985 30,200 1,086 26 447 2 93% $38  1985  30,200  1,082  26  447  2  87% $38

Main Street Station Casino, Brewery and Hotel

 1993 27,000 905 19 406 15 94% $39

Main Street Station Casino,

               

Brewery and Hotel

  1993  27,000  884  19  406  15  89% $40

MIDWEST AND SOUTH

                       

Mississippi
Sam’s Town Hotel and Gambling Hall

 1994 75,000 1,342 38 842 272 85% $52

Illinois
Par-A-Dice Hotel Casino

 1996 26,000 1,129 24 204 20 89% $59

Indiana
Blue Chip Casino Hotel

 1999 65,000 2,126 52 184 37 96% $62

Louisiana
Treasure Chest Casino

 1997 24,000 1,003 36 —   14 —     —  

Mississippi

               

Sam’s Town Hotel and Gambling Hall

  1994  66,000  1,336  38  842  272  84% $50

Illinois

               

Par-A-Dice Hotel Casino

  1996  26,000  1,129  25  202  20  87% $70

Indiana

               

Blue Chip Casino, Hotel & Spa (1)

  1999  65,000  1,969  49  184  37  92% $65

Louisiana

               

Treasure Chest Casino

  1997  24,000  990  36  —    14   

Delta Downs Racetrack Casino & Hotel

 2001 15,000 1,507 —   206 211 89% $59  2001  15,000  1,609  —    206  211  90% $59

Sam’s Town Hotel and Casino

 2004 30,000 1,069 28 514 18 88% $84  2004  30,000  1,063  28  514  18  90% $83
                                 

Total of wholly-owned properties

  817,200 22,631 458 7,253 839      808,200  22,230  441  7,250  839   
                                 

Atlantic City, New Jersey
Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa(1)

 2003 160,000 3,999 180 1,971 42 95% $145

New Jersey

               

Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa (2)

  2003  160,000  3,956  181  2,771  42  87% $143

 

(1)Blue Chip opened a second hotel with approximately 300 guest rooms on January 22, 2009.

(2)Borgata is our 50% joint venture with MGM MIRAGE.

In addition to the properties discussed above, we own and operate a pari-mutuel jai alai facility in Dania Beach, Florida, two travel agencies, and an insurance company that underwrites travel-related insurance. We are also developing Echelon, which will occupy 65 of theown 87 contiguous acres of land that we own on the Las Vegas Strip where the Stardust was formerly located. For additional information regardinglocated, of which 65 acres has been designated for our jai alai facility and Las Vegas Stripmultibillion dollar Echelon development project, see “New Projects” below.project.

-3-


Las Vegas Locals Properties

Our Las Vegas Locals segment consists of six casinos that serve the resident population of the Las Vegas metropolitan area, which has been one of the fastest growing areas in the United States over the last decade. Las Vegas is characterized by a historically vibrant economy and strong demographics that include a growinglarge population of retirees and other active gaming customers.customers; however, the current recession has had an adverse impact on the growth and economy of Las Vegas, resulting in significant declines in the local housing market and rising unemployment in the Las Vegas valley, which has negatively affected consumer spending. Our Las Vegas Locals segment competes directly with other locals’ casinos and gaming companies, some of which operate larger casinos with superiorin further developed locations.

Gold Coast Hotel and Casino

Gold Coast Hotel and Casino (“Gold Coast”) is located on Flamingo Road, approximately one mile west of the Las Vegas Strip and one-quarter mile west of Interstate 15, the major highway linking Las Vegas and Southernsouthern California. Its location offers easy access from all four directions in the Las Vegas valley. The primary target market for Gold Coast consists of local middle-market customers who gamble frequently.actively gamble. Gold Coast’s amenities include 711 hotel rooms and suites along with meeting facilities, multiple restaurant options, a 70-lane bowling center and action packedaction-packed gaming, including slots, table games, a poker room, a race and sports book and a bingo center.

The Orleans Hotel and Casino

The Orleans Hotel and Casino (“The Orleans”) is located on Tropicana Avenue, a short distance from the Las Vegas Strip. The target markets for The Orleans are both local residents and visitors to the Las Vegas area. The Orleans provides an exciting New Orleans French Quarter-themed environment. Amenities at The Orleans include 1,8861,885 hotel rooms, a variety of restaurants and bars, a spa and fitness center, 18 stadium-seating movie theaters, a 70-lane bowling center, banquet and meeting space, and a special events arena that seats up to 9,500 patrons.

Sam’s Town Hotel and Gambling Hall

Sam’sSam��s Town Hotel and Gambling Hall (“Sam’s Town Las Vegas”) is located on the Boulder Strip, approximately six miles east of the Las Vegas Strip, and features a contemporary western theme. Its informal, friendly atmosphere appeals to both local residents and visitors alike. Amenities at Sam’s Town Las Vegas include 646 hotel rooms, a variety of restaurants and bars, 18 stadium-seating movie theaters, and a 56-lane bowling center. Gaming, bowling and live entertainment create a social center that attractshas attracted many Las Vegas residents to Sam’s Town Las Vegas.

Suncoast Hotel and Casino

Suncoast Hotel and Casino (“Suncoast”) is located in Peccole Ranch, a master-planned community adjacent to Summerlin, one of the fastest growing areas of the Las Vegas valley, and is readily accessible from most major points in Las Vegas, including downtown and the Las Vegas Strip. The primary target market for Suncoast consists of local middle-market customers who gamble frequently. Suncoast is a Mediterranean-themed facility that features 426 hotel rooms, multiple restaurant options, 25,000 square feet of banquet and meeting facilities, 16 stadium-seating movie theatres, and a 64-lane bowling center.

Eldorado Casino and Jokers Wild Casino

Located in downtown Henderson, Nevada, the Eldorado Casino (“Eldorado”) is approximately 14 miles from the Las Vegas Strip. Jokers Wild Casino (“Jokers Wild”) is also located in Henderson, Nevada. The amenities at each of these properties include slots, table games, a sports book, and multiple dining options. The principal customers of these properties are Henderson residents.

-4-


Downtown Las Vegas Properties

Our Unique Downtown Niche

We directly compete with 11 casinos that operate in downtown Las Vegas; however, we have developed a distinct niche for our downtown properties by focusing on customers from Hawaii. Our downtown properties focus their marketing on gaming enthusiasts from Hawaii and tour and travel agents in Hawaii with whom we have cultivated relationships since we opened our California Hotel and Casino (“California”) in 1975. Through

our Hawaiian travel agency, Vacations Hawaii, we currently operate six charter flights from Honolulu to Las Vegas each week, helping to ensure a stable supply of air transportation. We also have strong, informal relationships with other Hawaiian travel agencies and offer affordable all-inclusive packages. These relationships combined with our Hawaiian promotions have allowed the California, the Fremont Hotel and Casino (“Fremont”) and Main Street Station Casino, Brewery and Hotel (“Main Street Station”) to capture a significant share of the Hawaiian tourist trade in Las Vegas. For the year ended December 31, 2007,2008, patrons from Hawaii comprised approximately 67%66% of the occupied room nights at the California, 54%52% of the occupied room nights at the Fremont, and 55%52% of the occupied room nights at Main Street Station.

California Hotel and Casino

The California’s amenities include 781 hotel rooms, multiple dining options, a sports book, keno lounge, and meeting space. The California and Main Street Station are connected by an indoor pedestrian bridge.

Fremont Hotel and Casino

The Fremont is adjacent to the principal pedestrian thoroughfare in downtown Las Vegas known as the Fremont Street Experience. The property’s amenities include 447 hotel rooms, a race and sports book, meeting space, and a 350-space parking garage.

Main Street Station Casino, Brewery and Hotel

Main Street Station’s amenities include 406 hotel rooms and three restaurants, one of which includes a brewery. In addition, Main Street Station features a 96-space recreational vehicle park, the only such facility in the downtown area.

Midwest and South Region Properties

Our Midwest and South Region properties consist of four dockside riverboat casinos, one racino and one barge-based casino that operate in four states in the midwest and southern United States. Generally, these states allow casino gaming on a limited basis through the issuance of a limited number of gaming licenses. Our Midwest and South Region properties generally serve customers within a 100-mile radius and compete directly with other casino facilities operating in their respective immediate and surrounding market areas, as well as with gaming operations in surrounding jurisdictions. Our Midwest and South Region also includes the results of Dania Jai-Alai, our pari-mutuel jai alai facility located in Dania Beach, Florida.

Sam’s Town Hotel and Gambling Hall

Sam’s Town Hotel and Gambling Hall (“Sam’s Town Tunica”) is a barge-based casino located in Tunica County, Mississippi. The property has extensive amenities, including 842 hotel rooms, an entertainment lounge, four dining venues, a retail shop, and the 1,600-seat River Palace Arena. Tunica is the closest gaming market to Memphis, Tennessee and is located approximately 30 miles south of Memphis. The adult population within a 200-mile250-mile radius is over threenine million people, andwhich includes the cities of Nashville and Memphis in Tennessee, Jackson, Mississippi and Little Rock, Arkansas.

Par-A-Dice Hotel Casino

Par-A-Dice Hotel Casino (“Par-A-Dice”) is a dockside riverboat casino operating docksidelocated on the Illinois River in East Peoria, Illinois. Located adjacent to the Par-A-Dice riverboat is a land-based pavilion that features a 204-room202-room hotel, three restaurants, a cocktail lounge, gift shop, and banquet/meeting space. Par-A-Dice is strategically located near Interstate 74, a major east-west interstate highway. Par-A-Dice is the only gaming facility located within approximately 90 miles of Peoria, Illinois.

-5-


Blue Chip Casino, Hotel & Spa

Blue Chip Casino, Hotel & Spa (“Blue Chip”) is a dockside riverboat casino located in Michigan City, Indiana, which is 40 miles west of South Bend, Indiana and 60 miles east of Chicago, Illinois. The property competes primarily with five casinos in northern Indiana and southern Michigan and, to a lesser extent, with casinos in the Chicago area.area and racinos located near Indianapolis. On January 31, 2006, we began operations on our newly constructed single-level dockside riverboat. The new boat allowed us to expand our casino and in connection with the construction of our new boat, add a new parking structure and enhance the land-based pavilion. In October 2006,On January 22, 2009, we announced a $130 millioncompleted an expansion project at Blue Chip that will addadded a second22-story hotel, with approximatelywhich includes 300 guest rooms, to compliment our existing 184-room hotel, a spa and fitness center, additional meeting and event space, as well as morenew dining and nightlife experiences. We began construction on the project during the first quarter of 2007 and it is expected to open in December 2008.venues.

The Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, a federally recognized Native American tribe, commenced operations of the Four Winds Casino in New Buffalo, Michigan (which is located approximately fifteen miles fromIncreased competition near Blue Chip) in August 2007.Chip has impacted our operating result at this property. Although we have expanded our facility at Blue Chip in an effort to be more competitive in this market, the Four Winds Casinocompetition has had, and could continue to have, an adverse impact on the operations of Blue Chip.

Treasure Chest Casino

Treasure Chest Casino (“Treasure Chest”) is a dockside riverboat casino located on Lake Pontchartrain in the western suburbs of New Orleans, Louisiana. The property is designed as a classic 18th-century Victorian-style paddle-wheel18th century Victorian style paddlewheel riverboat, and haswith a total capacity for 1,750 people. The entertainment complex located adjacent to the riverboat houses a 140-seat Caribbean showroom and severaltwo restaurants. Located approximately five miles from the New Orleans International Airport, Treasure Chest primarily serves residents of suburban New Orleans.

Delta Downs Racetrack Casino & Hotel

In 2001, we acquired substantially all of the assets of the Delta Downs Racetrack Casino & Hotel (“Delta Downs”) in Vinton, Louisiana. Delta Downs has historically conducted horse races on a seasonal basis and operated year-round simulcast facilities for customers to wager on races held at other tracks. In 2002, we began slot operations in connection with a renovation project that expanded the facility and equipped the casino. We completed an expansion of the casino in 2004 and opened a 206-room hotel at the property in 2005.

Delta Downs is approximately 25 miles closer to Houston than the next closest gaming property, located in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Customers traveling from Houston, Beaumont and other parts of southeastern Texas will generally have to drive past Delta Downs to reach Lake Charles.

Sam’s Town Hotel and Casino

Sam’s Town Hotel and Casino (“Sam’s Town Shreveport”) is a dockside riverboat casino located along the Red River in Shreveport, Louisiana. Amenities at the property include 514 hotel rooms, a spa, heated pool, four restaurants, a live entertainment venue, and convention and meeting space. Feeder markets include east Texas (including Dallas), Texarkana, Arkansas and surrounding Louisiana cities, including Bossier City, Minden, Ruston and Monroe. The continued expansion of Native American gaming in Oklahoma could have a material adverse impact on the operations of Sam’s Town Shreveport.

Borgata

Borgata opened in Atlantic City, New Jersey onin July 3, 2003. Atlantic City is predominantly a regional day-trip and overnight-trip market. Borgata directly competes with ten other Atlantic City casinos as well as with gaming operations in surrounding jurisdictions.

Borgata is an equity-method joint venture. We and MGM MIRAGE eachventure, in which we own a 50% interest in this entity.interest. As the managing venturer, we are responsible for the day-to-day operations of Borgata, including the operation and maintenance of the facility. Borgata employs a management team and full staff to perform these services for the property. We maintain the oversight and responsibility for the operations, but do not directly operate Borgata. As such, we do not receive a management fee from Borgata.

-6-


Borgata is an upscale destination resort that features 1,971 guestroomsa 160,000 square-foot casino with a total of 2,771 guest rooms and suites comprised of 1,971 guest rooms and suites at the Borgata hotel and 800 guest rooms and suites at The Water Club. Borgata also features 13 restaurants, 1319 retail boutiques, and a European-style health spa.spa at the Borgata hotel, a world class spa at The Water Club, and two nightclubs. In addition, the property also contains meeting and event space, as well as several entertainment venues. In June 2006, Borgata completed a $200 million expansion that added both gaming and non-gaming amenities, including additional slot machines, table games, poker tables, restaurants, a retail shop and a nightclub. In addition to this expansion, in January 2006, construction commenced on The Water Club, a $400 million project that will add an 800-room hotel, additional meeting space, a world class spa and six retail shops. This expansion project is expected to be completed in June 2008. Borgata expects to finance the expansion from Borgata’s cash flow from operations and from Borgata’s bank credit agreement. We do not expect to make further capital contributions to Borgata for this expansion project.

New ProjectsDevelopment Project

Echelon

In January 2006,June 2007, we commenced construction on Echelon, our multibillion dollar Las Vegas Strip development project. On August 1, 2008, due to the difficult environment in the capital markets, as well as weak economic conditions, we announced plans to developthe delay of our Echelon development project on the Las Vegas StripStrip. Due to the continued deterioration in credit market conditions and commencedthe economic outlook, it is unlikely that we will resume construction in June 2007, with2009. Nonetheless, we remain committed to having a planned opening in the third quarter 2010. We estimate that the wholly-owned components of Echelon will cost approximately $3.3 billion. In addition, we have completed the design and development work on two joint-venture elements of Echelon, which include our hotel joint venture with Morgans Hotel Group LLC (“Morgans”), and our High Street retail promenade joint venture with General Growth Properties (“GGP”).

We expect that Echelon will include a total of approximately 5,000 rooms in five unique hotels as well as the following amenities:

Casino space: 140,000 square feet

Entertainment venues: 4,000-seat and 1,500-seat theaters, operated by AEG Live

High Street retail promenade: 300,000 square feet, operated by GGP

Meeting and Convention space: 750,000 square feet

Parking: approximately 9,000 spaces

Echelon will also include approximately 30 dining, nightlife and beverage venues in addition to an approximately 5.5 acre multi-level swimming pool and recreation deck.

On February 27, 2007, we exchanged the Barbary Coast for 24 acresmeaningful presence on the Las Vegas Strip, bringing our total land holdingsStrip. Over the course of 2009, we intend to 87 contiguous acres on theprepare alternative development options to consider for Echelon, site. The additional land allowed us to modify the site layout of Echelon and increase the overall size ofwhich may include developing the project to 65 acres, and provides us with two additional parcels of six and 16 acres that could allow for the addition of another distinct hotel, a residential component, and additional retail, dining, meeting and casino space.

In connection with our 50/50 joint venture with Morgans to develop, construct and operate the Delano Las Vegas and the Mondrian Las Vegas hotels at Echelon, we will contribute approximately 6.1 acres of land and Morgans will ultimately contribute $91.5 million to the venture. The expected cost of the project, including the land, is estimated to be approximately $950 million; however, we can provide no assurances that the estimated cost will approximate the actual cost. Construction of the Delano and Mondrian hotels is expected to begin in the second quarter of 2008. Given the current state of the credit markets, we anticipate that additional equity and/or

credit support will be necessary to obtain construction financing for the remaining cost of the project. This additional equity and/or credit support may be contributed by us or Morgans, or from both parties, and/or from one or more additional equity sponsors. If the joint venture is unable to obtain adequate project financing in a timely manner or at all, we may be forced to sell assets in order to raisephases, alternative capital structures for the project, limit the scope of the project, defermodifications to the project, or cancel the project altogether. Should we postpone or cancel this project, we expect to continue the construction of the remaining aspects of our Echelon development project; however, our expected returns from the Echelon development project would be adversely impacted due to the change in the scope of the overall project.

In May 2007, we formed our 50/50 joint venture with GGP, whereby we will initially contribute the above-ground real estate (air rights) and GGP will initially contribute $100 million to develop the High Street retail promenade at Echelon. The expected cost of this project, including the air rights, is estimated to be approximately $500 million; however, we can provide no assurances that the estimated cost will approximate the actual cost. We expect that the joint venture will be 100% equity funded. We anticipate that any additional cash outlay from us will come from cash flows from operations and availability under our bank credit facility, to the extent availability exists after we meet our working capital needs. If availability under our credit facility does not exist, additional financing may not be available to us, or, if available, may not be on terms favorable to us.

Dania Jai-Alai

On March 1, 2007, we acquired Dania Jai-Alai and approximately 47 acres of related land located in Dania Beach, Florida near Ft. Lauderdale, with the intention of redeveloping the property into a slot-based casino. Dania Jai-Alai is one of four pari-mutuel facilities in Broward County approved under Florida law to operate 2,000 Class III slot machines. On August 8, 2006, a three-judge panel of the First District Court of Appeals in Broward County, Florida overturned a lower court decision, which, in turn, could lead to the invalidation of a November 2004 initiative approved by Florida voters to allow the operation of slot machines at certain pari-mutuel gaming facilities in Broward County. This decision was essentially reaffirmed by the First District Court of Appeals on November 30, 2006, with two questions being certified to the Florida Supreme Court. On March 27, 2007, the Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction to hear the certified questions. On September 27, 2007, the Florida Supreme Court reconsidered its March 27, 2007 decision and declined jurisdiction over the matter. Consequently, the matter has been remanded to the circuit court for a trial on the merits. If the initiative is invalidated, we may not be able to operate slot machines at the Dania Jai-Alai facility, which would materially affect any potential revenue and cash flow expected from the Dania Jai-Alai facility.

We paid approximately $81 million to close this transaction and, if certain conditions are satisfied, we will be required to pay an additional $75 million, plus interest accrued at the prime rate (the “contingent payment”), in March 2010 or earlier.strategic partnerships, among others. We can provide no assurances as to when, or whether, such conditionsif, construction will resume on the project, or if we will be satisfied. We will not record a liabilityable to obtain alternative sources of financing for the contingent payment unless or until the contingency has been resolved and the additional consideration is distributable. If the contingency is resolved and the contingent payment is made, it will be added to the cost of the acquisition.project.

In February 2008, management completed its analysis of our opportunity to operate slot machines at Dania Jai-Alai and decided to postpone redevelopment of the facility due to the following considerations: the continued poor performance of the Broward County pari-mutuel casinos; the introduction of Class III slot machines and the probable pending addition of table games at a nearby Native American casino; the prohibitively high gaming tax rate for pari-mutuel slot operators; the pending introduction of casino gaming in Miami-Dade County and the introduction of legislation to allow for slot machines at all pari-mutuel facilities in the State of Florida. As circumstances change, management will monitor our opportunities with respect to Dania Jai-Alai.

Due to the change in circumstances, during the first quarter of 2008, we will test Dania Jai-Alai’s long-lived and intangible assets, as well as any goodwill that may arise from the finalization of our purchase price allocation, for impairment. Although we cannot quantify an amount at this time, we expect this impairment test to result in the write-down of a portion of these assets. In addition, we may be subject to another impairment charge if and when the contingent payment is resolved and added to the cost of the acquisition.

Employees

At December 31, 2007,2008, we employed approximately 16,90016,000 persons. On such date, we had collective bargaining agreements with two unions covering approximately 1,200 employees, substantially all of whom are employed at Fremont, Eldorado, Main Street Station and Blue Chip. Other agreements are in various stages of negotiation. Employees covered by expired agreements have continued to work during the negotiations, in one case under the terms of the expired agreements, and, in another, under modifications thereof.

Corporate History, Availability of Reports and Corporate Governance Information

We were incorporated in Nevada in June 1988. Our principal executive offices are currently located at 3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ninth Floor, Las Vegas, NV 89169, and our main telephone number is (702) 792-7200. Our website is www.boydgaming.com. We make our annual reportsAnnual Reports on Form 10-K, our quarterly reportsQuarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, our current reportsCurrent Reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to these reports available free of charge on our corporate website as soon as reasonably practicable after such reports are filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. In addition, our Code of Business Conduct, Corporate Governance Guidelines, and charters of the Audit Committee, Compensation and Stock Option Committee, and the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee are available on our website. We will provide reasonable quantities of electronic or paper copies of filings free of charge upon request. In addition, we will provide a copy of the above referenced charters to stockholders upon request.

Private Securities Litigation Reform Act

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Such statements include statements regarding:

 

the factors that contribute to our on-goingongoing success and our ability to be successful in the future;

 

our strategy;

 

competition, including expansion of gaming into additional markets and our ability to respond to competition;

 

expenses;

 

indebtedness, including our ability to refinance or pay amounts outstanding under theour bank credit facility and notes when they become due and our compliance with related covenants;

 

our financing needs and ability to obtain financing;

 

-7-


our ability to meet our projected operating and maintenance capital expenditures and the costs associated with our expansion, renovations and development of new projects;

 

ability to continue to pay dividends or to pay any specific rate of dividends;

 

Adjusted EBITDA and its usefulness as a measure of operating performance or valuation;

 

the impact of new accounting pronouncements on our consolidated financial statements;

 

operations;

 

that our bank credit facility and cash flows from operating activities will be sufficient to meet our projected expansion and maintenance capital expenditures for the next twelve months;

our market risk exposure and ability to minimize risk;

 

expansion, development, investment and renovation plans, at Borgata, Blue Chip, Echelon, Dania Jai Alai and North Las Vegas including expected costs, financing (including sources thereof) and timing;

 

development opportunities in new jurisdictions and our ability to successfully take advantage of such opportunities;

regulations, including anticipated taxes, tax credits or tax refunds expected, and the ability to receive and maintain necessary approvals for our projects;

 

our asset impairment analyses with respect to Sam’s Town Tunica and Dania Jai-Alai;analyses;

 

the outcomeour intangible asset and effect of pending tax examinations with respect to our Coast Casinos, Inc. subsidiary;goodwill impairment tests:

 

pending litigation with respect to Dania Jai-Alai and Treasure Chest;

 

our nonbinding indication of interest with Station Casinos, Inc.

our expectations regarding the levels of our interest and capitalized interest costs in 2008;

our expected use of proceeds from our pending sale of land that we own in Pennsylvania;2009;

 

  

our overall outlook, including all statements under the headingOverall Outlook in Part II, Item 7. “7,Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations;

 

our ability to receive insurance reimbursement and our estimates of self-insurance accruals and future liability;

 

compliance with applicable laws; and

 

expectations, plans, beliefs, hopes or intentions regarding the future.

Forward-looking statements involve certain risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ materially from those discussed in any such statement. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from such forward-looking statements include the risks described in greater detail in the following section entitled “Part I, Item 1A,Risk Factors. All forward-looking statements in this document are made as of the date hereof, based on information available to us as of the date hereof, and we assume no obligation to update any forward-looking statement.

 

ITEM 1A.1A. Risk Factors

An investmentInvestment in our securities is subject to risks inherent to our business. The material risks and uncertainties that our management believes affect us are described below.

Before making an investment decision, youthe investor should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below together with all of the other information included or incorporated by reference in this report, including the pending litigation discussed in this report, which provides a description of our current material litigation claims and assessments. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones facing us. Additional risks and uncertainties that our management is not aware of or that theyis currently deemdeemed immaterial may also adversely affect our business operations. This report is qualified in its entirety by these risk factors. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. If this were to happen, the value of our securities, including our common stock, could decline significantly, and youthe investor could lose all or part of yourthe investment.

-8-


We may incur impairments to goodwill, indefinite-lived intangible assets, or long-lived assets.

In accordance with the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 142,Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, we test our goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets for impairment annually or if a triggering event occurs. We perform the annual impairment testing for goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets in the second quarter of each fiscal year. In addition, in accordance with the provisions of SFAS No. 144,Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, we test long-lived assets for impairment if a triggering event occurs.

Significant negative industry or economic trends, including the market price of our common stock continuing to trade below its book value, reduced estimates of future cash flows, disruptions to our business, slower growth rates or lack of growth in our business, have resulted in significant write-downs and impairment charges in 2008, and, if such events continue, may indicate that additional impairment charges in future periods are required. If we are required to record additional impairment charges, this could have a material adverse affect on our consolidated financial statements.

For example, for the year ended December 31, 2008, we recorded $290.2 million in aggregate non-cash impairment charges to write-down certain portions of our goodwill, intangible assets and other long-lived assets to their fair value at December 31, 2008. The impairment test for these assets was principally due to the decline in our stock price that caused our book value to exceed our market capitalization, which was an indication that these assets may not be recoverable. The primary reason for these impairment charges relates to the ongoing recession, which has caused us to reduce our estimates for projected cash flows, has reduced overall industry valuations, and has caused an increase in discount rates in the credit and equity markets.

Our business is particularly sensitive to reductions in discretionary consumer spending as a result of downturns in the economy.

Consumer demand for casino hotel properties, such as ours, are particularly sensitive to downturns in the economy and the corresponding impact on discretionary spending on leisure activities. Changes in discretionary consumer spending or consumer preferences brought about by factors such as perceived or actual general economic conditions, the current housing crisis and the credit crisis, the impact of high energy and food costs, the increased cost of travel, the potential for continued bank failures, perceived or actual disposable consumer income and wealth, effects of the current recession and changes in consumer confidence in the economy, or fears of war and future acts of terrorism could further reduce customer demand for the amenities that we offer, thus imposing practical limits on pricing and harming our operations.

The current housing crisis and economic slowdown in the United States has resulted in a significant decline in the amount of tourism and spending in Las Vegas. If this decline continues, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows may be adversely affected.

Our common stock price may fluctuate substantially, and a shareholder’s investment could decline in value.

The market price of our common stock may fluctuate substantially due to many factors, including:

actual or anticipated fluctuations in our results of operations;

announcements of significant acquisitions or other agreements by us or by our competitors;

our sale of common stock or other securities in the future;

trading volume of our common stock;

conditions and trends in the gaming and destination entertainment industries;

changes in the estimation of the future size and growth of our markets; and

general economic conditions, including, without limitation, changes in the cost of fuel and air travel.

In addition, the stock market in general has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to companies’ operating performance. Broad market and industry factors may materially harm the market price of our common stock, regardless of our operating performance. In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, shareholder derivative lawsuits and/or securities class action litigation has often been instituted against that company. Such litigation, if instituted against us, could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources.

-9-


Intense competition exists in the gaming industry, and we expect competition to continue to intensify.

The gaming industry is highly competitive for both customers and employees, including those at the management level. We compete with numerous casinos and casino hotelshotel casinos of varying quality and size in market areas where our properties are located. We also compete with other non-gaming resorts and vacation areas,destinations, and with various other casino and other entertainment businesses, and could compete with any new forms of gaming that may be legalized in the future. The casino entertainment business is characterized by competitors that vary considerably in their size, quality of facilities, number of operations, brand identities, marketing and growth strategies, financial strength and capabilities, level of amenities, management talent and geographic diversity. In most markets, we compete directly with other casino facilities operating in the immediate and surrounding market areas. In some markets, we face competition from nearby markets in addition to direct competition within our market areas.

In recent years, with fewer new markets opening for development, competition in existing markets has intensified. We have invested in expanding existing facilities, such as Blue Chip, developing new facilities, such as Echelon, and acquiring established facilities in existing markets, such as our acquisition of Coast Casinos, Inc. in July 2004.markets. In addition, our competitors have also invested in expanding their existing facilities and developing new facilities. This expansion of existing casino entertainment properties, the increase in the number of properties and the aggressive marketing strategies of many of our competitors have increased competition in many markets in which we compete, and this intense competition can be expected to continue. For example, a smaller hotel casino located directly across from Sam’s Town Las Vegas is currently being redeveloped. This enhanced facility is expected to open in the third quarter of 2008 and may have an adverse impact on the results of operations at Sam’s Town Las Vegas.

If our competitors operate more successfully than we do, if they are more successful than us in attracting and retaining employees, if their properties are enhanced or expanded, or if additional hotels and casinos are established in and around the locations in which we conduct business, we may lose market share or the ability to attract or retain employees. In particular, the expansion of casino gaming in or near any geographic area from which we attract or expect to attract a significant number of our customers could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We also compete with legalized gaming from casinos located on Native American tribal lands. Expansion of Native American gaming in areas located near our properties, or in areas in or near those from which we draw our customers, could have an adverse effect on our operating results.

The Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, For example, a federally recognized Native American tribe commenced operations of the Four Winds Casino in New Buffalo, Michigan (which isa casino located approximately fifteen miles fromnear Blue Chip)Chip in August 2007. Although we have expanded our facility at Blue Chip in an effort to be more competitive in this market, the Four Winds Casinothis casino has had, and could continue to have, an adverse impact on the operations of Blue Chip.

-10-


Our expansion, development, investment and renovation projects may face significant risks inherent in construction projects or implementing a new marketing strategy, including receipt of necessary government approvals.

We regularly evaluate expansion, development, investment and renovation opportunities. On January 4, 2006, we announced our planned Las Vegas Strip development, Echelon, which, willwhen, or if, we resume construction, would be the largest and most expensive development project we have undertaken to date. In addition, we haverecently announced athe completion of the new hotel expansion project at Blue Chip and that Borgata has recently completed The Water Club, a public space expansion and is constructing a new hotel.second hotel at the property. We also closed on our acquisition of Dania Jai-Alai in March 2007.

These projects and any other development projects we may undertake will be subject to the many risks inherent in the expansion or renovation of an existing enterprise or construction of a new enterprise, including unanticipated design, construction, regulatory, environmental and operating problems and lack of demand for our projects. Our current and future projects could also experience:

 

unanticipated delays and significant cost increases;

 

shortages of materials;

 

shortages of skilled labor or work stoppages;

 

poor performance or non-performancenonperformance by any of our joint venture partners or other third parties on whom we are relying;place reliance;

 

unforeseen construction scheduling, engineering, environmental, permitting, construction or geological problems; and

 

weather interference, floods, fires or other casualty losses.

Our anticipatedThe completion dates of any of our projects could differ significantly from expectations for construction-related or other reasons. For example, on August 1, 2008, we announced that, due to the difficult environment in the capital markets, as well as weak economic conditions, our Echelon project would be delayed. Due to the continued deterioration in credit market conditions and the economic outlook, it is unlikely that we will resume construction in 2009. In addition, actual costs and construction periods for any of our projects can differ significantly from initial expectations. Our initial project costs and construction periods are based upon budgets, conceptual design documents and construction schedule estimates prepared by usat inception of the project in consultation with our architects and contractors. Many of these costs are estimated at inception of the project and can changeincrease over time as the project is built to completion. For example, prior to delaying construction at Echelon, we announced that the estimated cost of the wholly-owned portion of Echelon increased from $2.9 billion to $3.3by approximately $0.4 billion, principally as a result of additional scope, larger guest rooms and suites, and increased estimated construction costs, and that the estimated development costs associated with thecertain joint venture properties that willto be developed and constructed in connection with our joint ventureEchelon increased by approximately $250 million. We have incurred significant costs in connection with Morgans increased from $700 million to $950 million. Additionaldelaying construction of Echelon and anticipate that additional cost increases maycould continue to occur asif we developrecommence development of Echelon. The cost of any project may vary significantly from initial budget expectations and we may have a limited amount of capital resources to fund cost overruns. If we cannot finance cost overruns on a timely basis, the completion of one or more projects may be delayed until adequate funding is available. The completion dates of any of our projects could also differ significantly from expectations for construction-related or other reasons. We cannot assure youcan provide no assurance that any project will be completed on time, if at all, or within established budgets, or that any project will result in increased earnings to us. Significant delays, cost overruns, or failures of our projects to achieve market acceptance could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Furthermore, our projects may not help us compete with new or increased competition in our markets.

Certain permits, licenses and approvals necessary for some of our current or anticipated projects have not yet been obtained. The scope of the approvals required for expansion, development, investment or renovation projects can be extensive and may include gaming approvals, state and local land-use permits and building and zoning permits. Unexpected changes or concessions required by local, state or federal regulatory authorities could involve significant additional costs and delay the scheduled openings of the facilities. We may not obtain the necessary permits, licenses and approvals within the anticipated time frames, or at all.

In addition, although we design our projects to minimize disruption of our existing business operations, expansion and renovation projects require, from time to time, all or portions of affected existing operations to be closed or disrupted. For example, after closing the Stardust in November 2006, we closed the Stardust and demolished the property in March 2007 to make way for the development of Echelon. Any significant disruption in operations of a property could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

-11-


We face risks associated with growth and acquisitions.

As part of our business strategy, we regularly evaluate opportunities for growth through development of gaming operations in existing or new markets, through acquiring other gaming entertainment facilities or through redeveloping our existing gaming facilities. For example, in February 2007, we completed the Barbary Coast exchange transaction. In addition, in March 2007 wetransaction and completed the acquisition of Dania Jai-Alai, and have previously announced an expansionJai-Alai. In 2008, we completed the new hotel project at Blue Chip and our Echelon development project.Chip. We may also pursue expansion opportunities, including joint ventures, in jurisdictions where casino gaming is not currently permitted in order to be prepared to develop projects upon approval of casino gaming. The expansion of our operations, whether through acquisitions, development or internal growth, could divert management’s attention and could also cause us to incur substantial costs, including legal, professional and consulting fees. There can be no assurance that we will be able to identify, acquire, develop or profitably manage additional companies or operations or successfully integrate such companies or operations into our existing operations without substantial costs, delays or other problems. Additionally, there can be no assurance that we will receive gaming or other necessary licenses or approvals for our new projects or that gaming will be approved in jurisdictions where it is not currently approved.

Ballot measures or other voter-approved initiatives to allow gaming in jurisdictions where gaming, or certain types of gaming (such as slots), was not previously permitted could be challenged, and, if such challenges are successful, these ballot measures or initiatives could be invalidated. For example, in October 2004, a group of plaintiffs brought suit in the Circuit Court in Leon County, Florida against a group of defendants, including the

Florida Secretary of State among others, seeking to permanently enjoin a proposed ballot measure to amend the Florida Constitution to allow Florida voters to approve slot machines at certain pari-mutuel gaming facilities in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties (the “Slot Initiative”). The plaintiffs alleged that petition gatherers committed fraud in obtaining signatures, where Dania Jai Alai is located, has been subject to get the Slot Initiative placed on the ballot. Prior to the issuance of a final order by the Circuit Court, the Slot Initiative was approved by voters in November 2004. In January 2005, the Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, citing among other reasons, that the Slot Initiative had been approved by voters. The plaintiffs appealed this decision,legal challenge since 2004 and on August 8, 2006, a three-judge panel of the First District Court of Appeals in Broward County, Florida, reversed the Circuit Court decision and ordered that the case be brought to trial. In its decision, the panel indicated that in the event that the trial court determines that the petition did not have sufficient signatures to place the Slot Initiative on the ballot due to fraud, the trial court should invalidate the Slot Initiative. On August 23, 2006, the defendants filed a motion seeking a rehearing by the three-judge panel, or alternatively, to have the First District Court of Appeals rehear the case en banc or to have the case certified to the Florida Supreme Court for rehearing. On November 30, 2006, the First District Court of Appeals, in an en banc decision, essentially reaffirmed the panel’s decision, but certified two questions to the Florida Supreme Court: (1) whether validations of signatures by supervisors of elections can be challenged based upon allegations of fraud after certifications of signatures have been accepted by the Secretary of State and the ballot printed and absentee voting commenced in accord with Florida law, and (2) whether an amendment to the Florida Constitution that is approved by vote of the electors may be subsequently invalidated if, in an action filed before the election, there is a showing made after the election that necessary signatures on the petition proposing the amendment were fraudulently obtained. On March 27, 2007, the Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction to hear the certified questions, but subsequently reconsidered that decision, declined jurisdiction over the matter and remanded it to the circuit court for a trial on the merits.remains unresolved. If the Slot Initiative is ultimately invalidated, we would not be permitted to operate slot machines at the Dania Jai-Alai facility, which would materially affect any potential revenue and cash flow expected from the Dania Jai-Alai facility. Furthermore, there can be no assurance that there will not be similar or other challenges to legalized gaming in existing or current markets in which we may operate or have development plans, and successful challenges to legalized gaming could require us to abandon or substantially curtail our operations or development plans in those locations, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

On August 1, 2008, we announced that, due to the difficult environment in both the capital markets and the economy, our Echelon project would be delayed. Due to the continued deterioration in credit market conditions and the economic outlook, it is unlikely that we will resume construction in 2009. We can provide no assurances regarding the timing or effects of our delay of construction at Echelon and when, or if, construction will recommence, the effect that such delay will have on our business, operations or financial condition, the effect that such delay will have on our joint venture partners, and whether such participants (or other Echelon project participants) will terminate their agreements or arrangements with us. In addition, our agreements or arrangements with third parties could require additional fees or terms in connection with modifying their agreements that may be unfavorable to us, and we can provide no assurances that we will be able to reach agreement on any modified terms.

Additionally, in February 2008, our management determined to indefinitely postpone redevelopment of theour Dania Jai-Alai facility.facility, and in connection with that determination we recorded an $84.0 million non-cash impairment charge to write-off Dania Jai-Alai’s intangible license right and write-down its property and equipment to their estimated fair values. Our decision to postpone the development was based on numerous factors, including the introduction of expanded gaming at a nearby Native American casino, the potential for additional casino gaming venues in Florida, and the existing Broward County pari-mutuel casinos performing below our expectations for the market. There can be no assurance that we will not face similar challenges and difficulties with respect to new development projects or expansion efforts that we may undertake, which could result in significant sunk costs that we may not be able to fully recoup or that otherwise have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

If we are unable to finance our expansion, development, investment and renovation projects, as well as other capital expenditures, through cash flow, borrowings under our bank credit facility and additional financings, our expansion, development, investment and renovation efforts will be jeopardized.

We intend to finance our current and future expansion, development, investment and renovation projects, as well as our other capital expenditures, primarily with cash flow from operations, borrowings under our bank credit facility, and equity or debt financings. If we are unable to finance our current or future expansion, development, investment and renovation

-12-


projects, or our other capital expenditures, we will have to adopt one or more alternatives, such as reducing, delaying or abandoning planned expansion, development, investment and renovation projects as well as other capital expenditures, selling assets, restructuring debt, reducing the amount or suspending or discontinuing the distribution of dividends, obtaining additional equity financing or joint venture partners, or modifying our bank credit facility. These sources of funds may not be sufficient to finance our expansion, development, investment and renovation projects, and other financing may not be available on acceptable terms, in a timely manner, or at all. In addition, our existing indebtedness contains certain restrictions on our ability to incur additional indebtedness. If we are unable to secure additional financing, we could be forced to limit or suspend expansion, development, investment and renovation projects and other capital expenditures, which may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Furthermore, there have recently been significant disruptions in the global capital markets that have adversely impacted the ability of borrowers to access capital. We anticipate that these disruptions may continue for the foreseeable future. We anticipate that we will be able to fund our currently plannedactive expansion projects including our Blue Chip expansion project, our wholly-owned portion of the Echelon project, and our share of our equity contributions to the High Street retail promenade joint venture at Echelon, using cash flows from operations and availability under our bank credit facility (to the extent that availability exists after we meet our working capital needs). In addition, we recently announced that we submitted a nonbinding indication of interest to Station Casinos, Inc. (“Station”), and that if a transaction with Station were to occur, we would use availability under our bank credit facility to finance such transaction.

If availability under our bank credit facility does not exist or we are otherwise unable to make sufficient borrowings thereunder, any additional financing that is needed may not be available to us or, if available, may not be on terms favorable to us. As a result, if we are

unable to obtain adequate project financing in a timely manner or at all, we may be forced to sell assets in order to raise capital for the project,projects, limit the scope of the project,, or defer, the projectsuch projects, or cancel the projectprojects altogether. With respect to our joint venture with Morgans to develop, construct and operate the Delano Las Vegas and the Mondrian Las Vegas hotels at Echelon, givenGiven the current state of the credit markets and the overall economy, we anticipateannounced, on August 1, 2008, that we are delaying our Echelon project. In the event that capital markets do not improve and we or our joint venture participants are unable to access capital with more favorable terms, additional equity and/or credit support willmay be necessary to obtain construction financing for the remaining cost of the project. This additional equity and/or credit support may need to be contributed by us or Morgans,our joint venture participants, or from both parties, and/or from one or more additional equity sponsors. If thea joint venture obtains equity financing from additional sponsors, then our percentage interest in the project and resulting cash flows will be diluted. If thea joint venture is unable to obtain adequate project financing in a timely manner, or at all, we may be forced to sell assets in order to raise capital for the project, limit the scope of the project, defer the project, or cancel the project altogether. Should we postpone or cancel this project, we expect to continue the construction of the remaining aspects of our Echelon development project; however, our expected returns from the Echelon development project would be adversely impacted due to the change in the scope of the overall project.

If we are not ultimately successful in dismissing the action filed against our Treasure Chest Casino, property, we may potentially lose our ability to operate the Treasure Chest Casino property and our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Alvin C. Copeland, the sole shareholder (deceased) of an unsuccessful applicant for a riverboat license at the location of our Treasure Chest Casino, has made several attempts to have the Treasure Chest license revoked and awarded to his company. In 1999 and 2000, Copeland unsuccessfully opposed the renewal of the Treasure Chest license and has brought two separate legal actions against us.Treasure Chest. In November 1993, Copeland objected to the relocation of Treasure Chest from the Mississippi River to its current site on Lake Pontchartrain. The predecessor to the Louisiana Gaming Control Board allowed the relocation over Copeland’s objection. Copeland then filed an appeal of the agency’s decision with the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. Through a number of amendments to the appeal, Copeland improperlyunsuccessfully attempted to transform the appeal into a direct action suit and sought the revocation of the Treasure Chest license. Treasure Chest intervened in the matter in order to protect its interests. The appeal/suit, as it related to Treasure Chest, was dismissed by the District Court and that dismissal was upheld on appeal by the First Circuit Court of Appeal. Additionally, in 1999, Copeland filed a direct action against Treasure Chest and certain other parties seeking the revocation of Treasure Chest’s license, an award of the license to him, and monetary damages. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, citing that Copeland failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The dismissal was appealed by Copeland to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal. On June 21, 2002, the First Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the matter to the trial court. On January 14, 2003, we filed a motion to dismiss the matter and that motion was partially denied. The Court of Appeal refused to reverse the denial of the motion to dismiss. In May 2004, we filed additional motions to dismiss on other grounds. There was no activity regarding this matter during 2005 and 2006, and the case was set to be dismissed by the court for failure to prosecute by the plaintiffs in mid-May 2007; however on May 1, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion to set a hearing date related to the motions to dismiss. The hearing was scheduled for September 10, 2007, at which time all parties agreed to postpone the hearing indefinitely. Mr. Copeland recently passed away and his son, the executor of his estate, has petitioned the court to be substituted as plaintiff in the case. We currently are vigorously defending the lawsuit. If this matter ultimately results in the Treasure Chest license being revoked, it could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

-13-


We are subject to extensive governmental gaming regulation and taxation policies, which may harm our business.

We are subject to a variety of regulations in the jurisdictions in which we operate. Regulatory authorities at the federal, state and local levels have broad powers with respect to the licensing of casino operations and may revoke, suspend, condition or limit our gaming or other licenses, impose substantial fines and take other actions, any one of which could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. A more detailed description of the governmental gaming regulations to which we are subject is included in Exhibit 99.1 Governmental Gaming Regulations filed withto this Annual Report on Form 10-K and incorporated herein by reference.

If additional gaming regulations are adopted in a jurisdiction in which we operate, such regulations could impose restrictions or costs that could have a significant adverse effect on us. From time to time, various proposals are introduced in the legislatures of some of the jurisdictions in which we have existing or planned operations that, if enacted, could adversely affect the tax, regulatory, operational or other aspects of the gaming industry and our company. Legislation of this type may be enacted in the future. For example, on January 15, 2006, the New Jersey State Legislature enacted theSmoke-Free Air Act that became, effective April 15, 2006. This law called for smoke-free environments in essentially all indoor workplaces and placesareas open to the public, including places of business and service-related activities. The law containscontained several exemptions, including an exemption for all casino floor space and 20% of a hotel’s designated hotel rooms. On February 15, 2007, the Atlantic City Council promulgated the first of a series of local ordinanceordinances that iswere more restrictive than the aforementioned state law. Specifically, thisthe first ordinance reduced the casino floor exemption to 25% of a casino’s floor space. Ultimately, such 25% of casino floor space in which smoking would be permitted was required to be enclosed and separately ventilated; however, before any gaming enclosures were constructed in accordance with this first local ordinance, the Atlantic City Council voted an amendment to prohibit smoking on 100% of the casino floor, limiting smoking to enclosed and separately ventilated non-gaming lounges. This revised ban became effective October 15, 2008, prior to which several Atlantic City casinos, including Borgata, had constructed the permitted non-gaming smoking lounges. On October 27, 2008, after the 100% smoking ban (with non-gaming lounges) had been in place for 12 days, the Atlantic City Council voted to suspend for one year the then current ordinance and reverted back to the 75% non-smoking and 25% smoking configuration, without the requirement of enclosures. The avowed reason for the suspension of the 100% smoking ban ordinance was the current national and regional economic crisis. The ruling further states that the smoking ban ordinance will be reconsidered on or about the one-year anniversary date of the passage date of the ordinance, which will be on or about October 27, 2009. As such,per applicable law, this most recent ordinance became effective on November 16, 2008, prior to which the 100% smoking isban was in effect for 32 days. Thereafter, smoking will be permitted once again on 25% of a casino’s floor space and prohibited on 75% of a casino’s floor space, and permitted on 25% of a casino’s floor space, subject toas was the following conditions:

Commencing oncase from April 15, 2007 casinos were required to limit smoking to 25%until October 15, 2008.

Under all versions of their casino floor space, which areas initially were not required to be enclosed and separately ventilated.

Ultimately, the 25% of the casino floor in which smoking will be permissible will be required to be enclosed and separately ventilated. Casinos had until September 15, 2007 to submit construction plans for such enclosures to applicable authorities for the issuance of building permits and related required approvals. Once permits are issued, the casinos will have 90 days to commence construction of the enclosures. Borgata submitted its construction plans to the applicable authorities and is waiting on the required approvals.

Under the Atlantic City Council ordinance, including the current amendment, smoking has been, and will remain, permissible in 20% of a hotel’s designated hotel rooms, consistent with state law.New Jersey State Law. This legislation, and the local ordinance, could materially impact Borgata’s operations and comparableresults of operations; similar legislation in other jurisdictions in which we operate could materially impact the results of operations of our other properties.

In addition, the State of Illinois enacted a 100% smoking ban in all casinos, effective January 1, 2008.

The federal government has also previously considered a federal tax on casino revenues and may consider such a tax in the future. In addition, gaming companies are currently subject to significant state and local taxes and fees, in addition to normal federal and state corporate income taxes, and such taxes and fees are subject to increase at any time. For example, in November 2007, Nevada’s largest teachers union, the Nevada State Educational Association, submitted a petition to the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office seeking to increase the gross gaming revenue tax from 6.75% to 9.75%. If this petition is successful, it could have a material adverse affect on our results of operations. In June 2006, the Illinois legislature passed certain amendments to the Riverboat Gambling Act, which affected the tax rate at Par-A-Dice. The legislation, which imposes an incremental 5% tax on adjusted gross gaming revenues, was retroactive to July 1, 2005. As a result of this legislation, we were required to pay additional taxes, resulting in a $6.7 million tax assessment in June 2006. If there is any material increase in state and local taxes and fees, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected. Also, in May 2007, Blue Chip received a valuation notice indicating an unanticipated increase of nearly 400% to its assessed property value as of January 1, 2006. At that time, we estimated that the increase in assessed property value could result in a property tax assessment ranging between $4 million and $11 million for the eighteen-month period ended June 30, 2007. We recorded an additional charge of $3.2 million during the three months ended June 30, 2007 to increase our property tax liability to $5.8 million at June 30, 2007, as we believed that was the most likely amount to be assessed within the range. We subsequentlyIn December 2007, we received a property tax bill related to our 2006 tax assessment for $6.2 million in December 2007.million. As we have appealed the assessment, Indiana statutes allow for a minimum required payment of $1.9 million, which was paid against the $6.2 million assessment in January 2008. In February 2009, we received a notice of revaluation, which reduced the property’s assessed value by $100 million and the tax assessment by approximately $2.2 million per year. We believe the assessment for the twenty four-month thirty six-month

-14-


period ended December 31, 20072008 could result in a property tax assessment ranging between $4$6.5 million and $13$14 million. We have accrued approximately $7.5 million ofa property tax liability of approximately $13 million as of December 31, 2007,2008, based on what we believe to be the most likely assessment within our range, once all appeals have been exhausted; however, we can

provide no assurances that the estimated amount will approximate the actual amount. The final 2006 assessment, post appeals, as well as the March 1, 2007 and 2008 assessment noticenotices, which ishave not expected until the second quarterbeen received as of December 31, 2008, could result in further adjustment to our estimated property tax liability at Blue Chip. If there is any material increase in state and local taxes and fees, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

Our directors, officers and other key employees must also be approved bymeet approval standards of certain state regulatory authorities. If state regulatory authorities were to find a person occupying any such position unsuitable, we would be required to sever our relationship with that person. Certain public and private issuances of securities and other transactions by uswe are party to also require the approval of some state regulatory authorities.

In addition to gaming regulations, we are also subject to various federal, state and local laws and regulations affecting businesses in general. These laws and regulations include, but are not limited to, restrictions and conditions concerning alcoholic beverages, environmental matters, employees, currency transactions, taxation, zoning and building codes, and marketing and advertising. Such laws and regulations could change or could be interpreted differently in the future, or new laws and regulations could be enacted. For example, on July 5, 2006, New Jersey gaming properties, including Borgata, were required to temporarily close their casinos for three days as a result of a New Jersey statewide government shutdown that affected certain New Jersey state employees required to be at casinos when they are open for business. In addition, Nevada recently enacted legislation that eliminated, in most instances, and, for certain pre-existing development projects such as Echelon or, otherwise reduced, property tax breaks and retroactively eliminated certain sales tax exemptions offered as incentives to companies developing projects that meet certain environmental “green” standards. As a result, we, along with other companies developing projects that meet such standards, may not realize the full tax benefits that were originally anticipated.

We own facilities that are located in areas that experience extreme weather conditions.

We own facilities that are located in areas that experience extreme weather conditions, including, but not limited to, hurricanes. Extreme weather conditions may interrupt our operations, damage our properties and reduce the number of customers who visit our facilities in the affected areas. For example, our Treasure Chest Casino, which is located near New Orleans, Louisiana, suffered minor damage and was closed on August 30, 2008 for 44eight days over Labor Day weekend, as the New Orleans area was under mandatory evacuation orders during Hurricane Gustav. Hurricane Ike resulted in 2005 as a result of Hurricane Katrina.two-day closure starting September 12 at Treasure Chest. Additionally, at our Delta Downs Racetrack Casino & Hotel, which is located in southwestSouthwest Louisiana, suffered significant property damageHurricane Gustav forced us to close for six days, beginning on August 30, 2008, and closedHurricane Ike led to a second closure from September 11, 2008 to September 17, 2008. The hurricane closures during the three months ended September 30, 2008 totaled 10 days for 42Treasure Chest and 13 days in 2005 as a result of Hurricane Rita.for Delta Downs, including two full weekends at both properties. While we maintain insurance coverage that may cover somecertain of the costs that we incur as a result of some extreme weather conditions, our coverage is subject to deductibles and limits on maximum benefits. There can be no assurance that we will be able to fully collect, if at all, on any claims resulting from extreme weather conditions. If any of our properties are damaged or if their operations are disrupted as a result of extreme weather in the future, or if extreme weather adversely impacts general economic or other conditions in the areas in which our properties are located or from which they draw their patrons, our business, financial condition and operating results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Our insurance coverage may not be adequate to cover all possible losses that our properties could suffer. In addition, our insurance costs may increase and we may not be able to obtain similar insurance coverage in the future.

Although we have “all risk” property insurance coverage for our operating properties covering damage caused by a casualty loss (such as fire, natural disasters, acts of war or terrorism), each policy has certain exclusions. In addition, our property insurance coverage is in an amount that may be significantly less than the expected replacement cost of rebuilding the facilities if there was a total loss. Our level of insurance coverage also may not be adequate to cover all losses in the event of a major casualty. In addition, certain casualty events, such as labor strikes, nuclear events, acts of war, loss of income due to cancellation of room reservations or conventions due to fear of terrorism, deterioration or corrosion, insect or animal damage and pollution, may not be covered at all under our policies. Therefore, certain acts could expose us to substantial uninsured losses.

-15-


We also have “builder’s risk” insurance coverage for our development and expansion projects, including Echelon. Builder’s risk insurance provides coverage for projects during their construction for damage caused by a casualty loss. In general, our builder’s risk coverage is subject to the same exclusions, risks and deficiencies as those described above for our all risk property coverage. Our level of builder’s risk insurance coverage may not be adequate to cover all losses in the event of a major casualty.

In addition to the damage caused to our properties by a casualty loss, we may suffer business disruption as a result of these events or be subject to claims by third parties that may be injured or harmed. While we carry business interruption insurance and general liability insurance, this insurance may not be adequate to cover all losses in any such event.

We renew our insurance policies (other than our builder’s risk insurance) on an annual basis. The cost of coverage may become so high that we may need to further reduce our policy limits or agree to certain exclusions from our coverage.

Our debt instruments and other material agreements require us to maintain a certain minimum level of insurance coverage. Failure to satisfy these requirements could result in an event of default under these debt instruments or material agreements.

Our facilities, including our riverboats and dockside facilities, are subject to risks relating to mechanical failure and regulatory compliance.

Generally, all of our facilities are subject to the risk that operations could be halted for a temporary or extended period of time, as the result of casualty, forces of nature, mechanical failure, or extended or extraordinary maintenance, among other causes. In addition, our gaming operations, including those conducted on riverboats or at dockside facilities could be damaged or halted due to extreme weather conditions.

We currently conduct our Treasure Chest, Par-A-Dice, Blue Chip and Sam’s Town Shreveport gaming operations on riverboats. Each of our riverboats must comply with U.S. Coast Guard requirements as to boat design, on-board facilities, equipment, personnel and safety. Each riverboat must hold a Certificate of Inspection for stabilization and flotation, and may also be subject to local zoning codes. The U.S. Coast Guard requirements establish design standards, set limits on the operation of the vessels and require individual licensing of all

personnel involved with the operation of the vessels. Loss of a vessel’s Certificate of Inspection or American Bureau of Shipping approval would preclude its use as a casino.

U.S. Coast Guard regulations require a hull inspection for all riverboats at five-year intervals. Under certain circumstances, alternative hull inspections may be approved. The U.S. Coast Guard may require that such hull inspections be conducted at a dry-docking facility, and if so required, the cost of travel to and from such docking facility, as well as the time required for inspections of the affected riverboats, could be significant. To date, the U.S. Coast Guard has allowed in-place inspections of our riverboats. The U.S. Coast Guard mightmay not allow these types of inspections in the future. The loss of a dockside casino or riverboat casino from service for any period of time could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

U.S. Coast Guard regulations also require us to prepare and follow certain security programs. In 2004, we implemented the American Gaming Association’s Alternative Security Program at our riverboat casinos and dockside facilities. The American Gaming Association’s Alternative Security Program is specifically designed to address maritime security requirements at riverboat casinos and their respective dockside facilities. Changes to these regulations could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We draw a significant percentage of our customers from limited geographic regions. Events adversely impacting the economy or these regions, including man-made or natural disasters, may also impact our business.

Our California, Hotel and Casino, Fremont Hotel and Casino and Main Street Station Casino, Brewery and Hotel draw a substantial portion of their customers from the Hawaiian market. For the year ended December 31, 2007,2008, patrons from Hawaii comprised approximately 67%66% of the room nights sold at the California, 54%52% at the Fremont and 55%52% at Main Street Station. AnDecreases in discretionary consumer spending due to the recession, as well as an increase in fuel costs or transportation prices, a decrease in airplane seat availability, or a deterioration of relations with tour and travel agents, particularly as they affect travel between the Hawaiian market and our facilities, could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

-16-


Our Las Vegas properties also draw a substantial number of customers from certain other specific geographic areas, including locally, Southern California Arizona and Las Vegas.Arizona. Native American casinos in California and other parts of the United States have diverted some potential visitors away from Nevada, which has had and could continue to have a negative effect on Nevada gaming markets. In addition, due to our significant concentration of properties in Nevada, any man-made or natural disasters in or around Nevada, or the areas from which we draw customers forto our Las Vegas properties, could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Each of our properties located outside of Nevada depends primarily on visitors from their respective surrounding regions and are subject to comparable risk. The outbreak of public health threats at any of our properties or in the areas in which they are located, or the perception that such threats exist, as well as adverse economic conditions that affect the national or regional economies, whether resulting from war, terrorist activities or other geopolitical conflict, weather, general or localized economic downturns or related events or other factors, could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, to the extent that the airline industry is negatively impacted due to the effects of the recession, outbreak of war, public health threats, terrorist or similar activity, increased security restrictions or the public’s general reluctance to travel by air, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be significantly adversely affected.

Energy price increases may adversely affect our cost of operations and our revenues.

Our casino properties use significant amounts of electricity, natural gas and other forms of energy. In addition, our Hawaiian air charter operation uses a significant amount of jet fuel. While no shortages of energy or fuel have been experienced to date, substantial increases in energy and fuel prices, including jet fuel prices, in the

United States have, negatively affected and may continue to, negatively affect our operating results.results of operations. The extent of the impact is subject to the magnitude and duration of the energy and fuel price increases, of which the impact could be material. In addition, energy and gasoline price increases in areas that constitute a significant source of customers for our properties could result in a decline inof disposable income of potential customers, an increase in the cost of travel and a corresponding decrease in visitation and spending at our properties, which could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Certain of our stockholders own large interests in our capital stock and may significantly influence our affairs.

William S. Boyd, our Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors, together with his immediate family, beneficially owned approximately 36% of ourthe Company’s outstanding shares of common stock as of December 31, 2007.2008. As a result,such, the Boyd family has the ability to significantly influence our affairs, including the electingelection of members of our directorsBoard of Directors and, except as otherwise provided by law, approving or disapproving other matters submitted to a vote of our stockholders, including a merger, consolidation, or sale of assets.

Some of our hotelhotels and casinos are located on leased property. If we default on one or more leases, the applicable lessors could terminate the affected leases and we could lose possession of the affected hotel and/or casino.

We lease certain parcels of land on which The Orleans, Suncoast, Sam’s Town Tunica, Treasure Chest and Sam’s Town Shreveport are located. In addition, we lease other parcels of land on which portions of the California and the Fremont are located. If we were to default on any one or more of these leases, the applicable lessors could terminate the affected leases and we could lose possession of the affected land and any improvements on the land, including the hotelhotels and casinos. This would have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations as we would then be unable to operate all or portions of the affected facilities.

We have a significant amount of indebtedness.

We had total consolidated long-term debt, net of current maturities, of approximately $2.3$2.6 billion at December 31, 2007.2008. We expect that our long-term indebtedness will substantially increase in connection with the capital expenditures that we anticipate making as a result of our planned expansion, development, investment and renovation projects. Our substantialThis indebtedness could have important consequences. For example, it could:consequences, including:

 

make it more difficult for us to satisfydifficulty in satisfying our obligations under our current indebtedness;

 

increaseincreasing our vulnerability to general adverse economic and industry conditions;

 

-17-


requirerequiring us to dedicate a substantial portion of our cash flowflows from operations to payments on our indebtedness, which would reduce the availability of our cash flows to fund working capital, capital expenditures, expansion efforts and other general corporate purposes;

 

limitlimiting our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and the industry in which we operate;

 

placeplacing us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors that have less debt; and

 

limit,limiting, along with the financial and other restrictive covenants in our indebtedness, among other things, our ability to borrow additional funds. Failure to comply with these covenants could result in an event of default, which, if not cured or waived, could have a significant adverse effect on us.our business, results of operations and financial condition.

TheOur debt instruments contain, and any future debt instruments likely will contain, a number of restrictive covenants that impose significant operating and financial restrictions on us, including restrictions on our ability to, among other things:

incur additional debt, including providing guarantees or credit support;

incur liens securing indebtedness or other obligations;

dispose of assets;

make certain acquisitions;

pay dividends or make distributions and make other restricted payments;

enter into sale and leaseback transactions;

engage in any new businesses; and

enter into transactions with our stockholders and our affiliates.

In addition, our bank credit facility requires us to maintain certain ratios, including a minimum interest rates oncoverage ratio of 2.00 to 1.00 and a portiontotal leverage ratio that adjusts over the life of the bank credit facility. Our future debt agreements could contain financial or other covenants more restrictive than those applicable under our long-term debt are subject to fluctuation based upon changes in short-term interest rates and, as a result, our interest expense could increase.existing instruments.

Our current debt service requirements on our bank credit facility primarily consist of interest payments on outstanding indebtedness. The bank credit facility consists ofis a $4.0 billion revolving credit facility that matures in May 2012. Subject to certain limitations, we may, at any time, without the consent of the lenders under our bank credit facility, request incremental commitments to increase the size of the revolvingbank credit facility, or request new commitments to add a term loan facility, by up to an aggregate amount of $1.0 billion.

Debt service requirements under our current outstanding senior subordinated notes consist of semi-annual interest payments (based upon fixed annual interest rates ranging from 6.75% to 7.75%) and repayment of the $300 million, $350 million and $250 million of principalour senior subordinated notes due on December 15, 2012, April 15, 2014, and February 1, 2016 for each of our 7.75%, 6.75% and 7.125% senior subordinated notes, respectively.

We are in compliance with the Total Leverage Ratio covenant under our bank credit facility, which was 5.65 to 1.00 at December 31, 2008. During 2009, assuming our current level of Consolidated Funded Indebtedness remains constant, we estimate that a 13% or greater decline in our twelve-month trailing Consolidated EBITDA, as compared to 2008, would cause us to exceed our maximum Total Leverage Ratio covenant for that period. However, in the event that we project that our Consolidated EBITDA may decline by 13% or more, we could implement certain actions in an effort to minimize the possibility of a breach of the Total Leverage Ratio covenant. These actions may include, among others, reducing payroll and certain other operating costs, deferring or eliminating certain maintenance, expansion or other capital expenditures, reducing our outstanding indebtedness through repurchases or redemption, selling assets or issuing equity.

Our ability to make payments on and to refinance our indebtedness, and to fund planned capital expenditures and expansion efforts will depend upon our ability to generate cash in the future. This, to a certain extent, is subject to general economic, financial, competitive, legislative, regulatory and other factors that are beyond our control. It is unlikely that our business will generate sufficient cash flowflows from operations, or that future borrowings will be available to us under our bank credit facility, in amounts sufficient to enable us to pay our indebtedness as it matures and to fund our other liquidity needs.

-18-


We believe that we will need to refinance all or part of our indebtedness at or prior to each maturity; however, we may not be able to refinance any of our indebtedness on commercially reasonable terms or at all. We may have to adopt one or more alternatives, such as reducing or delaying planned expenses and capital expenditures, selling assets, restructuring debt, or obtaining additional equity or debt financing or joint venture partners. These financing strategies may not be affected on satisfactory terms, if at all. In addition, certain states’state laws contain restrictions on the ability of companies engaged in the gaming business to undertake certain financing transactions. Some restrictions may preventtransactions, therefore preventing us from obtaining necessary capital.

Our common stock price may fluctuate substantially, and your investment could decline in value.

The market price of our common stock may be volatile and could fluctuate substantially due to many factors, including:

actual or anticipated fluctuations in our results of operations;

announcements of significant acquisitions or other agreements by us or by our competitors;

our sale of common stock or other securities in the future;

the trading volume of our common stock;

conditions and trends in the gaming and destination entertainment industries;

changes in the estimation of the future size and growth of our markets; and

general economic conditions, including, among other things, changes in the cost of fuel and air travel.

In addition, the stock market in general has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to companies’ operating performance. Broad market and industry factors may materially harm the market price of our common stock, regardless of our operating performance. In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, shareholder derivative lawsuits securities class action litigation has often been instituted against that company. Such litigation, if instituted against us, could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources.

ITEM  1B.Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

ITEM  2.Properties

Information relating to the location and general characteristics of our properties appears in tabular format under Part I, Item 1. “1,Business—Business - Properties, and is incorporated herein by reference.

Substantially all of our real and personal property (other than stock and other equity interests), including each of our wholly-owned casino properties, is pledged as collateral for our bank credit facility.

As of December 31, 2007,2008, some of our hotel casinos and development projects are located on leased property, including:

 

The Orleans, is located on 77 acres of leased land.

 

Suncoast, is located on 49 acres of leased land.

 

California, is located on 13.9 acres of owned land and 1.6 acres of leased land.

 

Fremont, is located on 1.4 acres of owned land and 0.9 acres of leased land.

 

Sam’s Town Tunica, is located on 272 acres of leased land.

 

Treasure Chest, is located on 14 acres of leased land.

 

Sam’s Town Shreveport, is located on 18 acres of leased land.

 

ITEM  3.Legal Proceedings

Copeland.Alvin C. Copeland, the sole shareholder (deceased) of an unsuccessful applicant for a riverboat license at the location of our Treasure Chest Casino, has made several attempts to have the Treasure Chest license revoked and awarded to his company. In 1999 and 2000, Copeland unsuccessfully opposed the renewal of the Treasure Chest license and has brought two separate legal actions against us.Treasure Chest. In November 1993, Copeland objected to the relocation of Treasure Chest from the Mississippi River to its current site on Lake Pontchartrain. The predecessor to the Louisiana Gaming Control Board allowed the relocation over Copeland’s objection. Copeland then filed an appeal of the agency’s decision with the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. Through a number of amendments to the appeal, Copeland unsuccessfully attempted to transform the appeal into a direct action suit and sought the revocation of the Treasure Chest license. Treasure Chest intervened in the matter in order to protect its interests. The appeal/suit, as it related to Treasure Chest, was dismissed by the District Court and that dismissal was upheld on appeal by the First Circuit Court of Appeal. Additionally, in 1999, Copeland filed a direct action against Treasure Chest and certain other parties seeking the revocation of Treasure Chest’s license, an award of the license to him, and monetary damages. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, citing that Copeland failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The dismissal was appealed by Copeland to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal. On June 21, 2002, the First Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the matter to the trial court. On January 14, 2003, we filed a motion to dismiss the matter and that motion was partially denied. The Court of AppealsAppeal refused to reverse the denial of the motion to dismiss. In May 2004, we filed additional motions to dismiss on other grounds. There was no activity regarding this matter during 2005 and 2006, and the case was set to be dismissed by the court for failure to prosecute by the plaintiffs in mid-May 2007; however on May 1, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion to set a hearing date related to the motions to dismiss. The hearing was scheduled for September 10, 2007, at which time all parties agreed to postpone the hearing indefinitely. Mr. Copeland recently passed away and his son, the executor of his estate, has petitioned the court to be substituted as plaintiff in the case. We currently are vigorously defending the lawsuit. If this matter ultimately results in the Treasure Chest license being revoked, it could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are also parties to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. We believe that, except for the Copeland matter discussed previously,above, all pending claims, if adversely decided, would not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position or results of operations.

-19-


ITEM  4.Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

There were no matters subject to a vote of our security holders during the fourth quarter of 2007.2008.

 

ITEM  4A.Executive Officers of the Registrant

The following table sets forth the non-director executive officers of Boyd Gaming Corporation as of February 29, 2008:28, 2009:

 

Name

  Age  

Position

Paul J. Chakmak

  4344  Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer

Brian A. Larson

  5253  Executive Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel

Josh Hirsberg

  4647  Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (principal financial officer)

Jeffrey G. Santoro

  4647  Senior Vice President and Controller (principal accounting officer)

Paul J. Chakmak has served as our Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer effective January 1, 2008. Mr. Chakmak joined us in February 2004 as our Senior Vice President - Finance and Treasurer, and was appointed Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer on June 1, 2006.

Brian A. Larson has served as our Executive Vice President and General Counsel since January 1, 2008 and as our Secretary since February 2001. Mr. Larson became our Senior Vice President and General Counsel in January 1998. He became our Associate General Counsel in March 1993 and Vice President—Development in June 1993.

Josh Hirsberg joined the Company as our Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer effective January 1, 2008. Mr. Hirsberg was most recently the Chief Financial Officer for EdgeStar Partners, a Las Vegas-based resort development concern. He previously held several senior-level finance positions in the gaming industry, including Vice President and Treasurer for Caesars Entertainment and Vice President, Strategic Planning and Investor Relations for Harrah’s Entertainment.

Jeffrey G. Santoro has been our Senior Vice President and Controller effective January 1, 2008, and served as a Vice President since February 2001 and Controller since May 1998. Mr. Santoro joined the Company in March 1997 as our Director of Financial Reporting.

-20-


PARTPart II

 

ITEM  5.Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “BYD.” Information with respect to sales prices and record holders of our common stock is set forth below:below.

PRICE RANGE OF COMMON STOCKMarket Information

The following table sets forth, for the calendar quarters indicated, the high and low sales prices of our common stock as reported by the New York Stock Exchange.

 

  High  Low

2006

    

First Quarter

  $50.72  $41.50

Second Quarter

   54.72   37.63

Third Quarter

   40.29   33.10

Fourth Quarter

   48.10   38.05
  High  Low

2007

        

First Quarter

  $49.73  $43.88  $49.73  $43.88

Second Quarter

   54.08   44.62   54.08   44.62

Third Quarter

   54.22   35.90   54.22   35.90

Fourth Quarter

   45.40   33.89   45.40   33.89

2008

    

First Quarter

  $34.10  $18.27

Second Quarter

   21.58   12.00

Third Quarter

   14.92   7.90

Fourth Quarter

   9.78   2.81

On February 15, 2008,17, 2009, the closing sales price of our common stock on the NYSE was $24.89$4.58 per share. On that date, we had approximately 950944 holders of record of our common stock.stock and our directors and executive officers owned approximately 37% of the outstanding shares. There are no other classes of common equity outstanding.

Dividends

Dividends are declared at the discretion of our Board of Directors. In July 2008, our Board of Directors suspended the payment of a quarterly dividend for future periods. We are subject to certain limitations regarding the payment of dividends, such as restricted payment limitations related to our outstanding notes and our bank credit facility. The following table sets forth the cash dividends declared and paid during the two yearsthree year period ended December 31, 2007:2008.

 

Payment Date

  

Record Date

  Dividend
Per
Share

March 1, 2006

  February 10, 2006  $0.125

June 1, 2006

  May 12, 2006   0.135

September 1, 2006

  August 11, 2006   0.135

December 1, 2006

  November 10, 2006   0.135

March 1, 2007

  February 9, 2007   0.135

June 1, 2007

  May 11, 2007   0.150

September 4, 2007

  August 17, 2007   0.150

December 3, 2007

  November 16, 2007   0.150

Payment Date

Record Date                    

Dividend Per Share

March 1, 2006

February 10, 2006$0.125

June 1, 2006

May 12, 20060.135

September 1, 2006

August 11, 20060.135

December 1, 2006

November 10, 20060.135

March 1, 2007

February 9, 20070.135

June 1, 2007

May 11, 20070.150

September 4, 2007

August 17, 20070.150

December 3, 2007

November 16, 20070.150

March 3, 2008

February 18, 20080.150

June 2, 2008

May 14, 20080.150

We did not repurchase any securities during the fourth quarter

-21-


Share Repurchase Program

In July 2008, our Board of 2007 and have approximately 0.9 million shares that may yet be purchased underDirectors authorized an amendment to our existing share repurchase program to increase the amount of common stock available to be repurchased to $100 million. We are not obligated to purchase any shares under our stock repurchase program.

Subject to applicable corporate securities laws, repurchases under our stock repurchase program may be made at such times and in such amounts as we deem appropriate. Purchases under our stock repurchase program can be discontinued at any time that we feel additional purchases are not warranted. We intend to fund the repurchases under the stock repurchase program with existing cash resources and availability under our bank credit facility.

We are subject to certain limitations regarding the repurchase of December 31, 2007. common stock, such as restricted payment limitations related to our outstanding notes and our bank credit facility.

In the future, we may acquire our debt or equity securities, through open market purchases, privately negotiated transactions, tender offers, exchange offers, redemptions or otherwise, upon such terms and at such prices as we may determine. Part III, Item 12,Security Ownership of Part IIICertain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters, of this report contains information concerning securities authorized for issuance under equity compensation plans.

 

ITEM  6.Selected Financial Data

We have derived the selected consolidated financial data presented below as of December 31, 20072008 and 20062007 and for the three years in the period ended December 31, 20072008 from the audited consolidated financial

statements contained elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The selected consolidated financial data presented below as of December 31, 20052006 and as of and for the years ended December 31, 20042005 and 20032004 has been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements not contained herein. Operating results for the periods presented below are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for future years.

The following is a listing of significant events affecting our business during the five year period ended December 31, 2007:2008:

 

We began construction on Echelon, our multi-billionmultibillion dollar Las Vegas Strip development project, in the second quarter of 2007 and plan to open2007. Echelon in the third quarter of 2010. Echelon will beis located on the former Stardust site, which we closed onin November 1, 2006 and demolished in March 2007. On August 1, 2008, due to the difficult environment in the capital markets, as well as weak economic conditions, we announced the delay of our Echelon development project. Due to the continued deterioration in credit market conditions and the economic outlook, it is unlikely that we will resume construction in 2009. Nonetheless, we remain committed to having a meaningful presence on the Las Vegas Strip. Over the course of 2009, we intend to prepare alternative development options to consider for Echelon, which may include developing the project in phases, alternative capital structures for the project, scope modifications to the project, or additional strategic partnerships, among others. We can provide no assurances as to when, or if, construction will resume on the project, or if we will be able to obtain alternative sources of financing for the project.

 

OnOur new hotel at Blue Chip Casino, Hotel & Spa opened on January 22, 2009. This expansion added a 22-story hotel, which includes 300 guest rooms, a spa and fitness center, additional meeting and event space, as well as new dining and nightlife venues.

In 2008, we completed the launch of our nationwide branding initiative and loyalty program. Players are now able to use their “Club Coast” or “B Connected” cards to earn and redeem points at any wholly-owned Boyd Gaming property in Nevada, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana and Mississippi.

The Water Club, an 800-room boutique hotel expansion project at Borgata, opened in June 2008. The expansion includes five swimming pools, a state- of- the- art spa, additional meeting and retail space, and a separate porte-cochere and front desk.

-22-


In February 27, 2007, we completed our exchange transaction, whereby we exchanged ourof the Barbary Coast Hotel and Casino and its related 4.2 acres of land for approximately 24 acres located north of and contiguous to our Echelon development project on the Las Vegas Strip in a nonmonetary, tax-free transaction. The results of Barbary Coast are classified as discontinued operations for all periods presented.

 

OnIn October 25, 2006, we sold ourthe South Coast Hotel and Casino for total consideration of approximately $513 million, consisting of approximately $401 million in cash and approximately 3.4 million shares of our common stock valued at $112 million. The results of South Coast are classified as discontinued operations for all periods presented.

 

OnIn January 31, 2006, we expanded our Blue Chip Casino Hotel and Casino through the construction of a single-level boat that allowed us to expand our casino and increase the number of slot machines by approximately 25%.casino. In connection with this expansion, we also added a new parking structure and enhanced the land-based pavilion. In October 2006, we announced a $130 million expansion project at Blue Chip that will add a second hotel with approximately 300 guest rooms to our existing 184-room hotel, a spa and fitness center, additional meeting and event space as well as more dining and nightlife experiences. We began construction on the project during the first quarter 2007 and it is expected to open in December 2008.

 

OnIn July 1, 2004, we consummated a $1.3 billion merger in stock and cash with Coast Casinos, Inc., or Coast, pursuant to which Coast became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Boyd Gaming Corporation.

 

OnIn May 19, 2004, we acquired all of the outstanding limited and general partnership interests of the partnership that owned the Shreveport Hotel and Casino in Shreveport, Louisiana, for approximately $197 million. After the acquisition, we renamed the property Sam’s Town Hotel and Casino, andwhich we refer to the property as Sam’s Town Shreveport.

 

We and MGM MIRAGE each own 50% of a limited liability company that owns and operates Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa, a destination resort located in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Borgata commenced operations on July 3, 2003. In June 2006, Borgata completed a $200 million expansion that added both gaming and non-gaming amenities, including additional slot machines, table games, poker tables, restaurants and a nightclub. In addition to this expansion, in January 2006 construction commenced on The Water Club, a $400 million project that will add an 800-room hotel, additional meeting space, a world class spa and six retail shops. This expansion project is expected to be completed in June 2008. We use the equity method to account for our investment in Borgata.

  Year Ended December 31,  Year Ended December 31,
  2007(a)  2006(b)  2005(c)  2004(d)  2003(e)  2008 (a) 2007 (b)  2006 (c)  2005 (d)  2004 (e)
  (In thousands, except per share data)    (In thousands, except per share data)   

OPERATING DATA

               

Net revenues

  $1,997,119  $2,192,634  $2,161,085  $1,707,207  $1,253,070  $1,780,967  $1,997,119  $2,192,634  $2,161,085  $1,707,207

Operating income

   354,232   404,650   405,687   304,279   148,800

Income from continuing operations before cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle

   120,908   161,348   164,368   111,286   40,933

PER SHARE DATA—DILUTED

          

Income from continuing operations before cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle

  $1.36  $1.80  $1.82  $1.42  $0.62

Operating income (loss)

   (153,429)  354,232   404,650   405,687   304,279

Income (loss) from continuing operations before cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle

   (223,005)  120,908   161,348   164,368   111,286

PER SHARE DATA - DILUTED

         

Income (loss) from continuing operations before cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle

  $(2.54) $1.36  $1.80  $1.82  $1.42

Weighted average diluted common shares

   88,608   89,593   90,507   78,235   66,163   87,854   88,608   89,593   90,507   78,235

Cash dividends declared per common share

  $0.585  $0.53  $0.46  $0.32  $0.15  $0.30  $0.59  $0.53  $0.46  $0.32
  December 31,
  2007  2006  2005  2004  2003  December 31,
  (In thousands)  2008 2007  2006  2005  2004

BALANCE SHEET DATA

                 (In thousands)      

Total assets

  $4,487,596  $3,901,299  $4,424,953  $3,919,028  $1,872,997  $4,605,427  $4,487,596  $3,901,299  $4,424,953  $3,919,028

Long-term debt, net of current maturities

   2,265,929   2,133,016   2,552,795   2,304,343   1,097,589   2,647,058   2,265,929   2,133,016   2,552,795   2,304,343

Total stockholders’ equity

   1,385,406   1,109,952   1,098,004   943,770   441,253   1,143,522   1,385,406   1,109,952   1,098,004   943,770

All noteNote references below are to the footnotes accompanying our consolidated financial statements included in Part IV, Item 15,Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules of this report.Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

(a)2008 includes the following pretax items: $385.5 million of write-downs and other charges (see Note 9), a $28.6 million gain on the early retirements of debt (see Note 5), $20.3 million of preopening expenses (see Note 1), and a $3.7 million one-time permanent unfavorable tax adjustment related to non-recurring state income tax valuation allowances (see Note 14).

(b)2007 includes the following pre-tax items: $22.8 million of preopening expenses (see Note 1), a $16.9 million loss on the early retirements of debt (see Note 6)5), $12.1 million of write-downs and other charges, net (see Note 10)9), $3.2 million for a one-time retroactive property tax adjustment at Blue Chip (see Note 8)7) and $1.3 million of one-time permanent tax benefits resulting from a charitable contribution and a state income tax credit.credit (see Note 15)14).

(b)(c)2006 includes the following pre-tax items: $20.6 million of preopening expenses (see Note 1), $11.2 million of accelerated depreciation related to the Stardust and related assets (see Note 3)2), $8.8 million of write-downs and other charges, net (see Note 10)9), and $6.7 million for a one-time retroactive gaming tax assessment at Par-A-Dice (see Note 8)7).

(c)(d)2005 includes the following pre-tax items: $64.6 million of write-downs and other charges, net, (see Note 10), a $17.5 million loss on the early retirement of debt, (see Note 6), $7.7 million of preopening expenses (see Note 1) and $1.5 million of retention tax credits related to the hurricanes that impacted our Louisiana operations. (see Note 15)

(d)(e)2004 includes the following pre-tax items: a $9.7 million Borgata investment tax credit, a $5.7 million one-time Indiana gaming tax charge, a $4.3 million loss on the early retirement of debt, $2.0 million of preopening expenses and $1.2 million of write-downs and other charges, net.
(e)2003 includes the following pre-tax items: $19.6 million of preopening expenses related to Borgata and a $3.5 million retroactive gaming tax adjustment at Blue Chip.

 

-23-


ITEM 7.Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

We are a diversified operator of 15 wholly-owned gaming entertainment properties and one joint venturejoint-venture property. Headquartered in Las Vegas, we have casino gaming operations in Nevada, Illinois, Louisiana,

Mississippi, Indiana and New Jersey. WeJersey, which we aggregate certain of our properties in order to present five segments:four Reportable Segments: Las Vegas Locals, Downtown Las Vegas, Midwest and South, Stardust (which closed November 1, 2006) and our 50% joint venture that owns a limited liability company, that operatesoperating Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa in Atlantic City, New Jersey. WeIn addition, on March 1, 2007, we acquired Dania Jai-Alai, where we operate a pari-mutuel jai alai facility located on approximately 47 acres of land located in Dania Beach, Florida. Furthermore, we own 87 acres on the Las Vegas Strip, where our Echelon development project is currently under development.

In March 2007, we renamed our Central Region segment as our Midwest and South segment.located. Due to the disposition of the Barbary Coast in February 2007 and the South Coast in October 2006, the operating results from these two properties are classified as discontinued operations in our consolidated statements of operations. As such, we have reclassified their resultsoperations for the years ended December 31, 20062007 and 20052006.

Effective April 1, 2008, we reclassified the reporting of our Midwest and South segment to exclude the results of Dania Jai-Alai, our pari-mutuel jai alai facility, since it does not share similar economic characteristics with our other Midwest and South operations; therefore, the results of Dania Jai-Alai are included as part of the “Other” category for segment reporting. In addition, as of the same date, we reclassified the reporting of corporate expense to exclude it from our subtotal for Reportable Segment Adjusted EBITDA and include it as part of total other operating costs and expenses. Furthermore, corporate expense has been presented to include its portion of share-based compensation expense. All prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current year’s presentation. For further information related to our segment information, including the property compositions of each segment, the definition of Adjusted EBITDA and reconciliations of certain financial information, see Note 18 to our Consolidated Financial Statements presented at Item 15.“Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules”.

Our main business emphasis is on slot revenues, which are highly dependent on the volume of customers at our properties. Gross revenues are one of the main performance indicators of our properties. Most of our revenue is cash-based, and ourOur properties have historically generated significant operating cash flow.flow, with the majority of our revenue being cash-based. Our industry is capital intensive, and we rely heavily on the ability of our properties to generate operating cash flow to repay debt financing, pay income taxes, fund maintenance capital expenditures, and provide excess cash for future development, acquisitions of our debt or equity securities, and the payment of dividends.

Overall Outlook

Over the past few years, we have been working to strategically position our Company for greater success by strengthening our operating foundationexisting operations and effectinggrowing through capital investment and other strategic growth.initiatives. Our most recently completed areas of growth and strategic initiatives include:

 

Opening of Borgata’s public space expansion in June 2006, which includes three new signature restaurants and nine additional casual dining outlets, additional casino games, an 85-table poker room and an ultra lounge.

Expansion of Blue Chip in January 2006 through the construction of a single-level boat that allowed us to expand our gaming space and increase the number of slot machines and table games. In connection with this expansion project, we also added a new parking structure and enhanced the land-based pavilion.

Opening of 206-room hotel at Delta Downs in March 2005.

We are currently focused on future expansion projects, such as Echelon, our Las Vegas Strip development, which we expect to open in the third quarter of 2010, ourOur new hotel at Blue Chip Casino, Hotel & Spa opened on January 22, 2009. This expansion added a 22-story hotel, which we expectincludes 300 guest rooms, a spa and fitness center, additional meeting and event space, as well as new dining and nightlife venues.

The launch of our nationwide branding initiative and loyalty program in 2008. Players are now able to openuse their “Club Coast” or “B Connected” cards to earn and redeem points at any wholly-owned Boyd Gaming property in December 2008Nevada, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana and the addition of Mississippi.

The Water Club, an 800-room boutique hotel expansion project at Borgata, that is expected to openopened in the latter part of June 2008. See“Development Projects” below forThe expansion includes five swimming pools, a more comprehensive description of all of our expansion projects.

In October 2006, we completed the sale of South Coast, which provided us withstate-of-the-art spa, additional capital for future growth opportunitiesmeeting and reduced our issuedretail space, and outstanding common stock by approximately 3.4 million shares. In February 2007, we completed our exchange of Barbary Coast for approximately 24 acres of land on the Las Vegas Strip adjacent to our Echelon development project, which provides us with additional opportunity for future growth. These transactions are described in more detail at “Management’s Discussiona separate porte-cochere and Analysis of Financial Position and Results of Operations—Discontinued Operations”.front desk.

In addition to our expansion projects mentioned above, we regularly evaluate opportunities for growth through development of gaming operations in existing or new markets and through acquiring other gaming entertainment facilities.

Due to the current economic recession, our present objective is to manage our cost and expense structure in order to endure the current slowdown in business volumes and maintain compliance with our debt covenants. Nonetheless, we intend to remain flexible for potential strategic transactions that we may undertake in the future.

On August 1, 2008, due to the difficult environment in the capital markets, as well as weak economic conditions, we announced the delay of our Echelon development project on the Las Vegas Strip. Due to the continued deterioration in credit market conditions and the economic outlook, it is unlikely that we will resume construction in 2009. Nonetheless, we remain committed to having a meaningful presence on the Las Vegas Strip. Over the course of 2009, we intend to prepare alternative development options to consider for Echelon, which may include developing the project in phases, alternative capital structures for the project, scope modifications to the project, or additional strategic partnerships, among others. We can provide no assurances as to when, or if, construction will resume on the project, or if we will be able to obtain alternative sources of financing for the project.

-24-


Summary Financial Results

 

  Year Ended December 31,
  2007  2006  2005  Year Ended December 31,
  (In thousands)  2008 2007  2006

Gross revenues

          (In thousands)   

Las Vegas Locals

  $943,117  $946,176  $969,165  $858,241  $943,117  $946,176

Downtown Las Vegas

   277,660   278,737   282,363   263,005   277,660   278,737

Midwest and South

   1,001,242   1,074,989   967,381   857,650   993,112   1,074,989

Stardust

   —     135,019   183,020   —     —     135,019
                  

Total gross revenues

  $2,222,019  $2,434,921  $2,401,929

Reportable Segment Gross Revenues

   1,978,896   2,213,889   2,434,921

Other

   8,659   8,130   —  
                  

Operating income

  $354,232  $404,650  $405,687

Gross revenues

  $1,987,555  $2,222,019  $2,434,921
                  

Income from continuing operations before cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle

  $120,908  $161,348  $164,368

Operating income (loss)

  $(153,429) $354,232  $404,650
                  

Income (loss) from continuing operations

  $(223,005) $120,908  $161,348
         

Significant events that affected our 2008 results, as compared to 2007, or that may affect our future results, are described below:

The continued deterioration in consumer spending in conjunction with the economic recession has negatively impacted our gross revenues and our operating results during the year ended December 31, 2008, which impact is anticipated to continue for the foreseeable future.

Write-downs and other charges totaling $385.5 million during 2008, principally consisting of non-cash impairment charges to write-down certain portions of our goodwill, intangible assets and other long-lived assets to their fair value. SeeOperating Results – Discussion of Certain Expenses and Charges below for a more detailed discussion related to our write-downs and other charges.

Increased competition near Blue Chip and, to a lesser extent, construction disruption at the property, impacted our results.

A $28.6 million gain on the early retirements of portions of our 7.75% and 6.75% senior subordinated notes in the year ended December 31, 2008, which had a positive impact on income from continuing operations. During the year ended December 31, 2007, we recorded a loss of $16.9 million on the early retirements of our $250 million principal amount 8.75% senior subordinated notes and our former bank credit facility.

Significant events that affected our 2007 results, as compared to 2006, or that may affect our future results, are described below:

 

The impact of slowing economic conditions and its effect on consumer spending negatively affected our gross revenues and operating results during the latter part of 2007, and these effects may continue for the foreseeable future.2007.

 

The opening of the Four Winds Casino in New Buffalo, Michigan (which is located approximately fifteen miles froma new land-based casino near Blue Chip)Chip in August 2007.

 

A decline in 2007 operating results at Treasure Chest, reflecting normalization of its results as the Gulf Coast continued to rebuild and other forms of entertainment have reopened after the impact of Hurricane Katrina.

 

A $28 million charge during 2006 to write-off the net book value of the original Blue Chip gaming vessel, which was replaced with a new gaming vessel in connection with our 2006 expansion project.

 

The closing of the Stardust on November 1, 2006 to make way for the development of Echelon on the Las Vegas Strip. In 2007, we incurred $11.1 million of property closure costs related to demolition related expenses. In 2006, we incurred $13.4 million of property closure costs, primarily representing exit and disposal costs related to one-time termination benefits and contract termination costs, as well as $11.2 million for accelerated depreciation.

 

-25-


The addition of a new property by a major competitor in the Las Vegas Locals market in April 2006.

 

A $16.9 million loss on the early retirementsretirement of our $250 million principal amount 8.75% senior subordinated notes and our former bank credit facility during 2007.

Significant eventsReportable Segment Adjusted EBITDA

We determine each of our wholly-owned properties’ profitability based upon Property EBITDA, which represents each property’s earnings before interest expense, income taxes, depreciation and amortization, preopening expenses, write-downs and other charges, share-based compensation expense, deferred rent, change in value of derivative instruments, and gain/loss on early retirements of debt, as applicable. Reportable Segment Adjusted EBITDA is the aggregate sum of the Property EBITDA for each of the properties included in our Las Vegas Locals, Downtown Las Vegas, Midwest and South and Stardust segments, and also includes our share of Borgata’s operating income before net amortization, preopening and other items. For the composition of each of our reportable segments, see Part I, Item I,Business – Properties above. Our Reportable Segment Adjusted EBITDA related to our five segments is listed in the table below.

   Year Ended December 31,
   2008  2007  2006
      (In thousands)   

Reportable Segment Adjusted EBITDA

      

Las Vegas Locals

  $218,591  $275,510  $273,797

Downtown Las Vegas

   40,657   52,127   53,573

Midwest and South

   169,063   214,605   257,570

Stardust

   —     —     15,403

Our share of Borgata’s operating income before net amortization, preopening and other items

   60,520   86,470   91,963

The significant factors that affected our 2006 resultsReportable Segment Adjusted EBITDA for 2008, as compared to 2005, or that may affect our future results,2007, are describedlisted below:

 

The closing ofLas Vegas Locals – decline is due primarily to the Stardust on November 1, 2006 to make way for the development of Echelon. In 2006, we incurred $13.4 million of property closure costs, primarily representing exit and disposal costs related to one-time termination benefits and contract termination costs, as well as $11.2 million for accelerated depreciation. In 2005, we recorded a $56 million non-cash impairment charge to write down the long-lived assets at Stardust to their estimated fair value.

The completion of our expansion project at Blue Chip on January 31, 2006, which included a new gaming vessel with an expanded casino floor located on one level. We also incurred a $28 million non-cash charge to write-off the net book value of our original Blue Chip gaming vesselreduction in 2006.

We were impacted in 2005 by two hurricanes that affected certain of our Midwest and South Region properties. Treasure Chest closed in August 2005gross revenues as a result of Hurricane Katrinathe economic recession, which has caused significant declines in the local housing market and remained closed for 44 days, reopeningrising unemployment that has adversely impacted consumer spending.

Downtown Las Vegas – decline is due to the reduction in October 2005. Delta Downs closed in September 2005gross revenues as a result of Hurricane Rita and remained closed for 42 days, reopeningthe economic recession, as well as a significant reduction in November 2005. Horse races at Delta Downs resumed in April 2006. We incurred $9.3 million of net hurricane and related expenses during 2005. In 2006, we recorded a $36 million gain related to the final settlement of our insurance claims related to hurricane damages at Delta Downs.commercial airline seat capacity from Hawaii, which adversely affected leisure travel from this primary feeder market.

 

A significant increase in operating results at Treasure ChestMidwest and South – decline is principally due to the economic changes resultingreduction in an increase in discretionary leisure spending in the New Orleans area followinggross revenues at Blue Chip, which continues to be materially impacted by increased competition and construction disruption, as well as the impact of Hurricane Katrina, which struck the Gulf Coast region in August 2005. However, as casinos and other forms of entertainment reopened in the Gulf Coast region during 2006, Treasure Chest’s operating results began to normalize.

An increase in operating results at Delta Downs due in part to the opening of its 206-room hotel in March 2005 and the completion of the majority of its hurricane restoration project during the first quarter of 2006.economic recession on our properties throughout this segment.

 

  

$21 millionSeeOperating Data for Borgata – our 50% joint venture in Atlantic City below for a discussion of non-cash share-based compensation expensethe decrease in 2006 resulting from the adoptionour share of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 123R,Share-Based Payment on January 1, 2006; there was no such expense recorded prior to 2006.Borgata’s operating income before net amortization, preopening and other items.

Operating income from our Las Vegas Locals segment was negatively impacted by increased capacity in the market with the addition of new competition in 2006.

Adjusted EBITDA

We have aggregated certain of our properties in order to present the five segments listed in the table below. See Note 18 to our Consolidated Financial Statements presented at Item 15. “Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules,”for a definition of Adjusted EBITDA and a reconciliation of this financial information to operating income and income from continuing operations before cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle presented in accordance with GAAP.

   Year Ended December 31,
   2007  2006  2005
   (In thousands)

Adjusted EBITDA

      

Las Vegas Locals

  $275,510  $273,797  $299,913

Downtown Las Vegas

   52,127   53,573   52,295

Midwest and South

   212,620   257,570   224,816

Stardust

   —     15,403   24,651

Our share of Borgata's operating income before net amortization, preopening and other items

   86,470   91,963   97,392

The significant factors that affected Reportable Segment Adjusted EBITDA for 2007, as compared to 2006, are listed below:

 

Las Vegas Locals Adjusted EBITDA- increased slightly during 2007, as compared to 2006, despite the reduction in gross revenues due to the impact of slowing economic conditions and its affect on consumer spending, as well as increased competition and promotional spending in the market. This segment has experienced margin improvement due to operational efficiencies resulting from the integration of our properties and the standardization of certain operating processes.

 

Midwest and South Adjusted EBITDA- decreased primarily due to the following items:

 

Reportable Segment Adjusted EBITDA at Blue Chip declined during 2007, as compared to 2006, due primarily to the opening of the Four Winds Casinoa competitor in August 2007, as well as the January 2006 grand opening of our new gaming vessel, which resulted in a significant increase in customer volume and operating results during 2006. In addition, results at Blue Chip during 2007 were impacted by a $3.2 million estimated property tax charge retroactive to January 1, 2006. This charge was the result of receiving a notice indicating an unanticipated increase of nearly 400% to Blue Chip’s assessed property value.

million estimated property tax charge retroactive to January 1, 2006. This charge was the result of receiving a notice indicating an unanticipated increase of nearly 400% to Blue Chip’s assessed property value.

 

-26-


The normalization of Reportable Segment Adjusted EBITDA at Treasure Chest during 2007, as compared to 2006, as the Gulf Coast continued to rebuild and other forms of entertainment have reopened after the impact of Hurricane Katrina. Results at Treasure Chest appear to have stabilized.

 

We closed the Stardust on November 1, 2006 to make way for the development of Echelon on the Las Vegas Strip.

 

  

SeeOperating Data for Borgata—Borgata – our 50% joint venture in Atlantic City”City below for a discussion of the decrease in our Adjusted EBITDA from Borgata.share of Borgata’s operating income before net amortization, preopening and other items.

The significant factors that affected Adjusted EBITDA for 2006 as compared to 2005 are listed below:

Las Vegas Locals Adjusted EBITDA decreased due primarily to the addition of increased competition and promotional spending in the market.

Significant factors that affected Midwest and South Region Adjusted EBITDA include the following items:

Treasure Chest’s Adjusted EBITDA increased due to the increase in gross revenues coupled with lower payroll and marketing expenses at the property due to changes in operations caused by the impact of Hurricane Katrina. However, as casinos and other forms of entertainment reopened in the Gulf Coast region during 2006, Treasure Chest’s Adjusted EBITDA began to normalize.

Blue Chip’s Adjusted EBITDA increased due to the increase in gross revenues related to the opening of its newly expanded casino and pavilion in January 2006, which was partially offset by an increase in marketing and promotional expenses incurred in an effort to generate trial and repeat visitation.

Delta Downs’ Adjusted EBITDA increased due to the opening of its 206-room hotel in March 2005 and the completion of the majority of its hurricane restoration project during the first quarter of 2006.

Adjusted EBITDA from Par-A-Dice decreased primarily due to $9.8 million of additional gaming tax expense resulting from a June 2006 modification by the Illinois State Legislature requiring licensees to pay an additional 5% tax on adjusted gross gaming revenues retroactive to July 1, 2005, $6.7 million of which related to the twelve months ended June 30, 2006.

Adjusted EBITDA at Sam’s Town Shreveport declined 27% in 2006 as compared to 2005 due primarily to a 6.3% decrease in gross revenue.

Adjusted EBITDA at Stardust decreased due to a decline in customer volume as a result of the wind-down of operations and the closure of the property on November 1, 2006.

See “Operating Data for Borgata—our 50% joint venture in Atlantic City” for a discussion of the decrease in our Adjusted EBITDA from Borgata.

Operating Data for Borgata—Borgata – our 50% joint venture in Atlantic City

The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, certain operating data for Borgata, our 50% joint venture in Atlantic City. We use the equity method to account for our investment in Borgata.

 

  Year Ended December 31,   Year Ended December 31, 
  2007 2006 2005   2008 2007 2006 
  (In thousands)     (In thousands)   

Gross revenues

  $1,034,679  $1,009,024  $944,705   $1,044,463  $1,034,679  $1,009,024 

Operating income

   168,868   174,988   194,623    115,308   168,868   174,988 

Total non-operating expenses

   (27,536)  (21,155)  (23,435)   (32,019)  (27,536)  (21,155)

Net income

   141,332   153,833   171,188    83,289   141,332   153,833 

The following table reconciles the presentation of our share of Borgata’s operating income.

 

  Year Ended December 31,  Year Ended December 31,
  2007  2006  2005  2008  2007  2006
  (In thousands)     (In thousands)   

Operating income from Borgata, as reported on our consolidated statements of operations

  $83,136  $86,196  $96,014  $56,356  $83,136  $86,196

Net amortization expense related to our investment in Borgata

   1,298   1,298   1,298   1,298   1,298   1,298
                  

Our share of Borgata’s operating income

   84,434   87,494   97,312   57,654   84,434   87,494

Our share of Borgata’s preopening expenses

   1,558   3,260   —     2,785   1,558   3,260

Our share of Borgata’s write-downs and other charges, net

   478   1,209   80   81   478   1,209
                  

Our share of Borgata’s operating income before net amortization, preopening and other expenses

  $86,470  $91,963  $97,392

Our share of Borgata’s operating income before net
amortization, preopening and other items

  $60,520  $86,470  $91,963
                  

Our share of Borgata’s operating income before net amortization, preopening and other items expenses decreased $26.0 million in 2008, as compared to 2007. The decline was primarily due to the economic recession, increased competition from new competition from surrounding jurisdictions, specifically, slot operations in Pennsylvania, the addition of new hotel capacity in the Atlantic City market, and higher operating expenses related to the opening of The Water Club.

On June 27, 2008, Borgata’s second hotel, The Water Club, held its grand opening. The Water Club is an 800-room hotel, featuring five swimming pools, a state-of-the-art spa, and additional meeting room space. Borgata financed the expansion from its cash flows from operations and from its bank credit facility.

Our share of Borgata’s operating income before net amortization, preopening and other expenses decreased $5.5 million in 2007, as compared to 2006. This decline is mainly attributable to the heightened competitive environment in Atlantic City as a result of new competition from surrounding jurisdictions, as well as higher fixed costs associated with Borgata’s public space expansion that opened in June 2006.

Our share of Borgata’s operating income before net amortization, preopening and other expenses decreased $5.4 million in 2006 as compared to 2005. In June 2006, Borgata opened its $200 million public space expansion which resulted in higher marketing and promotional expenses, depreciation, utilities and other fixed charges that more than offset its increase in gross revenues.

-27-


Borgata Tax Credits. Based on New Jersey state income tax rules, Borgata is eligible for a refundable state tax credit under the New Jersey New Jobs Investment Tax Credit (“New Jobs Tax Credit”) because it made a qualified investment in a new business facility that created new jobs. The total net credit related to Borgata’s original investment was approximately $75 million over a five-year period that ended in 2007. An incrementalIncremental net creditcredits related to Borgata’s public space expansion isand The Water Club are estimated to be approximately $2.7$8.4 million and $5.2 million, respectively, over a five-year periodperiods ending in 2010.2010 and 2012, respectively. Borgata recorded $5.0 million, $17.4 million and $16.9 million and $18.7 million, respectively, of net New Jobs Tax Credits in arriving at its state income tax benefit (provision) for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, and 2005.respectively. Borgata expects to generate net New Jobs Tax Credits of approximately $0.6$2.7 million per annum for the years 2008 through 2010. Borgata may also be entitled to incremental New Jobs Tax Credits as a result of its second hotel project, The Water Club, which is expected to be completed in June 2008.2009 and 2010 and $1.0 million per annum for the years 2011 and 2012.

Due to the absorption of the original New Job Tax Credits, Borgata is expected to record a state tax provision in 2008. This tax provision will be principally based upon Borgata’s pre-tax income and the nine percent New Jersey statutory tax rate.

Operating Results—Results – Discussion of Certain Expenses and Charges

The following expenses and charges are further discussed below:

 

  Year Ended December 31,  Year Ended December 31,
  2007  2006  2005  2008  2007  2006
  (In thousands)     (In thousands)   

Depreciation and amortization

  $170,295  $167,257  $189,837

Corporate expense

  $48,960  $39,981  $44,101   52,332   60,143   54,229

Depreciation and amortization

   167,257   189,837   171,958

Preopening expenses

   22,819   20,623   7,690   20,265   22,819   20,623

Share-based compensation expense

   14,802   19,278   —  

Write-downs and other charges, net

   12,101   8,838   64,615   385,521   12,101   8,838

Corporate Expense. Corporate expense represents unallocated payroll, professional fees, aircraft costsDepreciation and various other expenses not directly related to our casino hotel operations. In 2007, we commenced design work on our consolidated new players club program in order to buildAmortization

Depreciation and reward customer loyalty and drive cross-property visitation. The increase in corporate expense in 2007amortization remained stable during 2008, as compared to 2006 is due, in part, to expenses incurred for our new players club program. We launched the first phase of the program in January 2008 and expect to complete the rollout of this program in the second quarter of2007, as there were no significant expansion capital expenditures that were placed into service during 2008. We expect the launch of the program to cause corporate expense to increase by $8 million to $10 million in 2008.

Depreciation and Amortization.The decline in depreciation and amortization expense during 2007, as compared to 2006, is principally due to the closure of the Stardust on November 1, 2006. Additionally, in connection with the planned closure of the Stardust, we reevaluated the useful lives of all of the depreciable assets residing on the land associated with our Echelon development project, including our corporate office building, and we recorded an additional $11.2 million in accelerated depreciation related to these assets during 2006.

Corporate Expense

DepreciationCorporate expense represents unallocated payroll, professional fees, aircraft costs and amortization expense increasedvarious other expenses that are not directly related to our casino hotel operations, in 2006 as compared to 2005 dueaddition to the completioncorporate portion of share-based compensation expense.

In 2007, we commenced design work on our new consolidated players’ club program in order to build and reward customer loyalty and drive cross-property visitation. The increase in corporate expense in 2007 is due, in part, to the Blue Chip expansion projectdesign related expenses incurred in January 20062007 for the launch of our nationwide branding initiative and the Delta Downs expansion projectloyalty program in March 2005, as well as the completion of the hurricane reconstruction project at Delta Downs in March 2006. Additionally, in connection with the planned closure of the Stardust, we reevaluated the useful lives of all of the depreciable assets residing on the land associated with our Echelon development project, including our corporate office building, and we recorded an additional $11.2 million in accelerated depreciation related to these assets during 2006.2008.

Preopening Expenses

We expense certain costs of start-up activities as incurred. During the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, we recorded preopening expenses related to our Echelon development project, our new hotel and expansion project at Blue Chip, our expansion project at Dania Jai-Alai, which we indefinitely postponed in February 2008, and efforts to develop gaming activities in other jurisdictions.

In 2008, preopening expenses related to the following items:

 

$16.3 million for our Echelon development project;

$1.3 million for the new hotel at Blue Chip;

$0.9 million for the Dania Jai Alai project; and

��

$1.8 million for other projects.

-28-


In 2007, preopening expenses related to the following items:

$15.6 million for our Echelon development project;

$5.3 million for the Dania Jai Alai project; and

$1.9 million for other projects.

In 2006, preopening expenses related to the following items:

$11.6 million for our Echelon development project;

$2.6 million for our Blue Chip expansion project;

$1.1 million for our Dania Jai Alai project; and

$5.3 million for other projects.

In 2005, preopening expenses related to the following items:

$3.5 million for our Echelon development project;

$1.3 million for our Blue Chip expansion project;

$1.3 million for our Dania Jai Alai project; and

$1.6 million for other projects.

Share-Based Compensation Expense. On January 1, 2006, we adopted SFAS No. 123R,Share-Based Payment, using the modified prospective method. This statement requires us to measure the cost of employee services

received in exchange for an award of equity instruments based on the grant-date fair value of the award (with limited exceptions). For the year ended December 31, 2007, we incurred $16.1 million of share-based compensation expense related to continuing operations, of which $1.3 million is included in preopening expenses. For the year ended December 31, 2006, we incurred $20.6 million of share-based compensation expense related to continuing operations, of which $1.3 million is included in preopening expenses.

On November 7, 2007 and December 6, 2007, we granted options to purchase approximately 1.3 million and 0.5 million shares of our common stock, respectively, at an exercise price of $39.78 per share and $38.11 per share, respectively, representing the closing market price of our common stock on those dates. The fair value of these grants, combined with our other share-based payment awards currently outstanding, will result in estimated share-based compensation costs of approximately $15 million for the year ending December 31, 2008. The grant of any additional share-based payment awards will increase our estimate of share-based compensation costs. Our financial statements for periods prior to the adoption of SFAS No. 123R do not reflect any restated amounts related to the adoption of this standard.

Write-downs and Other Charges, net.net

In 2008, write-downs and other charges, net, primarily consist of the following:

An aggregate of $290.2 million in non-cash impairment charges to write-down certain portions of our goodwill, intangible assets and other long-lived assets to their fair value at December 31, 2008. The impairment tests for these assets were principally due to the decline in our stock price that caused our book value to exceed our market capitalization, which was an indication that these assets may not be recoverable. The primary reason for these impairment charges relates to the ongoing recession, which has caused us to reduce our estimates for projected cash flows, has reduced overall industry valuations, and has caused an increase in discount rates in the credit and equity markets.

An $84.0 million non-cash impairment charge principally related to the write-off of Dania Jai-Alai’s intangible license right, following our decision to indefinitely postpone redevelopment plans to operate slot machines at the facility.

Hurricane and related expenses of $3.0 million were incurred as a result of damages from the Gulf Coast hurricanes at Treasure Chest and Delta Downs. The property damage incurred by each of the properties did not meet our insurance deductibles; therefore, no claims were filed.

In 2007, write-downs and other charges, net, primarily consist of the following:

 

In connection with our Echelon development project on the Las Vegas Strip, we closed the Stardust on November 1, 2006 and demolished the property in March 2007. During 2007, we recorded $11.1 million in property closure costs, the majority of which represents demolition and rubble removal costs.

 

We incurred $0.9 million of acquisition-related expenses in connection with our purchase of Dania Jai-Alai on March 1, 2007.

In 2006, write-downs and other charges, net, primarily consist of the following:

 

A gain of $36 million recognized upon the final settlement with our insurance carrier for insurance claims related to hurricane damages incurred at Delta Downs.Downs as a result of Hurricane Rita in 2005.

 

A $28 million non-cash charge related to the write-off of the net book value of the original Blue Chip gaming vessel in June 2006, which was replaced with a new gaming vessel in conjunction with our expansion project. After analysis of alternative uses for the original vessel, management decided in June 2006 to permanently retire the asset from further operations.

 

In connection with our Echelon development plan, we closed the Stardust on November 1, 2006 and demolished the property in March 2007. During 2006, we recorded $13.4 million in property closure costs, the majority of which represents exit and disposal costs related to one-time termination benefits and contract termination costs.

 

-29-


A $3.0 million non-cash write-down in September 2006 related to land held for sale in Pennsylvania that we previously planned to utilize as a site for a potential gaming operation. We withdrew our application for gaming approval, which led to our decision to sell the land.

In 2005, write-downs and other charges, net, primarily consist of the following:

We recorded a $56 million non-cash impairment loss to write-down the long-lived assets at Stardust to their estimated fair value. Because we intend to redevelop the land on which the Stardust was located and our plans included demolishing Stardust’s existing buildings and abandoning other related assets, we performed an impairment test for this property. This non-cash charge was the result of our calculation of the estimated remaining net cash flows for Stardust compared to the net book value of the assets to be demolished or abandoned. For more information about this project, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Position and Results of Operations, Other Items Affecting Liquidity—Expansion Projects.”

Due to the effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on two of our properties, Treasure Chest and Delta Downs, we recorded $9.3 million of net hurricane and related expenses in 2005.

Other Operating Items

Asset Impairment

Annual Asset Impairment Testing

We have significant amounts of goodwill and indefinite-life intangible assets on our consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2008 and 2007. In accordance with SFAS No. 142,Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,we perform an annual impairment test of these assets in the second quarter of each year, which resulted in no impairment charge for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006.

In addition, we are required to test these assets for impairment between annual test dates in certain circumstances. As of December 31, 2008, we performed interim impairment tests that resulted in a $165.5 million and $22.3 million non-cash write-down of goodwill related to our 2004 acquisitions of Coast Casinos, Inc. and Sam’s Town Shreveport, respectively, and an $80.7 million non-cash write-down of our indefinite-life gaming license right at Blue Chip. The impairment test for these assets was principally due to the decline in our stock price that caused our book value to exceed our market capitalization, which was an indication that these assets may not be recoverable. The primary reason for these impairment charges relates to the ongoing recession, which has caused us to reduce our estimates for projected cash flows, has reduced overall industry valuations, and has caused an increase in discount rates in the credit and equity markets.

Echelon

On August 1, 2008, due to the difficult environment in the capital markets, as well as weak economic conditions, we announced the delay of our multibillion dollar Echelon development project on the Las Vegas Strip. Due to the continued deterioration in credit market conditions and the economic outlook, it is unlikely that we will resume construction in 2009. Nonetheless, we remain committed to having a priormeaningful presence on the Las Vegas Strip. Over the course of 2009, we intend to prepare alternative development options to consider for Echelon, which may include developing the project in phases, alternative capital structures for the project, scope modifications to the project, or additional strategic partnerships, among others. This change in circumstance implies that the carrying amounts of the assets related to Echelon may not be recoverable; therefore, we performed an impairment test of these assets for recoverability during the three months ended September 30, 2008, which resulted in no impairment charge, as the estimated undiscounted cash flows from the project exceed the current carrying value of the assets, which was approximately $900 million, including land, as of December 31, 2008. We will continue to monitor these assets for recoverability as we develop and explore the viability of alternatives for the project. If we are subject to a non-cash write-down of these assets, it could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial statements.

Sam’s Town Tunica

Sam’s Town Tunica reported a net operating loss of $7.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. Due to its history of operating losses, at Sam’s Town Tunica, in prior reporting periods,2008 we tested the assets of Sam’s Town Tunica for recoverability pursuant to SFAS No. 144Accounting for the Impairment orDisposal of Long-Lived Assets.”.The asset recoverability test required the estimation of Sam’s Town Tunica’sits undiscounted future cash flows and comparing thatthe comparison of the aggregate total to the property’s carrying value. Sam’s Town Tunica’s financial performance improved during 2007 and its profitability is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. In 2007, the property’s estimated undiscounted future cash flows exceeded its carrying value; therefore, we do not believe Sam’s Town Tunica’s assets to be impaired and we did not perform an impairmentThe test of its long-lived assets;resulted in no impairment; however, we will continue to monitor the performance of Sam’s Town Tunica and, if necessary, continue to update our asset recoverability test under SFAS No. 144. If future asset recoverability tests indicate that the assets of Sam’s Town Tunica are impaired, we will be subject to a non-cash write-down of its assets, which could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated statements of operations.

We have significant amounts of goodwill and indefinite-life intangible assets on our consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2007 and 2006. In accordance with SFAS No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,”we perform an annual impairment test of these assets in the second quarter of each year, which resulted in no impairment charge for the years end December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005; however, if our ongoing estimates of projected cash flows related to these assets are not met, we may be subject to a non-cash write-down of these assets in the future, which could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated statements of operations.

Dania Jai-Alai

On March 1, 2007, we acquired Dania Jai-Alai and approximately 47 acres of related land located in Dania Beach, Florida. Dania Jai-Alai is one of four pari-mutuel facilities in Broward County, which is approved under Florida law to operate 2,000 Class III slot machines. Conversely, a current Florida ballot measure to amend the Florida Constitution to allow Florida voters to approve slot machines (see Note 8, “Commitmentsat certain pari-mutuel gaming facilities in Miami-Dade and Contingencies,”Broward Counties (the “Slot Initiative”), where Dania Jai Alai is located, has been subject to legal challenge since 2004 and remains unresolved. If the accompanying consolidated financial statements for information relatedSlot Initiative is ultimately invalidated, we would not be permitted to operate slot machines at the Broward County slot initiativeDania Jai-Alai facility, which would materially affect any potential revenue and cash flow expected from the pending challenge to its validity). Dania Jai-Alai facility.

-30-


We purchased Dania Jai-Alai with the intention of redeveloping the property into a slot-based casino. WeIn March 2007, we paid approximately $81 million to close this transaction, and if certain conditions are satisfied, we will be requiredagreed to pay, in March 2010 or earlier, a contingent payment of an additional $75 million to the seller, plus interest accrued at the prime rate (the “contingent payment”), in March 2010 or earlier.if certain legal conditions were satisfied.

In February 2008, management completed its analysis of our opportunity to operate slot machines atSubsequent Event – Dania Jai-Alai and decided Payment. In January 2009, we amended the purchase agreement to postpone redevelopment of the facility due to the following considerations: the continued poor performance of the Broward County pari-mutuel casinos; the introduction of Class III slot machines and the probable pending addition of table games at a nearby Native American casino; the prohibitively high gaming tax rate for pari-mutuel slot operators; the pending introduction of casino gaming in Miami-Dade County and the introduction of legislation to allow for slot machines at all pari-mutuel facilities in the State of Florida. As circumstances change, management will monitor our opportunities with respect to Dania Jai-Alai.

Due to the change in circumstances, during the first quarter of 2008, we will test Dania Jai-Alai’s long-lived and intangible assets, as well as any goodwill that may arise from the finalization of our purchase price allocation, for impairment. Although we cannot quantify an amount at this time, we expect this impairment test to result in the write-down of a portion of these assets. In addition, we may be subject to another impairment charge if and whensettle the contingent payment is resolvedprior to the satisfaction of the legal conditions. The principal terms of the amendment are as follows:

We paid $9.4 million to the seller in January 2009, plus $9.1 million accrued interest from the March 1, 2007 date of acquisition.

We issued an 8% promissory note to the seller in the amount of $65.6 million, plus accrued interest. The terms of the note require principal payments of $9.4 million, plus accrued interest, in April 2009 and added toJuly 2009, with a final principal payment of $46.9 million, plus accrued interest, due in January 2010.

In conjunction with this amendment, we will record $28.4 million of the $75 million contingent liability as an additional cost of the acquisition.acquisition (goodwill) during the three months ending March 31, 2009. We will test the goodwill for recoverability, and we expect that the test will result in an additional impairment charge during the three months ending March 31, 2009.

Blue Chip

The Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, a federally recognized Native American tribe, commenced operations of the Four Winds Casino in New Buffalo, Michigan (which is located approximately fifteen miles fromIncreased competition near Blue Chip) in August 2007.Chip has impacted our results. Although we have expanded our facility at Blue Chip in an effort to be more competitive in this market, the Four Winds Casinocompetition has had, and could continue to have, an adverse impact on the results of operations of Blue Chip.

We review our goodwill, intangible and other long-lived assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that their carrying amounts may not be recoverable. If our ongoing estimates of projected cash flows at Blue Chip are not met due to the negative impact of increased competition or otherwise, we may be subject to a non-cash write-down of these assets, which could have an adverse impact on our consolidated statements of operations.

Sam’s Town Las Vegas

A smallerAn existing hotel casino located directly across fromadjacent to Sam’s Town Las Vegas is currently beingwas recently redeveloped. This enhanced facility is expected to open inopened during the third quarter ofthree months ended September 30, 2008 and mayhas had, and could continue to have, an adverse impact on the results of operations atof Sam’s Town Las Vegas.

Borgata

Borgata is in the process of its second expansion that will add aOn June 27, 2008, Borgata’s second hotel, The Water Club, which will includeheld its grand opening. The Water Club is an 800-room hotel, featuring five swimming pools, a state-of-the-art spa, and additional meeting roomand retail space. This expansion project is estimated to cost approximately $400 million. Borgata expects to financefinanced the expansion from its cash flowflows from operations and from its bank credit agreement. We do not expect to make further capital contributions to Borgata for this project.facility.

On September 23, 2007, The Water Club sustained a fire that caused damage to property with a carrying value of approximately $11.4 million in property damage, based on current estimates.million. Borgata carries insurance policies that its management believes will cover most of the replacement costs related to the property damage, with the exception of minor amounts principally related to insurance deductibles and certain other limitations. During 2007,As of December 31, 2008, Borgata incurred $0.3 million of expenseshas received insurance advances related to property damage totaling $22.4 million. Borgata has recorded a deferred gain of $11.1 million on its consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2008, representing the fire. Althoughamount of insurance advances related to property damage in excess of the $11.3 million net carrying value of assets damaged or destroyed by the fire damage will delay(after its opening, Borgata currently believes$0.1 million deductible). The Water Club will be able to open in June 2008; however, no assurances can be madedeferred gain, and any other deferred gain that it will open by that time, thatmay arise from further advances from insurance will cover the total replacement cost of the property damage, or that the costsrecoveries related to the property damage, will not increase above current estimates.be recognized on its consolidated statement of operations until final settlement with its insurance carrier. In addition, Borgata has “delay-in-completion” insurance coverage for The Water Club for certain costs, totaling up to $40 million, subject to various limitations and deductibles, which Borgata believes may help to offset some of the costs related to the postponement of its opening. In addition, Borgata maintains business interruption insurance that covers certain lost profits; however, Borgata has not pursued a possible claim at this time. As such, Borgata’s insurance carrier has yet to confirm or deny coverage. Recoveries, if any, from the insurance carrier for lost profits will be recorded bywhen realized. The management of Borgata when earned and realized. As of December 31, 2007, Borgata had received $7 million in advances fromcontinues to work with its insurance carrier.carrier on the scope of the claims and can provide no assurance with respect to the ultimate resolution of these matters.

-31-


Certain Other Non-Operating Costs and Expenses

Interest Expense, NetCosts

 

  Year Ended December 31,   Year Ended December 31, 
  2007 2006 2005   2008 2007 2006 
  (In thousands)     (In thousands)   

Interest costs

  $159,732  $181,522  $152,405   $142,645  $159,732  $181,522 

Less capitalized interest

   (18,060)  (7,481)  (22,930)   (37,667)  (18,060)  (7,481)

Less effects of interest rate swaps

   (3,499)  (2,249)  (452)

Effects of interest rate swaps

   5,168   (3,499)  (2,249)

Less interest costs related to discontinued operations

   (600)  (26,247)  (2,711)   —     (600)  (26,247)

Less interest income

   (119)  (112)  (224)   (1,070)  (119)  (112)
                    

Interest expense, net

  $137,454  $145,433  $126,088   $109,076  $137,454  $145,433 
                    

Average debt balance

  $2,187,536  $2,512,676  $2,389,741   $2,485,990  $2,183,684  $2,516,088 
                    

Average interest rate

   7.1%  7.1%  6.4%   5.9%  7.1%  7.1%
                    

Despite the increase in our average debt balance, interest costs decreased during 2008, as compared to 2007, principally due to a decline in market interest rates that caused our average borrowing rate to decline to 5.9% during the year ended December 31, 2008. At December 31, 2008, 43% of our debt was based upon variable interest rates, compared to 35% of our debt at December 31, 2007.

Interest costs decreased during 2007, as compared to 2006, principally due to a decrease in the average levels of debt outstanding as a result of the application of the $401 million of cash proceeds we received from the sale of South Coast in October 2006.

Capitalized interest has increased during each of the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007, as compared to 2006and 2006. These increases were due primarily to an increase in capital spending on our Echelon development project. We expect interest costs and capitalized interest to increase during 2008 due primarily to expected increases inadditional capital spending on our Echelon development project and our newBlue Chip hotel project at Blue Chip.

Interest costs increasedproject. We expect capitalized interest to decline in 2006 as compared to 20052009 due to an increase in the average levels of debt incurred to finance our expansion projects. In addition, the interest rates on our variable interest rate debt increased period-over-period. Capitalized interest decreased in 2006 as compared to 2005 due primarily to the opening of South Coast in December 2005 and the completion of the Blue Chip expansionhotel project in January 2006.2009 and the reduction in construction activities due to the delay in our Echelon development project.

Included in the lossincome (loss) from discontinued operations during 2007 and 2006 is an allocation of interest expense related to $401 million of debt that was repaid as a result of the South Coast disposition, as well as other consolidated interest based on the ratio of: (i) the net assets of our discontinued operations less the debt repaid as a result of the South Coast disposition, to (ii) the sum of total consolidated net assets and consolidated debt of the Company, other than the debt repaid as a result of the disposition. With the February 2007 completion of the Barbary Coast exchange transaction, there were no further allocations of interest to discontinued operations from these transactions.

Loss (Gain) on Early Retirements of Debt

During the year ended December 31, 2008, we purchased and retired $146.5 million principal amount of our senior subordinated notes. The total purchase price of the notes was approximately $116.5 million, resulting in a gain of approximately $28.6 million, net of associated deferred financing fees. The transactions were funded by availability under our bank credit facility.

On May 24, 2007, we entered into a new $4.0 billion revolving bank credit facility that matures on May 24, 2012. The bank credit facility replaces our former $1.85 billion bank credit facility. We recorded a $4.4 million non-cash loss on early retirementretirements of debt during 2007 for the write-off of unamortized debt fees associated with our former bank credit facility.

On April 16, 2007, we redeemed our $250 million aggregate principal amount of 8.75% senior subordinated notes that were originally due to mature in April 2012. In connection with the redemption of these notes, we terminated our $50 million notional amount fixed-to-floating interest rate swap. During 2007, we recorded a $12.5 million loss on the early retirement of these notes and related interest rate swap of $12.5 million.swap.

In 2005, we recorded a loss on early retirement of debt related to our $200 million aggregate principal amount of 9.25% senior notes originally due in 2009. The $17.5 million loss is comprised of the premium

-32-

related to the call for redemption of these notes, unamortized deferred loan costs and the notes’ market adjustments from fair value hedges.


Change in Value of Derivative Instruments

During the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, we had certain interest rate swaps that we did not designate or otherwise qualify for hedge accounting; therefore, the decline in the fair value of these interest rate swaps of $1.1 million and $1.8 million respectively, was recorded on our consolidated statements of operations for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006.2006, respectively. In July 2007, we terminated all of our interest rate swaps that we did not designate or qualify for hedge accounting. In addition, we entered into forward-starting interest rate swaps with an aggregate notional amount of $750 million to hedge the variability in the cash flows of our floating rate borrowings through June 30, 2011 (see Note 7,“Derivative Instrument,”to the accompanying consolidated financial statements).2011. We have designated and qualified these forward startingforward-starting swaps as cash flow hedges in an effort to limit the impact of the change in the market value of these interest rate swaps on our future operating results. We are exposed to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by the counterparties to our interest rate swap agreements; however, we believe that this risk is minimized because we monitor the credit ratings of the counterparties to the agreements.

Provision forBenefit from (Provision for) Income Taxes

The effective tax rate for continuing operations in 20072008 was 35%11%, as compared to 35% in 20062007 and 34%2006. The 2008 benefit includes the tax effect of impairment charges and valuation allowances associated with certain state net operating losses. Additionally, the 2008 effective tax rate is materially impacted by the Coast Casinos, Inc. goodwill impairment charge, which does not provide any tax benefit due to tax attributes attached to the goodwill in 2005.connection with the original Coast Casinos, Inc. acquisition. The 2007 tax provision includes one-time permanent tax benefits resulting from a charitable contribution and a state income tax credit. The 2005 tax provision includes a net tax benefit of $1.5 million for a tax retention credit related to the hurricanes that impacted our Louisiana operations.

Income from Continuing Operations

As a result of the factors discussed above, we reported $121a $223.0 million $161loss from continuing operations for the year ended December 31, 2008 and $120.9 million and $164$161.3 million in income from continuing operations before cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, and 2005, respectively.

-33-


Liquidity and Capital Resources

Cash Flows Summary

 

   Year Ended December 31, 
   2007  2006  2005 
   (In thousands) 

Net cash provided by operating activities

  $283,682  $419,513  $419,908 
             

Cash flows from investing activities:

    

Capital expenditures

   (296,894)  (436,464)  (618,444)

Net cash paid for Dania Jai-Alai

   (80,904)  —     —   

Investments in and advances to unconsolidated subsidiaries

   (10,297)  (2,966)  —   

Net proceeds from sale of undeveloped land and other assets

   7,859   3,198   4,001 

Net proceeds from sale of South Coast

   —     401,430   —   

Insurance recoveries for replacement assets

   —     34,450   6,000 
             

Net cash used in investing activities

   (380,236)  (352)  (608,443)
             

Cash flows from financing activities:

    

Net (payments) borrowings under bank credit facility

   379,600   (653,500)  446,800 

Payments on retirement of long-term debt

   (260,938)  —     (209,325)

Net proceeds from issuance of long-term debt

   —     246,300   —   

Dividends paid on common stock

   (51,195)  (46,662)  (40,735)

Proceeds from exercise of stock options

   15,561   19,510   21,999 

Other

   9,830   (3,818)  (2,521)
             

Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities

   92,858   (438,170)  216,218 
             

Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents

  $(3,696) $(19,009) $27,683 
             

   Year Ended December 31, 
   2008  2007  2006 
      (In thousands)    

Net cash provided by operating activities

  $220,479  $283,189  $419,513 
             

Cash flows from investing activities:

    

Capital expenditures

   (667,400)  (296,894)  (436,464)

Net cash paid for Dania Jai-Alai

   —     (80,904)  —   

Investments in and advances to unconsolidated subsidiaries

   (5,991)  (10,297)  (2,966)

Net proceeds from sale of South Coast

   —     —     401,430 

Insurance recoveries for replacement assets

   —     —     34,450 

Other investing activities

   115   8,352   3,198 
             

Net cash used in investing activities

   (673,276)  (379,743)  (352)
             

Cash flows from financing activities:

    

Net (payments) borrowings under bank credit facility

   528,215   379,600   (653,500)

Payments on retirement of long-term debt

   (116,497)  (260,938)  —   

Net proceeds from issuance of long-term debt

   —     —     246,300 

Dividends paid on common stock

   (26,330)  (51,195)  (46,662)

Proceeds from exercise of stock options

   472   15,561   19,510 

Other financing activities

   (612)  9,830   (3,818)
             

Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities

   385,248   92,858   (438,170)
             

Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents

  $(67,549) $(3,696) $(19,009)
             

Cash Flows from Operating Activities and Working Capital

For 2008, we generated operating cash flow of $220.5 million, compared to $283.2 million in 2007. The primary reason for the decrease in operating cash flows was due to a reduction in operating results from our Reportable Segments as a result of the economic recession, offset by a reduction in taxes and interest paid.

Borgata’s amended bank credit agreement allows for certain limited distributions to be made to its partners. Our distributions from Borgata declined from $82.6 million in 2006 and $70.6 million in 2007 to $19.6 million in 2008 primarily due to a decline in Borgata’s operating results. Borgata has significant uses for its cash flows, including maintenance and expansion capital expenditures, interest payments, state income taxes and the repayment of debt. Borgata’s cash flows are primarily used for its business needs and are not generally available, except to the extent distributions are paid to us, in order to service our indebtedness. In addition, Borgata’s amended bank credit facility contains certain covenants, including, without limitation, various covenants (i) requiring the maintenance of a minimum required fixed-charge coverage ratio, (ii) establishing a maximum permitted total leverage ratio, (iii) imposing limitations on the incurrence of additional secured indebtedness, and (iv) imposing restrictions on investments, dividends and certain other payments. In the event that Borgata fails to comply with its covenants, it may be prevented from making any distributions to us during such period of noncompliance.

For 2007, we generated operating cash flow of $284$283.2 million, compared to $420$419.5 million in each of 2006 and 2005.2006. The primary reason for the decrease in operating cash flows was due to a decline in operating results in our Midwest and South segment, as well as the sale of the South Coast on October 25, 2006, the closure of the Stardust on November 1, 2006 and the exchange of the Barbary Coast on February 27, 2007. In addition, our distributions from Borgata declined from $82.6 million in 2006 to $70.6 million in 2007 primarily due to a decline in Borgata’s operating results. Borgata has significant uses for its cash flows, including maintenance and expansion capital expenditures, interest payments, state income taxes and the repayment of debt. Borgata’s cash flows are primarily used for its business needs and are not generally available (except to the extent distributions are paid to us) to service our indebtedness.

As of December 31, 20072008 and 2006,2007, we had balances of cash and cash equivalents of $166$98.2 million and $169$165.7 million, respectively. We had a working capital deficitdeficits of $138.9 million and $41.0 million as of December 31, 2007. Working capital was $42.7 million as of December 31, 2006.2008 and 2007, respectively.

-34-


Historically, we have operated with minimal or negative levels of working capital in order to minimize borrowings and related interest costs under our revolving bank credit facility. The revolving bank credit facility generally provides any necessary funds for our day-to-day operations, interest and tax payments, as well as capital expenditures. On a daily basis, we evaluate our cash position and adjust the revolverbank credit facility balance as necessary, by either borrowing or paying it down with excess cash or borrowing under the revolver.cash. We also plan the timing and the amounts of our capital expenditures. We believe that our revolving bank credit facility and cash flows from operating activities will be sufficient to meet our projected operating and maintenance capital expenditures for the next twelve months. The source of funds for our development projects, such as Blue Chip’s new hotel project and our Echelon development project,if any, is expected to come primarily from cash flows from operations and availability under our bank credit facility, to the extent availability exists after we meet our working capital needs. We could also seek to fund these projects in whole or in part through incremental bank financing and additional debt or equity offerings. If availability does not exist under our bank credit facility, or we are not otherwise able to draw funds on our bank credit facility, additional financing may not be available to us or, if available, may not be on terms favorable to us.

Cash Flows from Investing Activities

Cash paid for capital expenditures on major projects for the year ended December 31, 2008 included the following:

Echelon development project; and

New hotel project at Blue Chip.

Spending on these and other expansion projects totaled approximately $597 million in 2008. We also paid approximately $71 million for maintenance capital expenditures in 2008.

Cash paid for capital expenditures on major projects and business acquisitions for the year ended December 31, 2007 included the following:

 

Echelon development project;

 

New corporate offices; and

 

New hotel project at Blue Chip.

Spending on these and other expansion projects totaled $169 million in 2007. We also paid $128 million for maintenance capital expenditures during 2007. In addition, we paid approximately $81 million in 2007 for our acquisition of Dania Jai-Alai.

Cash paid for capital expenditures on major projects and land acquisitions for the year ended December 31, 2006, included the following:

 

South Coast expansion project, the majority of which was substantially complete on October 25, 2006, the date on which it was sold;

 

Acquisition of North Las Vegas land;

 

Acquisition of land and building for our new corporate office;

 

Hurricane restoration costs at Delta Downs;

The newNew Blue Chip vessel that opened in January 2006; and

 

Echelon development project.

Spending on these and other expansion projects totaled $308 million in 2006. Maintenance capital expenditures totaled $128 million in 2006.

Cash flows from investing activities during 2006 include $401 million in cash from the sale of the South Coast and $34 million of property insurance recoveries for the reimbursement of our capital spending related to our hurricane restoration project at Delta Downs.

Cash paid for capital expenditures in 2005 on major projects and land acquisitions included costs related to the following:

-35-

The new Blue Chip vessel that opened in January 2006;

South Coast that opened in December 2005;

Delta Downs 206-room hotel that opened in March 2005 and the hurricane restoration project;

Acquisition of Pennsylvania land that we have since entered into an agreement to sell; and

Acquisition of land at the Barbary Coast.

Spending on these and other projects totaled $499 million in 2005. Maintenance capital expenditures totaled $119 million in 2005.


Cash Flows from Financing Activities

Substantially all of the funding for our acquisitions and our renovation and expansion projects comes from cash flows from existing operations as well asand debt financing.

During the year ended December 31, 2008, we purchased and retired $146.5 million principal amount of our senior subordinated notes. The total purchase price of the notes was approximately $116.5 million, resulting in a gain of approximately $28.6 million, net of associated deferred financing and equity issuances.fees. The transactions were funded by availability under our bank credit facility.

On April 16, 2007, we redeemed our outstanding $250 million aggregate principal amount of 8.75% senior subordinated notes that were due to mature in April 2012 for $261 million. This redemption was funded by availability under our bank credit facility.

On January 30, 2006, we issued $250 million aggregate principal amount of 7.125% senior subordinated notes due February 2016. The $246 million of net proceeds from this debt issuance was used to repay a portion of the outstanding borrowings under our bank credit facility.

During 2005, we redeemed the entire outstanding $200 million aggregate principal amount of our 9.25% senior notes originally due in 2009 for approximately $209 million. This redemption was funded by availability under our bank credit facility.

Dividends are declared at the discretion of our Board of Directors. We are subject to certain limitations regarding the payment of dividends, such as restricted payment limitations related to our outstanding notes and our bank credit facility. The following table sets forth the cash dividends declared and paid during the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006.

Payment Date

  

Record Date                

  Dividend
Per
Share

March 1, 2006

  February 10, 2006  $0.125

June 1, 2006

  May 12, 2006   0.135

September 1, 2006

  August 11, 2006   0.135

December 1, 2006

  November 10, 2006   0.135

March 1, 2007

  February 9, 2007   0.135

June 1, 2007

  May 11, 2007   0.150

September 4, 2007

  August 17, 2007   0.150

December 3, 2007

  November 16, 2007   0.150

March 3, 2008

  February 18, 2008   0.150

June 2, 2008

  May 14, 2008   0.150

In July 2008, our Board of Directors suspended the quarterly dividend for the current and future periods. Dividends paid during the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006 totaled $26.3 million, $51.2 million and $46.7 million, respectively.

Share Repurchase Program

In July 2008, our Board of Directors authorized an amendment to our existing share repurchase program to increase the amount of common stock available to be repurchased to $100 million. We are not obligated to purchase any shares under our stock repurchase program.

Subject to applicable corporate securities laws, repurchases under our stock repurchase program may be made at such times and in such amounts as we deem appropriate. Purchases under our stock repurchase program can be discontinued at any time that we feel additional purchases are not warranted. We intend to fund the repurchases under the stock repurchase program with existing cash resources and availability under our bank credit facility.

We are subject to certain limitations regarding the repurchase of common stock, such as restricted payment limitations related to our outstanding notes and our bank credit facility.

-36-


In the future, we may acquire our debt or equity securities, through open market purchases, privately negotiated transactions, tender offers, exchange offers, redemptions or otherwise, upon such terms and at such prices as we may determine.

During the year ended December 31, 2006, we repurchased approximately 3.4 million shares of our common stock at a price per share of $32.4844. These shares were repurchased pursuant to the terms of the Unit Purchase Agreement that we entered into with Michael J. Gaughan in connection with the sale of South Coast and were not purchased as a part of the aforementioned repurchase program. We did not repurchase any stock during the years ended December 31, 2008 or 2007.

Other Items Affecting Liquidity

Development ProjectsEchelon

Echelon.In January 2006,June 2007, we commenced construction on Echelon, our multibillion dollar Las Vegas Strip development project. On August 1, 2008, due to the difficult environment in the capital markets, as well as weak economic conditions, we announced plans to developthe delay of our Echelon development project on the Las Vegas StripStrip. Due to the continued deterioration in credit market conditions and commencedthe economic outlook, it is unlikely that we will resume construction in June 2007, with2009. Nonetheless, we remain committed to having a planned opening inmeaningful presence on the third quarter 2010. We estimate thatLas Vegas Strip. Over the wholly-owned componentscourse of Echelon will cost approximately $3.3 billion. In addition,2009, we have completed the design

andintend to prepare alternative development work on two joint-venture elements ofoptions to consider for Echelon, which may include developing the project in phases, alternative capital structures for the project, scope modifications to the project, or additional strategic partnerships, among others. We can provide no assurances as to when, or if, construction will resume on the project, or if we will be able to obtain alternative sources of financing for the project.

Morgans Las Vegas, LLC. In September 2008, we amended our hotel50/50 joint venture with Morgans Hotel Group LLCCo. (“Morgans”), and our High Street retail promenade joint venture with General Growth Properties (“GGP”).

We expect that Echelon will include a total of approximately 5,000 rooms in five unique hotels as well as the following amenities:

Casino space: 140,000 square feet

Entertainment venues: 4,000-seat and 1,500-seat theaters, operated by AEG Live

High Street retail promenade: 300,000 square feet, operated by GGP

Meeting and Convention space: 750,000 square feet

Parking: approximately 9,000 spaces

Echelon will also include approximately 30 dining, nightlife and beverage venues in addition to an approximately 5.5 acre multi-level swimming pool and recreation deck.

On February 27, 2007, we exchanged the Barbary Coast for 24 acres on the Las Vegas Strip, bringing our total land holdings to 87 contiguous acres on the Echelon site. The additional land allowed us to modify the site layout of Echelon and increase the overall size of the project to 65 acres, and provides us with two additional parcels of six and 16 acres that could allow for the addition of another distinct hotel, a residential component, and additional retail, dining, meeting and casino space.

In connection with our 50/50 joint venture with Morgans to develop, construct and operate the Delano Las Vegas and the Mondrian Las Vegas hotels at Echelon, weEchelon. The amended joint venture agreement with Morgans provides for the following:

(a)a potential future reduction of each member’s ownership interest in the joint venture, possibly through additional third party equity financing;

(b)a reduction in Morgan’s capital commitment and in Morgan’s and our future pro rata contribution obligations for predevelopment costs to $0.4 million for each member;

(c)an extension of the outside start date for the project to December 31, 2009;

(d)the right of each member to dissolve the joint venture and terminate the joint venture agreement upon twenty (20) days prior written notice at any time prior to the outside start date; and

(e)the deletion of Morgan’s construction loan guaranty and obligation to fund cost overruns related to the project.

In the event that the joint venture is dissolved, neither member will contribute approximately 6.1 acresbe entitled to the use of landthe architectural plans and designs for the Delano Las Vegas and the Mondrian Las Vegas projects; therefore, all or a portion of our investment in and advances to the joint venture ($17.9 million at December 31, 2008) may be subject to an impairment charge. Furthermore, pursuant to an earlier amendment to the joint venture agreement, Morgans will ultimately contribute $91.5deposited $30 million with us as an advance toward their original capital commitment to the venture. This deposit, plus accrued interest, was included in restricted cash and accrued expenses on our consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2007; however, the deposit, plus a portion of the accrued interest, was returned in conjunction with the amended joint venture agreement. The expectedterms of the management agreement, which provided for a Morgans affiliate to operate the joint venture hotels upon completion, remain unchanged but, pursuant to its original terms, would be terminated in the event of a termination of the joint venture agreement.

Echelon Place Retail Promenade, LLC. In October 2008, General Growth Properties (“GGP”) exercised its right to require us to purchase its 50% membership interest in our 50/50 joint venture to develop High Street retail promenade at Echelon. GGP retains the right to re-enter the venture for one year, based upon the terms of the original joint venture agreement. We purchased GGP’s membership interest in October 2008 for $9.7 million, which represents the return of GGP’s capital contributions to the venture of $9.5 million, plus accrued interest. We retain all architectural plans and designs for the project.

-37-


Energy Services Agreement (ESA). In April 2007, we entered into an ESA with a third party, Las Vegas Energy Partners, LLC (“LVE”). LVE will design, construct, own (other than the underlying real property which is leased from Echelon), and operate a central energy center and energy distribution system to provide electricity, emergency electricity generation, and chilled and hot water to Echelon and potentially other joint venture entities associated with the Echelon development project or other third parties. The term of the ESA is 25 years, beginning when Echelon commences commercial operations. Assuming the central energy center is completed and functions as planned, we will pay a monthly service fee, which is comprised of a fixed capacity charge, an escalating operations and maintenance charge, and an energy charge. The aggregate of our monthly fixed capacity charge portion of the service fee will be $23.4 million per annum, payable for a 25-year period commencing in November 2010.

The central energy center has currently suspended construction while Echelon delays its construction. The delay in construction of Echelon may change LVE’s construction cost of the project, includingcentral energy center. We have entered into negotiations with LVE regarding the land, is estimatedchange in construction cost expected to be approximately $950incurred as a result of the delay, which may impact the fixed capacity charge portion of the service fee that begins in November 2010. However, we are unable to quantify the new fixed capacity charge portion of the service fee at this time, as the negotiations over the new terms are ongoing with LVE.

Construction Agreements. We have exercised our rights under our standard form construction contracts to terminate our agreements with our contractors. With the exception of certain custom equipment orders, steel fabrication and crane and hoist rentals, all major construction agreements have been terminated and closed-out with final payments made to the contractors in exchange for final releases.

Design Agreements. We are continuing to evaluate design services that remain to be completed. The majority of our design agreements allow us either to suspend performance of the services under these agreements or to terminate these agreements. In each case, we would be required to pay only for those costs incurred through the date of suspension or termination as well as, in certain agreements, the payment for reasonable demobilization and other costs. Demobilization costs include the removal of rental equipment and the associated termination fees, among others. The demobilization and other costs are subject to negotiation; therefore, we are unable to estimate future costs at this time. We have estimated the cost of completion of construction drawings after December 31, 2008 to be between $5.5 million and $6.0 million; however, we can provide no assurances that the estimated costactual costs will approximate the actual cost. Constructionestimated costs.

Any demobilization, per diem, and related costs incurred related to the suspension or termination of our construction and design contracts will be charged to the project as preopening expense on the Delano and Mondrian hotels is expected to beginour consolidated statement of operations in the second quarter of 2008. Given the current state of the credit markets, we anticipate that additional equity and/or credit support will be necessary to obtain construction financing for the remaining cost of the project. This additional equity and/or credit support may be contributed by us or Morgans, or from both parties, and/or from one or more additional equity sponsors. If the joint venture is unable to obtain adequate project financing in a timely manner or at all, we may be forced to sell assets in order to raise capital for the project, limit the scope of the project, defer the project or cancel the project altogether. Should we postpone or cancel this project, we expect to continue the construction of the remaining aspects of our Echelon development project; however, our expected returns from the Echelon development project would be adversely impacted due to the change in the scope of the overall project.

In May 2007, we formed our 50/50 joint venture with GGP, whereby we will initially contribute the above-ground real estate (air rights) and GGP will initially contribute $100 million to develop the High Street retail promenade at Echelon. The expected cost of this project, including the air rights, is estimated to be approximately $500 million; however, we can provide no assurances that the estimated cost will approximate the actual cost. We expect that the joint venture will be 100% equity funded. We anticipate that any additional cash outlay from us will come from cash flows from operations and availability under our bank credit facility, to the extent availability exists after we meet our working capital needs. If availability under our bank credit facility does not exist, additional financing may not be available to us, or, if available, may not be on terms favorable to us.period incurred.

Blue Chip.Chip In October 2006, we announced a $130 million expansion project

Our new hotel at Blue Chip to addopened on January 22, 2009. This expansion added a second22-story hotel, with approximatelywhich includes 300 guest rooms, a spa and fitness center, additional meeting and event space, as well as morenew dining and nightlife venues. We began construction on the project in March 2007 and it is expected to open in December 2008.

Dania Jai-Alai.On March 1, 2007, we acquired Dania Jai-Alai and approximately 47 acres of related land located in Dania Beach, Florida. Dania Jai-Alai is one of four pari-mutuel facilities in Broward County approved under Florida law to operate 2,000 Class III slot machines (see Note 8, “Commitments and Contingencies,” to the accompanying consolidated financial statements for information related to the Broward County slot initiative and the pending challenge to its validity). We purchased Dania Jai-Alai with the intention of redeveloping the property into a slot-based casino. We paid approximately $81 million to close this transaction and, if certain conditions are satisfied, we will be required to pay an additional $75 million, plus interest accrued at the prime rate (the “contingent payment”), in March 2010 or earlier. We can provide no assurances as to when, or whether, such conditions will be satisfied. We will not record a liability for the contingent payment unless or until the contingency has been resolved and the additional consideration is distributable. If the contingency is resolved and the contingent payment is made, it will be added to the cost of the acquisition.

In February 2008, management completed its analysis of our opportunity to operate slot machines at Dania Jai-Alai and decided to postpone redevelopment of the facility due to the following considerations: the continued poor performance of the Broward County pari-mutuel casinos; the introduction of Class III slot machines and the probable pending addition of table games at a nearby Native American casino; the prohibitively high gaming tax rate for pari-mutuel slot operators; the pending introduction of casino gaming in Miami-Dade County and the introduction of legislation to allow for slot machines at all pari-mutuel facilities in the State of Florida. As circumstances change, management will monitor our opportunities with respect to Dania Jai-Alai.

Due to the change in circumstances, during the first quarter of 2008, we will test Dania Jai-Alai’s long-lived and intangible assets, as well as any goodwill that may arise from the finalization of our purchase price allocation, for impairment. Although we cannot quantify an amount at this time, we expect this impairment test to result in the write-down of a portion of these assets. In addition, we may be subject to another impairment charge if and when the contingent payment is resolved and added to the cost of the acquisition.

Pennsylvania Land.Land

On September 5, 2007, (the “effective date”), we entered into an agreement to sell approximately 125 acres of land that we own in Limerick Township, Pennsylvania for $26.5 million, before selling costs, contingent upon certain conditions. As ofIn September 2006, we withdrew our application for gaming approval, which led to our decision to sell the date of this filing, the sale has not closed; however, the closing date of the sale must occur no later than fifteen months after the effective date. We expect to use the net proceeds from the saleland and record a $3.0 million non-cash write-down of the land to reduceits fair value, less estimated costs to sell. The carrying value of the land was $23.2 million at December 31, 2008 and 2007. On November 3, 2008, the agreement to sell such land was terminated; therefore, the carrying value of the land was reclassified from assets held for sale to property and equipment on our outstandingconsolidated balance undersheet at December 31, 2008, since it no longer meets the criteria to be classified as held for sale.

Missouri Land

In April 2008, we entered into an agreement to sell undeveloped land that we own in St. Louis County, Missouri. The sales price was approximately $0.6 million, before selling costs. Our historical cost of the land is $1.5 million; therefore, during the year ended December 31, 2008, we recorded a charge of $0.9 million, which is included in write-downs and other

-38-


charges on our revolving bank credit facility. The closingaccompanying consolidated statement of this transaction isoperations. During the three months ended September 30, 2008, the buyer cancelled the sale; therefore, the remaining carrying value of the land has been reclassified from assets held for sale to property and equipment on our accompanying consolidated balance sheet, since it no longer meets the criteria to be classified as held for sale.

North Las Vegas Gaming Site

In April 2008, we announced that we have formed a joint venture with Olympia Gaming, an affiliate of Olympia Group, to develop a proposed casino, resort and spa within the master-planned community of Park Highlands in North Las Vegas, Nevada, subject to various conditions; therefore,receipt of all required approvals. An application was filed with the City of North Las Vegas to develop a 66-acre mixed-use, regional entertainment center, consisting of 1,200 hotel rooms to be built in three phases. We expect the first phase to include 400 hotel rooms, a casino, race and sports book, restaurants, meeting rooms and other entertainment amenities. Our arrangement with Olympia Gaming provides that we will construct and manage the casino, resort and spa on behalf of the joint venture. Following receipt of approvals, construction of the casino is not expected to begin for three to five years, allowing additional time for the surrounding area to be developed; however, we can provide no assurances thatof the transaction will close on time, if at all.timing. If the joint venture is unable to obtain the necessary approvals, we may change the scope of the project, defer the project, or cancel the project.

We can provide no assurances that our expansion and development projects will be completed within our current estimates, commence operations as expected, include all of the anticipated amenities, features or facilities, or achieve market acceptance. In addition, our development projects are subject to those additional risks inherent in the development and operation of a new or expanded business enterprise, including potential unanticipated operating problems. Also see Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors—“Our expansion, development, investment and renovation projects may face significant risks inherent in construction projects or implementing a new marketing strategy, including receipt of necessary government approvals.” If our expansion, development, investment or renovation projects do not become operational within the time frame and project costs currently contemplated or do not successfully compete in their markets, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Once our projects become operational, they will face many of the same risks that our current properties face, including, but not limited to, competition, weakened consumer spending and increases in taxes due to changes in legislation.

Recently, there have been significant disruptions in the global capital markets that have adversely impacted the ability of borrowers to access capital. We anticipate that these disruptions may continue for the foreseeable future. Despite these disruptions, we anticipate that we will be able to fund our currently planned expansion projects, includingthe remaining costs of our Blue Chip expansion project our wholly-owned portionand other capital requirements of the Echelon project, and our share of our equity contribution to the High Street retail promenade joint venture,Company using cash flows from operations and availability under our bank credit facility, to the extent availability exists after we meet our

working capital needs. Any additional financing that is needed may not be available to us, or, if available, may not be on terms favorable to us.

On August 1, 2008, due to the difficult environment in the capital markets, as well as weak economic conditions, we announced the delay of our multibillion dollar Echelon development project on the Las Vegas Strip. Due to the continued deterioration in credit market conditions and the economic outlook, it is unlikely that we will resume construction in 2009. Nonetheless, we remain committed to having a meaningful presence on the Las Vegas Strip. Over the course of 2009, we intend to prepare alternative development options to consider for Echelon, which may include developing the project in phases, alternative capital structures for the project, scope modifications to the project, or additional strategic partnerships, among others. We can provide no assurances as to when, or if, construction will resume on the project, or if we will be able to obtain alternative sources of financing for the project.

Nevada Use Tax Refund Claims

On March 27, 2008, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a decision inSparks Nugget, Inc. vs. The State of Nevada Department of Taxation (the “Department”), holding that food purchased for subsequent use in the provision of complimentary and/or employee meals was exempt from both sales and use tax. On April 24, 2008, the Department filed a Petition for Rehearing (the “Petition”) on the decision. Additionally, on the same date the Nevada Legislature filed anAmicus Curiae brief in support of the Department’s position. The Nevada Supreme Court denied the Department’s Petition on July 17, 2008. We have paid use tax on food purchased for subsequent use in complimentary and employee meals at our Nevada casino properties and estimate the refund to be in the range of $15.4 million to $17.6 million, including interest, from January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2008. We have been notified by the Department that they intend to pursue an alternative legal theory through an available administrative process, and they continue to deny our refund claims. Hearings before the Nevada Administrative Law Judge are currently being scheduled and we anticipate a hearing to occur during the summer of 2009. Due to uncertainty surrounding the potential arguments that may be raised in the administrative process, we will not record

-39-


any gain until the tax refund is realized. For periods subsequent to June 2008, we have not recorded an accrual for sales or use tax on complimentary and employee meals at our Nevada casino properties, as it is not probable that we will owe this tax, given the decision by the Nevada Supreme Court.

Share Repurchase Program

In July 2008, our Board of Directors authorized an amendment to our existing share repurchase program to increase the amount of common stock available to be repurchased to $100 million. We are not obligated to purchase any shares under our stock repurchase program.

Subject to applicable corporate securities laws, repurchases under our stock repurchase program may be made at such times and in such amounts as we deem appropriate. Purchases under our stock repurchase program can be discontinued at any time that we feel additional purchases are not warranted. We intend to fund the repurchases under the stock repurchase program with existing cash resources and availability under our bank credit facility.

We are subject to certain limitations regarding the repurchase of common stock, such as restricted payment limitations related to our outstanding notes and our bank credit facility.

In the future, we may acquire our debt or equity securities, through open market purchases, privately negotiated transactions, tender offers, exchange offers, redemptions or otherwise, upon such terms and at such prices as we may determine.

Other Opportunities

We regularly investigate and pursue additional expansion opportunities in markets where casino gaming is currently permitted. For example, we recently announced that we delivered a nonbinding indication of interest to Station Casinos, Inc. We also pursue expansion opportunities in jurisdictions where casino gaming is not currently permitted in order to be prepared to develop projects upon approval of casino gaming. Such expansions will be affected and determined by several key factors, including:

 

outcome of gaming license selection processes;

 

approval of gaming in jurisdictions where we have been active but where casino gaming is not currently permitted;

 

identification of additional suitable investment opportunities in current gaming jurisdictions; and

 

availability of acceptable financing.

Additional projects may require us to make substantial investments or may cause us to incur substantial costs related to the investigation and pursuit of such opportunities, which investments and costs we may fund through cash flow from operations or availability under our bank credit facility. To the extent such sources of funds are not sufficient, we may also seek to raise such additional funds through public or private equity or debt financings or from other sources. No assurance can be given that additional financing will be available or that, if available, such financing will be obtainable on terms favorable to us. Moreover, we can provide no assurances that any expansion opportunity will result in a completed transaction.

Indebtedness

Our long-term debt primarily consists of a bank credit facility and senior subordinated notes. We currently pay a variable rate interest based on LIBOR on our bank credit facility, which matures in May 2012. At December 31, 2007,2008, we had availability under our bank credit facility of $2.6approximately $2.1 billion. We pay fixed rates of interest ranging from 6.75% to 7.75% on our senior subordinated notes.

Bank Credit Facility. On May 24, 2007, we entered into a $4.0 billion revolving bank credit facility that matures on May 24, 2012. The bank credit facility may be increased atupon our request, up to an aggregate of $1.0 billion, if certain commitments are obtained. The interest rate on the bank credit facility is based upon, at our option, the LIBOR rate or the “base rate,” plus, in each case, an applicable margin in either case.margin. The applicable margin is a percentage per annum (which ranges from 0.625% to 1.625% if we elect to use the LIBOR rate, and 0.0% to 0.375% if we elect to use the base rate) determined in accordance with a specified pricing grid based upon our predefined total leverage ratio. In addition, we incur commitment fees on the unused portion of the bank credit facility that range from 0.200% to 0.350% per annum. The bank credit facility is guaranteed by our material subsidiaries and is secured by the capital stock of those subsidiaries.

The bank credit facility replaced our previous $1.85 billion bank credit facility. We recorded a $4.4 million non-cash loss on early retirement of debt during 2007 for the write-off of unamortized debt fees associated with our former bank credit facility.

On April 16, 2007, we redeemed our outstanding $250 million aggregate principal amount of 8.75% senior subordinated notes that were originally due to mature in April 2012 at a redemption price of $1,043.75 per $1,000.00 principal amount of notes. The redemption was funded by availability under our former bank credit facility. In connection with the redemption of these notes, we terminated our $50 million notional amount fixed-to-floating interest rate swap. During 2007, we recorded a loss on the early retirement of these notes and related interest rate swap of $12.5 million.-40-


Bank Credit Facility Covenants.The bank credit facility contains certain financial and other covenants, including various covenants (i) requiring the maintenance of a minimum consolidated interest coverage ratio of 2.00 to 1.00, (ii) establishing a maximum permitted consolidated total leverage ratio (discussed below), (iii) imposing limitations on the incurrence of indebtedness, (iv) imposing limitations on transfers, sales and other dispositions, and (v) imposing restrictions on investments, dividends and certain other payments. Management believes that

The maximum permitted Total Leverage Ratio is calculated as Consolidated Funded Indebtedness to twelve-month trailing Consolidated EBITDA (all capitalized terms are defined in the bank credit facility). The following table provides our maximum Total Leverage Ratio during the current and remaining term of the bank credit facility.

Four Fiscal Quarters Ending

Maximum Total
Leverage Ratio

December 31, 2008

6.00 to 1.00

March 31, 2009 through December 31, 2009

6.50 to 1.00

March 31, 2010

6.75 to 1.00

June 30, 2010

7.00 to 1.00

September 30, 2010

7.25 to 1.00

December 31, 2010

7.50 to 1.00

March 31, 2011

6.50 to 1.00

June 30, 2011 and each quarter thereafter

5.25 to 1.00

The foregoing description of the bank credit facility is qualified in its entirety by the full text of theFirst Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of May 24, 2007, among the Company and certain other parties, which is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007.

We believe we are in compliance with the bank credit facility covenants at December 31, 2007.2008, which includes the Total Leverage Ratio covenant, which is 5.65 to 1.00 at December 31, 2008. During 2009, assuming our current level of Consolidated Funded Indebtedness remains constant, we estimate that a 13% or greater decline in our twelve-month trailing Consolidated EBITDA, as compared to 2008, would cause us to exceed our maximum Total Leverage Ratio covenant for that period. However, in the event that we project that our Consolidated EBITDA may decline by 13% or more, we could implement certain actions in an effort to minimize the possibility of a breach of the Total Leverage Ratio covenant. These actions may include, among others, reducing payroll and certain other operating costs, deferring or eliminating certain maintenance, expansion or other capital expenditures, reducing our outstanding indebtedness through repurchases or redemption, selling assets or issuing equity.

Senior Subordinated Notes.Our $300 million, $350 million Debt service requirements under our current outstanding senior subordinated notes consist of semi-annual interest payments (based upon fixed annual interest rates ranging from 6.75% to 7.75%) and $250 million principal amountsrepayment of our senior subordinated notes due on December 15, 2012, April 15, 2014, and February 1, 2016 respectively,for each of our 7.75%, 6.75% and 7.125% Senior Subordinated Notes, respectively. These senior subordinated notes contain limitationsrestrictions on, among other things,without limitation, (i) our ability and our restricted subsidiaries’ (as defined in the indentures governing the notes) ability to incur additional indebtedness, (ii) the payment of dividends and other distributions with respect to our capital stock and the stock of our restricted subsidiaries and the purchase, redemption or retirement of our capital stock and the stock of our restricted subsidiaries, (iii) the making of certain investments, (iv) asset sales, (v) the incurrence of liens, (vi) transactions with affiliates, (vii) payment restrictions affecting restricted subsidiaries, and (viii) certain consolidations, mergers and transfers of assets. Management believes that we are in compliance with the covenants related to notes outstanding at December 31, 2007.2008.

During the year ended December 31, 2008, we purchased and retired $146.5 million principal amount of our senior subordinated notes. The total purchase price of the notes was approximately $116.5 million, resulting in a gain of approximately $28.6 million, net of associated deferred financing fees. The transactions were funded by availability under our bank credit facility.

-41-


Our ability to service our debt will be dependent onupon future performance, which will be affected by, among other things, prevailing economic conditions and financial, business and other factors, certain of which are beyond our control. It is unlikely that our business will generate sufficient cash flow from operations to enable us to pay our indebtedness as it matures and to fund our other liquidity needs. Management believesWe believe that we will need to refinance all or a portionpart of our indebtedness at or prior to each maturity.maturity; however, we may not be able to refinance any of our indebtedness on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. See Note 5,Long-term Debt, to our consolidated financial statements for additional information.

Contractual Obligations and Commitments. The following table summarizes our contractual obligations as of December 31, 2007.2008.

 

  Payments Due by Period  Payments Due by Period
  Total  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  Thereafter  Total  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  Thereafter
  (In thousands)           (In thousands)         

Contractual obligations

                            

Long-term debt obligations

  $2,266,558  $629  $616  $652  $690  $1,653,630  $610,341  $2,647,674  $616  $652  $690  $2,085,375  $10,341  $550,000

Capital lease obligations

   —     —     —     —     —     —     —     —     —     —     —     —     —     —  

Operating lease obligations

   519,782   16,017   14,441   11,434   10,997   9,023   457,870   488,252   14,969   12,015   11,078   9,409   8,691   432,090

Interest obligations on fixed rate debt(1)

   413,162   65,449   65,415   65,379   65,341   65,300   86,278

Interest obligations on fixed rate debt (1)

   299,950   54,564   54,528   54,490   54,449   38,161   43,758

Purchase obligations:

                            

Entertainment contracts

   2,608   2,608   —     —     —     —     —     4,620   4,620   —     —     —     —     —  

Construction projects(2)

   838,896   590,957   173,587   74,232   90   30   —  

Other(3)

   70,248   33,907   31,136   4,006   499   430   270

Other long-term contracts(4)

   594,101   668   660   6,375   23,647   23,546   539,205

Construction projects (2)

   127,195   107,643   19,552   —     —     —     —  

Other (3)

   130,665   71,760   53,752   2,239   1,729   1,185   —  

Other long-term contracts (4)

   593,412   852   6,207   23,585   23,577   23,546   515,645
                                          

Total contractual obligations

  $4,705,355  $710,235  $285,855  $162,078  $101,264  $1,751,959  $1,693,964  $4,291,768  $255,024  $146,706  $92,082  $2,174,539  $81,924  $1,541,493
                                          

 

(1)

Includes interest rate obligations on our fixed rate debt that comprises $0.9$0.8 billion of our total December 31, 20072008 debt balance of $2.3$2.6 billion. Our variable rate debt at December 31, 20072008 consists of $1.4$1.9 billion in outstanding balances on our bank credit facility. Interest payments for future periods related to the variable rate debt are dependent upon, at our option, the LIBOR rate or the “base rate,” plus an applicable margin in either case. The applicable margin is a percentage per annum (which ranges from 0.625% to 1.625% if we elect to use the LIBOR rate, and 0.0% to 0.375% if we elect to use the base rate) determined in accordance with a specified pricing grid based upon our predefined total leverage ratio. In addition, we incur commitment fees on the unused portion of the bank credit facility that range from

0.200% to 0.350% per annum. At December 31, 2007,2008, the blended interest rate for outstanding borrowings under the bank credit facility was 6.0%2.9%.

(2)Construction projects consist primarily of purchase obligations related to the Echelon development project.

(3)

Other consists of various contracts for goods and services, including our contract for Hawaiian air charter operations.

operations as well as our payments, including accrued interest, related to Dania Jai-Alai.

(4)

Other long-term obligations relate primarily to our Energy Services Agreement at Echelon and deferred compensation balances.

Certain of our executive officers participate in a long-term management incentive plan (the “Plan”), which currently extends through December 31, 2010.2009. The components of the Plan cannot be measured until the end of the performance period, as they will not be known until the end of the performance period.such period ends. As such, we do not accrue for these items over the life of the Plan, but rather accrue for that portion of the Plan when it becomes measurable. PossibleThe possible future maximum payouts arepayout is $5.2 million for each of the yearsyear ending December 31, 2008, 2009 and 2010.

In connection with our 50/50 joint venture with Morgans to develop, construct and operate the Delano Las Vegas and the Mondrian Las Vegas hotels at Echelon, we will contribute approximately 6.1 acres of land and Morgans will ultimately contribute $91.5 million to the venture. The expected cost of the project, including the land, is estimated to be approximately $950 million; however, we can provide no assurances that the estimated cost will approximate the actual cost. Construction on the Delano and Mondrian hotels is expected to begin in the second quarter of 2008. Given the current state of the credit markets, we anticipate that additional equity and/or credit support will be necessary to obtain construction financing for the remaining cost of the project. This additional equity and/or credit support may be contributed by us or Morgans, or from both parties, and/or from one or more additional equity sponsors. If the joint venture is unable to obtain adequate project financing in a timely manner or at all, we may be forced to sell assets in order to raise capital for the project, limit the scope of the project, defer the project or cancel the project altogether. Should we postpone or cancel this project, we expect to continue the construction of the remaining aspects of our Echelon development project; however, our expected returns from the Echelon development project would be adversely impacted due to the change in the scope of the overall project.

In May 2007, we formed our 50/50 joint venture with GGP, whereby we will initially contribute the above-ground real estate (air rights) and GGP will initially contribute $100 million to develop the High Street retail promenade at Echelon. The expected cost of this project, including the air rights, is estimated to be approximately $500 million; however, we can provide no assurances that the estimated cost will approximate the actual cost. We expect that the joint venture will be 100% equity funded. We anticipate that any additional cash outlay from us will come from cash flows from operations and availability under our bank credit facility, to the extent availability exists after we meet our working capital needs. If availability under our bank credit facility does not exist, additional financing may not be available to us, or, if available, may not be on terms favorable to us.2009.

Suncoast is situated on approximately 49 acres of leased land. The landlord has the option to require us to purchase the property at the end of 2014 and each year-endyear end through 2018, at the fair market value of the real property at the time the landlord exercises the option, subject to certain pricing limitations. If we do not purchase the property if and when required, we would be in default under the lease agreement.

We are required to pay the City of Kenner, Louisiana a boarding fee of $2.50 for each passenger boarding our Treasure Chest riverboat casino during the year. The future minimum payment due in 20082009 to the City of Kenner, based upon a portion of actual passenger counts from the prior year, is approximately $2.6 million.

Due to uncertainties surrounding the various auditstiming and amount of future cash settlements related to our income taxes,tax audits, we cannot establish a reasonably reliable estimate of the amount or period of future cash settlements related to our $39.4the $37.3 million of other long-term tax liabilities as of December 31, 2007; therefore,2008. As we are uncertain as to when, or if, such amounts may be settled, we have excluded thisthe amount from the contractual obligations table above.

Off Balance Sheet Arrangements. Our off balance sheet arrangements mainly consist of unconsolidated investments in unconsolidated affiliates, which is primarilyBorgata and Morgans Las Vegas LLC, as well as our investment in Borgata.Energy Services Agreement to provide electricity, emergency electricity generation, and chilled and hot water to Echelon. We have

-42-


not entered into any transactions with special purpose entities, nor have we engaged in any derivative transactions other than interest rate swaps, interest rate collars and interest rate caps. Our joint venture investments allowinvestment in Borgata allows us to realize the benefits of owning a full-scale resort in a manner that lessens our initial investment. We do not guarantee financing obtained by Borgata, nor are there any other provisions of the venture agreements which are unusual or subject us to risks to which we would not be subjected if we had full ownership of the respective properties.

We have entered into certain agreements that contain indemnification provisions, suchincluding those involving certain of our joint ventures, as well as indemnification agreements withinvolving certain of our executive officers and directors anddirectors. These agreements provide indemnity insurance pursuant to which directors and officers are indemnified or insured against liability or loss under certain circumstances, which may include liability or related loss under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. In addition, our Restated Articles of Incorporation and Restated Bylaws contain provisions that provide for indemnification of our directors, officers, employees and other agents to the maximum extent permitted by law.

At December 31, 2007,2008, we had outstanding letters of credit totaling $12.4$29.9 million.

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

In December 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position (“FSP”) FAS 140-4 and FIN 46(R)-8,Disclosures by Public Entities (Enterprises) about Transfers of Financial Assets and Interests in Variable Interest Entities. This FASB FSP amends SFAS No. 140,Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities, to require public entities to provide additional disclosures about transfers of financial assets. It also amends FASB Interpretation No. 46 (R),Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, to require public enterprises, including sponsors that have a variable interest in a variable interest entity, to provide additional disclosures about their involvement with variable interest entities. Additionally, this FSP requires certain disclosures to be provided by a public enterprise that is (a) a sponsor of a qualifying special purpose entity (“SPE”) that holds a variable interest in the qualifying SPE but was not the transferor of financial assets to the qualifying SPE, and (b) a servicer of a qualifying SPE that holds a significant variable interest in the qualifying SPE but was not the transferor of financial assets to the qualifying SPE. The disclosures required by this FSP are intended to provide greater transparency to financial statement users about a transferor’s continuing involvement with transferred financial assets and an enterprise’s involvement with variable interest entities and qualifying SPEs. This FSP is effective for the first reporting period ending after December 15, 2008, and shall apply for each annual and interim reporting period thereafter. We believe that the adoption of this FSP will not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

InJune2008, the FASB issued FSP No. EITF 03-6-1,Determining Whether Instruments Granted In Share-Based Payment Transactions Are Participating Securities. This FSP concludes that those unvested share-based payment awards that contain non-forfeitable rights to dividends or dividend equivalents, whether paid or unpaid, are participating securities and must be included in the computation of both basic and diluted earnings per share (the two-class method). This FSP is effective during the three months ending March 31, 2009 and is to be applied on a retrospective basis to all periods presented. The issue is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years and interim periods within those fiscal years beginning January 1, 2009. The adoption of FSP No. EITF 03-6-1 will not have an impact on our consolidated financial statements, as our current share-based awards do not include dividend rights.

In May 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No.162,Hierarchy of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“SFAS 162”). This statement is intended to improve financial reporting by identifying a consistent framework, or hierarchy, for selecting accounting principles to be used in preparing financial statements of nongovernmental entities that are presented in conformity with GAAP. This statement was effective November 15, 2008. We currently adhere to the hierarchy of GAAP as presented in SFAS 162, and the adoption is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In April 2008, the FASB issued FSP No. FAS 142-3,Determination of the Useful Life of Intangible Assets (“FSP 142-3”). FSP 142-3 amends the factors that should be considered in developing renewal or extension assumptions used to determine the useful life of a recognized intangible asset under SFAS No. 142,Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, and requires enhanced related disclosures. FSP 142-3 must be applied prospectively to all intangible assets acquired as of and subsequent to fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008. We believe that the adoption of FSP 142-3 will not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 161,Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities — An Amendment of FASB Statement No.133 (“SFAS 161”). SFAS 161 requires enhanced qualitative disclosures about objectives and strategies for using derivatives, quantitative disclosures about fair value amounts of gains and losses on derivative

-43-


instruments, and disclosures about credit-risk-related contingent features in derivative agreements. SFAS 161 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after November 15, 2008. We do not believe that the adoption of SFAS 161 will have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In February 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position No. FAS 157-2,Effective Date of FASB Statement No. 157, which defers the effective date of SFAS No. 157,Fair Value Measurements, (“SFAS 157”) to fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2008 for nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities, except for items that are recognized or disclosed at fair value in the financial statements on a recurring basis. Early adoption of SFAS 157 is permitted. We have applied SFAS 157 to recognize the liability related to our derivative instruments at fair value to consider the changes in the creditworthiness of the Company and our counterparties in determining any credit valuation adjustment.

In December 2007, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”)FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”)SFAS No. 160,Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements—Statements – AnAmendment of ARB No. 51.”51 (“SFAS No.160”). SFAS 160 establishes new accounting and reporting standards for the noncontrolling interest in a subsidiary and for the deconsolidation of a subsidiary. Specifically, this statement requires the recognition of a noncontrolling interest (minority interest) as equity in the consolidated financial statements and separate from the parent’s equity. The amount of net income attributable to the noncontrolling interest will be included in consolidated net income on the face of the income statement. SFAS No. 160 clarifies that changes in a parent’s ownership in a subsidiary that do not result in deconsolidation are equity transactions if the parent retains its controlling financial interest. In addition, this statement requires that a parent recognize a gain or loss in net income when a subsidiary is deconsolidated. Such gain or loss will be measured using the fair value of the noncontrolling equity investment on the deconsolidation date. SFAS No. 160 also includes expanded disclosure requirements regarding the interests of the parent and its noncontrolling interest. SFAS No. 160 is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning on or after December 15, 2008. Earlier adoption is prohibited. We do not expectbelieve that the adoption of SFAS No. 160 towill have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 141(R),“Business Combinations.” SFAS No. 141(R) retains the fundamental requirements in SFAS No. 141 that the acquisition method be used for all business combinations and for an acquirer to be identified for each business combination. SFAS No. 141(R) defines the acquirer as the entity that obtains control of one or more businesses in the business combination and establishes the acquisition date as the date that the acquirer achieves control. By applying the acquisition method to all transactions and other events in which one entity obtains control over one or more other businesses, this statement improves the comparability of the information about business combinations provided in financial reports. SFAS No. 141(R) applies prospectively to business combinations for which the acquisition date is on or after the beginning of the first annual reporting period beginning on or after December 15, 2008. We do not expect the adoption of SFAS No. 141(R) to have a material effectimpact on our consolidated financial statements.

In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159,The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities.”Liabilities (“SFAS 159”). SFAS No. 159 permits companies to choose to measure many financial instruments and certain other items at fair value. The objective is to improve financial reporting by providing companies with the opportunity to mitigate volatility in reported earnings caused by measuring related assets and liabilities differently without having to apply complex hedge accounting provisions. The fair value option established by SFAS No. 159 permits all companies to choose to measure eligible items at fair value at specified election dates. At each

subsequent reporting date, companies must report in earnings any unrealized gains and losses on items for which the fair value option has been elected. SFAS No. 159 is effective as of the beginning of a company’s first fiscal year that begins after November 15, 2007. Early adoption is permitted as of the beginning of a fiscal year that begins on or before November 15, 2007, provided the company also elects to apply the provisions of SFAS No. 157,Fair Value Measurements”Measurements (see below). We do not believe that the adoption of SFAS 159 will have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

A variety of proposed or otherwise potential accounting standards are currently evaluating whether to adoptunder study by standard-setting organizations and certain regulatory agencies. Because of the fair value option under SFAS No. 159tentative and evaluating what impactpreliminary nature of such adoptionproposed standards, we have not yet determined the effect, if any, that the implementation of such proposed standards would have on our consolidated financial statements.

In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157,“Fair Value Measurements,” which defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in GAAP, and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. SFAS No. 157 applies under other accounting pronouncements that require or permit fair value measurements, the FASB having previously concluded in those accounting pronouncements that fair value is the relevant measurement attribute. SFAS No. 157 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007, and interim periods within those fiscal years. We are currently evaluating whether to adopt the fair value option under SFAS No. 157 and evaluating what impact such adoption would have on our consolidated financial statements.

In September 2006, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 108 (“SAB No. 108”), which adds Section N to Topic 1,“Financial Statements”.Section N provides guidance on the consideration of the effects of prior year misstatements in quantifying current year misstatements for the purpose of a materiality assessment. To provide full disclosure, registrants electing not to restate prior periods should reflect the effects of initially applying the guidance in Topic 1N in their financial statements covering the first fiscal year ending after November 15, 2006. The adoption of SAB No. 108 did not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.-44-

In July 2006, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 48 (“FIN 48”),“Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes—an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109”.FIN 48 clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in income taxes recognized in an enterprise’s financial statements in accordance with SFAS No. 109, “Accounting for Income Taxes”. FIN 48 prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement attribute for the financial statement recognition and measurement of a tax position taken or expected to be taken in a tax return. FIN 48 also provides guidance on derecognition, classification, interest and penalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosure and transition. FIN 48 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2006, and applies to all tax positions accounted for in accordance with SFAS No. 109. See Note 15,“Income Taxes,” to the accompanying consolidated financial statements for disclosure regarding the effect of FIN 48 on our consolidated financial statements.


Critical Accounting Policies

We prepare our consolidated financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. As such, we are required to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts included in our consolidated financial statements. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results may differ from the estimates. We believe the following critical accounting policies may require a higher degree of judgment and complexity.

Goodwill, Intangible Assets and Other Long-Lived Assets.We evaluate our goodwill, intangible assets and other long-lived assets in accordance with the applications of SFAS No. 142, related to goodwillGoodwill and other intangible assetsOther IntangibleAssets, and SFAS No. 144, related to impairmentAccounting for Impairment or disposal Disposal of long-lived assets.Long-LivedAssets. For goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets, we review the carrying values onperform an annual basisimpairment test of these assets in the second quarter of each year and between annual dates in certain circumstances. For assets to be disposed of, we recognize the asset at the lower of carrying value or fair market value, less costs of disposal, as estimated based on comparable asset sales, solicited offers, or a discounted cash flow model. For long-lived assets to be held and used, we review for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount may not be recoverable. We then compare the estimated undiscounted future cash flows of the asset to the carrying value of the asset. The asset is not impaired if the undiscounted future cash flows exceed its carrying value. If the carrying value exceeds the undiscounted future cash flows, then an impairment charge is recorded, typically measured using a discounted cash flow model, which is based on the estimated future results of the relevant reporting unit discounted using our weighted-average cost of capital and market indicators of terminal year free cash flow multiples. If an asset is under development, future cash flows include remaining construction costs. All recognized impairment exist.charges are recorded as operating expenses.

InherentManagement must make various assumptions and estimates in the reviews of the carrying amounts of the above assets are various estimates. First,performing its impairment testing. For instance, management must first determine the usage of the asset. To the extent management decides that an asset will be sold or disposed of,abandoned, it is more likely that an impairment may be recognized. Assets must be tested at the lowest level for which identifiable cash flows exist. Thisexist, which means that some assets must be grouped, and management has some discretion in the grouping of assets. Future cash flow estimates are, by their nature, subjective and actual results may differ materially from our estimates. If our ongoing estimates of future cash flows are not met, we may have to record additional impairment charges in future accounting periods. Our estimates of cash flows are based on the current regulatory, social and economic climates, recent operating information and budgets of the various properties where we conduct operations. These estimates could be negatively impacted by changes in federal, state or local regulations, economic downturns, or other events affecting various forms of travel and access to our properties.

In FebruarySeeSummary Financial Resultsabove for a discussion of write-downs and impairment charges recorded during the years ended December 31, 2008, management completed its analysis of our opportunity to operate slot machines at Dania Jai-Alai2007 and decided to postpone redevelopment2006. The majority of the facility due to the following considerations: the continued poor performance of the Broward County pari-mutuel casinos; the introduction of Class III slot machines and the probable pending addition of table games at a nearby Native American casino; the prohibitively high gaming tax rateimpairment charges recorded for pari-mutuel slot operators; the pending introduction of casino gaming in Miami-Dade County and the introduction of legislation to allow for slot machines at all pari-mutuel facilities in the State of Florida. As circumstances change, management will monitor our opportunities with respect to Dania Jai-Alai.

Due to the change in circumstances, during the first quarter of 2008, we will test Dania Jai-Alai’s long-lived and intangible assets, as well as any goodwill that may arise from the finalization of our purchase price allocation, for impairment. Although we cannot quantify an amount at this time, we expect this impairment test to result in the write-down of a portion of these assets. In addition, we may be subject to another impairment charge if and when the contingent payment is resolved and added to the cost of the acquisition.

Due to a prior history of operating losses at Sam’s Town Tunica, in prior reporting periods, we tested the assets of Sam’s Town Tunica for recoverability pursuant to SFAS No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment orDisposal of Long-Lived Assets.”The asset recoverability test required the estimation of Sam’s Town Tunica’s undiscounted future cash flows and comparing that aggregate total to the property’s carrying value. Sam’s Town Tunica’s financial performance improved during 2007 and its profitability is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. In 2007, the property’s estimated undiscounted future cash flows exceeded its carrying value; therefore, we do not believe Sam’s Town Tunica’s assets to be impaired and we did not perform an impairment test of its long-lived assets; however, we will continue to monitor the performance of Sam’s Town Tunica and, if necessary, continue to update our asset recoverability test under SFAS No. 144. If future asset recoverability tests indicate that the assets of Sam’s Town Tunica are impaired, we will be subject to a non-cash write-down of its assets, which could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated statements of operations.

On July 25, 2006, we entered into a Unit Purchase Agreement, as amended, (the “Agreement”) to sell South Coast to Michael J. Gaughan for a total purchase price of approximately $513 million. In connection with entering into the Agreement, we met all of the criteria required to classify certain of the assets and liabilities of South Coast as held for sale on our consolidated balance sheets. As such, we ceased depreciation of those assets and they were measured at the lower of their carrying amount or fair value less cost to sell. This resulted in an estimated non-cash, pretax impairment charge of $65 million in September 2006, as the fair value of the assets were less than their carrying value at that time.

We recorded a $28 million non-cash charge related to the write-off of the net book value of the original Blue Chip gaming vessel in June 2006, which was replaced with a new gaming vessel in conjunction with our expansion project. After analysis of alternative uses for the original vessel, management decided in June 2006 to permanently retire the asset from further operations.

We recorded a $3.0 million asset write-down during the year ended December 31, 20062008 are primarily related to land heldthe ongoing recession, which has caused us to reduce our estimates for sale in Pennsylvania that we previously planned to utilize as a site for a gaming operation. In September 2006, we withdrew our application for gaming approval, which led to our decision to sell the land.

We determined that the impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita was a triggering event requiring impairment tests for Treasure Chest and Delta Downs’ assets during 2005. Our impairment tests were based upon estimated futureprojected cash flows, from these properties. Based uponhas reduced overall industry valuations, and has caused an increase in discount rates in the results of the tests, no impairment was indicated for any of the assets tested.

Because we intend to redevelop the land on which Stardust is locatedcredit and our plans included the demolition of Stardust’s existing buildings and abandoning other related assets, we performed an impairment test for this property. Based upon the results of this test, we recorded a $56 million non-cash impairment loss in 2005 to write down the long-lived assets of the Stardust to their estimated fair value.equity markets.

Capital Expenditures and Depreciation. We must also make estimates and assumptions when accounting for capital expenditures. Whether anthe expenditure is considered a maintenance expense or a capital asset is a matter of judgment. Our depreciation expense is highly dependent upon the assumptions we make about our assets’ estimated useful lives. We determine the estimated useful lives based upon our experience with similar assets. Whenever events or circumstances occur which change the estimated useful life of an asset, we account for the change prospectively. In connection with the closure and demolition of the Stardust, we reevaluated the estimated useful lives of the depreciable assets residing on the land associated with our Echelon development project, including our corporate office building, and recorded $11.2 million of accelerated depreciation expense in 2006.

Capitalized Interest. Interest. We capitalize interest costs associated with major development and construction projects are capitalized as part of the cost of the constructed assets.assets in accordance with SFAS No. 34,Capitalization of Interest Costs. When no debt is incurred specifically for a project, interest is capitalized on amounts expended for the project using our weighted-average cost of borrowing. Capitalization of interest ceases when the project (or discernible portions of the project) is substantially complete. If substantially all of the construction-related activities of a project are suspended, capitalization of interest will cease until such activities are resumed. We amortize capitalized interest over the estimated useful life of the related asset.assets.

-45-


Derivative Instruments. We utilize an investment policy for managing risks associated with our current and anticipated future borrowings, such as interest rate risk and its potential impact on our fixed and variable rate debt. Under this policy, we may utilize derivative contracts that effectively convert our borrowings from either floating rate to fixedfloating-to-fixed or fixed rate to floating.fixed-to-floating. The policy does not allow for the use of derivative financial instruments for trading or speculative purposes. To the extent we employ such financial instruments pursuant to this policy, and the instruments qualify for hedge accounting, we may designate and account for them as hedged instruments. In order to qualify for hedge accounting, the underlying hedged item must expose us to risks associated with market fluctuations and the financial instrument used must be designated as a hedge and must reduce our exposure to market fluctuations throughout the hedged period. If these criteria are not met, a change in the market value of the financial instrument is recognized as a gain or loss(loss) in the period of change. Otherwise, gains and losses are not recognized except to the extent that the hedged debt is disposed of prior to maturity or to the extent that acceptable ranges of ineffectiveness exist in the hedge. Net interest paid or received pursuant to the hedged financial instrument is included in interest expense in the period. We have designated our current interest rate swaps as cash flow hedges and measure their effectiveness using the long-haul method. The effective portion of any gain or loss on our interest rate swaps is recorded in other comprehensive income (loss). We use the hypothetical derivative method to measure the fairineffective portion of our interest rate swaps. The ineffective portion, if any, is recorded in earnings. We measure the mark-to-market value of our interest rate hedges viaswaps using a discounted cash flow analysis of the projected future receipts or payments based upon the forward yield curve on the date of measurement. We adjust this amount to measure the fair value of our interest rate swaps by applying a credit valuation adjustment to the mark-to-market exposure profile. In determining the credit valuation adjustment, we consider the credit default swap rates of the Company and its counterparties in each settlement period, as observed on the date of measurement.

Generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) require all derivative instruments to be recognized on the balance sheet at fair value. Derivatives that are not designated as hedges for accounting purposes must be adjusted to fair value through earnings. If the derivative qualifies and is designated as a hedge, depending on the nature of the hedge, changes in its fair value will either be offset against the change in fair value of the hedged item through earnings or recognized in other comprehensive income (loss) until the hedged item is recognized in earnings. The ineffective portion of a derivative’s change in mark-to-market value will be immediately recognized in earnings.

Share-Based Employee Compensation.On January 1, 2006, we adopted SFAS No. 123R,Share-Based Payment, using the modified prospective method and as such, results for prior periods have not been restated. This statement requires us to measure the cost of employee services received in exchange for an award of equity instruments based on the grant-date fair value of the award (with limited exceptions). This cost is recognized over the period during which an employee is required to provide service in exchange for the award. Under the modified prospective method, we expense the cost of share-based compensation awards issued after January 1, 2006. Additionally, we recognize compensation cost for the portion of awards outstanding on January 1, 2006 for which the requisite service has not been rendered over the period the requisite service is being rendered after January 1, 2006. Compensation costs related to stock option awards are calculated based on the fair value of each major option grant on the date of the grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model that requires the formation of assumptions to be used in the model, such as expected stock price volatility, risk-free interest rates,

expected option lives and dividend yields. We formed our assumptions using historical experience and observable conditions.

Income Taxes.Taxes. We are subject to income taxes in the United States and several states in which we operate. We account for income taxes according to SFAS No. 109,Accounting for Income Taxes. SFAS No. 109 requires the recognition of deferred tax assets, net of applicable reserves, related to net operating loss carryforwards, tax credit carryforwards and certain temporary differences. A valuation allowance is recognized if, based upon the weight of the available evidence, it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax asset will not be recognized.

Our income tax returns are subject to examination by tax authorities. We regularly assess the potential outcome of these examinations in determining the adequacy of our provision for income taxes and our income tax liabilities. To determine necessary reserves, we must make assumptions and judgments about potential actions by taxing authorities, partially based on past experiences. Our estimate of the potential outcome for any uncertain tax issue is highly judgmental, and we believe we have adequately provided for any reasonable and foreseeable outcomes relating to uncertain tax matters. When actual results of tax examinations differ from our estimates or when potential actions are settled differently than we expected, we adjust the income tax provision and our tax reserves in the current period.

Self-Insurance Reserves.We are self-insured up to certain stop loss amounts for employee health coverage, workers’ compensation and general liability costs. Insurance claims and reserves include accruals of estimated settlements for known claims, as well as accruals of estimates for claims incurred but not yet reported. In estimating these accruals, we consider historical loss experience and make judgments about the expected levels of costs per claim. We believe our estimates of future liability are reasonable based upon our methodology; however, changes in health care costs, accident frequency and severity and other factors could materially affect the estimate for these liabilities.

-46-


Litigation, Claims and Assessments.We also utilize estimates for litigation, claims and assessments related to our business and tax matters. These estimates are based upon our knowledge and experience about past and current events and also upon reasonable assumptions about future events. Actual results could differ from these estimates.

 

ITEM 7A.Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosure about Market Risk

Market risk is the risk of loss arising from adverse changes in market rates and prices, such as interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates and commodity prices. Our primary exposure to market risk is interest rate risk, specifically long-term U.S. treasury rates and the applicable spreads in the high-yield investment market and short-term and long-term LIBOR rates, and its potential impact on our long-term debt. We attempt to limit our exposure to interest rate risk by managing the mix of our long-term fixed-rate borrowings and short-term borrowings under our bank credit facility. Borrowings under our bank credit facility are based upon, at our option, the LIBOR rate or the “base rate,” plus an applicable margin in either case. The applicable margin is a percentage per annum (which ranges from 0.625% to 1.625% if we elect to use the LIBOR rate, and 0.0% to 0.375% if we elect to use the base rate) determined in accordance with a specified pricing grid based upon our predefined total leverage ratio. We also attempt to manage the impact of interest rate risk on our long-term debt by utilizing derivative financial instruments in accordance with established policies and procedures. We do not utilize derivative financial instruments for trading or speculative purposes. For more information, see Note 7, “Derivative Instruments” in the notes to the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

During the year ended December 31, 2007,2008, we utilized interest rate swap agreements. Interest differentials resulting from these agreements are recorded on an accrual basis as an adjustment to interest expense. Interest rate swaps related to debt are matched to specific debt obligations.

We are exposed to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by the counterparties to the interest rate swap agreements outstanding at December 31, 2007;2008; however, we believe that this risk is minimized because we monitor the credit ratings of the counterparties to the swaps. If we had terminated our swaps as of December 31, 2007,2008, we would have been required to pay $22.7$47.9 million based on the fair values of the derivative instruments.

The following table provides information about our derivative instruments and other financial instruments that are sensitive to changes in interest rates, including interest swaps and debt obligations. For our debt obligations, the table presents principal cash flows and related weighted-average interest rates by expected maturity dates. For our interest rate swaps, the table presents the notional amounts and weighted-average interest rates by the expected (contractual) maturity dates. The notional amounts are used to calculate the contractual cash flows to be exchanged under the contracts. The weighted-average variable rates are based upon prevailing interest rates.

The scheduled maturities of our long-term debt and interest rate swap agreements outstanding as of December 31, 20072008 for the years ending December 31 are as follows:follows.

   Year Ending December 31,
   Expected Maturity Date  Fair
Value
   2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  Thereafter  Total  

Liabilities

                  

Long-term debt (including current portion):

                  

Fixed-rate

  $616  $652  $690  $204,260  $10,341  $550,000  $766,559  $517,153

Average interest rate

   5.7%   5.7%   5.7%  7.7%   5.7%   6.9%   7.1%  

Variable-rate

  $—    $—    $—    $1,881,115  $—    $—    $1,881,115  $1,185,102

Average interest rate

   —     —     —       2.9%   —       2.9%  

Interest rate derivatives

                  

Derivative Instruments:

                  

Pay fixed

  $4,206  $—    $43,736    $—    $—    $—    $47,942  $34,308

Average receivable rate

   1.5%   —     1.5%  —     —     —     1.5%  

Average payable rate

   4.6%   —     5.1%  —     —     —     5.0%  

 

   Year Ending December 31,
   Expected Maturity Date  Fair
Value
   2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  Thereafter  Total  
   (In thousands)

Liabilities

         

Long-term debt (including current portion):

         

Fixed-rate

  $629  $616  $652  $690  $300,730  $610,341  $913,658  $888,408

Average interest rate

   5.7%  5.7%  5.7%  5.7%  7.8%  6.9%  7.2% 

Variable-rate

  $—    $—    $—    $—    $1,352,900  $—    $1,352,900  $1,352,900

Average interest rate

   —  %  —  %  —  %  —  %  6.0%  —  %  6.0% 

Interest rate derivatives

         

Derivative Instruments:

         

Pay fixed

  $—    $250,000  $—    $500,000  $—    $—    $750,000  $22,658

Average receivable rate

   —  %  5.2%  —     5.2%  —  %  —     5.2% 

Average payable rate

   —  %  4.6%  —     5.1%  —  %  —     5.0% 

-47-


As of December 31, 2008, our long-term variable-rate borrowings represented approximately 43% of our total long-term debt. Based on December 31, 2008 debt levels, a 100 basis point change in the LIBOR rate or the base rate would cause our annual interest costs to change by approximately $11.3 million.

The following table provides other information about our long-term debt at December 31, 2007:2008.

 

  Outstanding
Face Amount
  Carrying
Value
  Estimated
Fair Value
  Outstanding
Face Amount
  Carrying
Value
  Estimated
Fair Value
  (In thousands)     (In thousands)   

Bank credit facility

  $1,352,900  $1,352,900  $1,352,900  $1,881,115  $1,881,115  $1,185,102

7.75% Senior Subordinated Notes Due 2012

   300,000   300,000   306,000   203,530   203,530   180,124

6.75% Senior Subordinated Notes Due 2014

   350,000   350,000   332,500   300,000   300,000   174,000

7.125% Senior Subordinated Notes Due 2016

   250,000   250,000   236,250   250,000   250,000   150,000

Other

   13,658   13,658   13,658   13,029   13,029   13,029
                  

Total

  $2,266,558  $2,266,558  $2,241,308  $2,647,674  $2,647,674  $1,702,255
                  

The estimated fair values of our bank credit facility and our senior subordinated notes are based on the average trading price as of the last day closest to December 31, 2008 that the debt was traded.

 

ITEM 8.Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

The information required by this item is contained in the financial statements listed in Item 15(a) of this Annual Report on Form 10-K under the caption “Financial Statements.”Financial Statements. In addition, audited consolidated financial statements for Marina District Development Company, LLC, d.b.a. Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa, our 50% Atlantic City joint venture, as of and for the three years in the period ended December 31, 20072008 are included in Exhibit 99.2 and are incorporated herein by reference.

ITEM 9.Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

There were no changes in or disagreements with accountants on accounting and financial disclosures during the three years in the period ended December 31, 2007.2008.

 

-48-


ITEM 9A.Controls and Procedures

As of the end of the period covered by this report, we carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures. Our disclosure controls and procedures are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in our reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms. Based on the evaluation of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of the end of the period covered by this report.

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we include a report of management’s assessment of the design and effectiveness of our internal controls as part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007.2008. Our independent registered public accounting firm also attested to, and reported on, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. Management’s report and the independent registered public accounting firm’s attestation report are located below.

There has been no change in our internal control over financial reporting that occurred during our most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect our internal control over financial reporting.

Management’s Report on Internal Control Overover Financial Reporting

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f). Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, we assessed the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of the end of the most recent fiscal year, December 31, 2007,2008, based on the framework inInternal Control—Control — Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on our assessment under the framework inInternal Control—Control — Integrated Framework, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of the end of our most recent fiscal year, December 31, 2007.2008.

Our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 20072008 has been audited by Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in its report which is included below.

-49-


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on Management’s Assessment on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of

Boyd Gaming Corporation and Subsidiaries:

We have audited the internal control over financial reporting of Boyd Gaming Corporation and Subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2007,2008, based on criteria established inInternal Control—Control — Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The Company’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed by, or under the supervision of, the company’s principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, and effected by the company’s board of directors, management, and other personnel to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of the inherent limitations of internal control over financial reporting, including the possibility of collusion or improper management override of controls, material misstatements due to error or fraud may not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Also, projections of any evaluation of the effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting to future periods are subject to the risk that the controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007,2008, based on the criteria established inInternal Control—Control — Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.

We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007,2008, of the Company and our report dated February 29, 2008March 2, 2009 expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements, and includes an explanatory paragraphsparagraph regarding the Company’s adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48,Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes–Taxes—an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109, Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123R,Share-Based Payment and Emerging Issues Task Force D-108,Use of the Residual Method of Value Acquired Assets Other Than Goodwill.109.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Las Vegas, Nevada
March 2, 2009

Las Vegas, Nevada

February 29, 2008-50-


ITEM 9B.ITEM 9B.Other Information

None.

PARTPart III

 

ITEM 10.ITEM 10.Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance

Information regarding the members of our board of directors and our audit committee, including our audit committee financial expert, is set forth under the captions “Board Committees—Board Committees – Audit Committee”Committee, “Director Nominees”Director Nominees, and “SectionSection 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance”Compliance in our definitive Proxy Statement to be filed in connection with our 20082009 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and is incorporated herein by reference. Information regarding non-director executive company officers of the Company is set forth in Item 4A of Part I, Item 1 of this Report on Form 10-K.

Code of Ethics. We have adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (“code of ethics”) that applies to each of our directors, officers and employees. Our code of ethics is posted on our website at www.boydgaming.com. Any waivers or amendments to our code of ethics will be posted on our website.

 

ITEM 11.ITEM 11.Executive Compensation

The information required by this item is set forth under the captions “ExecutiveExecutive Officer and Director Compensation” “Compensation,Compensation and Stock Option Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation, and “CompensationCompensation and Stock Option Committee Report”Report in our definitive Proxy Statement to be filed in connection with our 20082009 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and is incorporated herein by reference.

 

ITEM 12.ITEM 12.Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters

The information required by this item is set forth under the captions “OwnershipOwnership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management”Management and “EquityEquity Compensation Plan Information”Information in our definitive Proxy Statement to be filed in connection with our 20082009 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and is incorporated herein by reference.

 

ITEM 13.ITEM 13.Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence

The information required by this item is set forth under the captions “TransactionsTransactions with Related Persons”Persons and “Director Independence”Director Independence in our definitive Proxy Statement to be filed in connection with our 20082009 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and is incorporated herein by reference.

 

ITEM 14.ITEM 14.Principal Accounting Fees and Services

Information about principal accounting fees and services, as well as the audit committee’s pre-approval policies appears under the captions “AuditAudit and Non-Audit Fees”Fees and “AuditAudit Committee Pre-Approval of Audit and Non-Audit Services”Services in our definitive Proxy Statement to be filed in connection with our 20082009 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and is incorporated herein by reference.

-51-


PARTPart IV

 

ITEM 15.ITEM 15.Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules

 

      Page No.

(a)

  Financial Statements. The following financial statements for the three years in the period ended December 31, 20072008 are filed as part of this report:  
  Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm  53
  Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 20072008 and 20062007  54
  Consolidated Statements of Operations for the Three Years in the Period Ended December 31, 20072008  55
  Consolidated Statements of Changes in Stockholders’ Equity for the Three Years in the Period Ended December 31, 20072008  57
  Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Three Years in the Period Ended December 31, 20072008  58
  Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements  60
  Audited consolidated financial statements for Marina District Development Company, LLC, d.b.a. Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa, as of and for the three years in the period ended December 31, 20072008 are presented in Exhibit 99.2 and are incorporated herein by reference.  

(b)

  Exhibits. Refer to (c) on page 100.98.  

-52-


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of

Boyd Gaming Corporation and Subsidiaries:

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Boyd Gaming Corporation and Subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 20072008 and 2006,2007, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2007.2008. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Boyd Gaming Corporation and Subsidiaries at December 31, 20072008 and 2006,2007, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2007,2008, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

As discussed in Note 114 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company changed its method of accounting for income taxes in accordance with FASB Interpretation No. 48,Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes—an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109and recorded the cumulative effect on January 1, 2007.

As discussed in Note 9 to the consolidated financial statements, in 2006, the Company changed their method of accounting for share-based compensation to conform to Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123R,Share-Based Payment.

As discussed in Note 5 to the consolidated financial statements, in 2005, the Company changed its method of accounting for intangible assets to conform to Emerging Issues Task Force D-108,Use of the Residual Method to Value Acquired Assets Other Than Goodwill, and recorded a cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle.

We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007,2008, based on the criteria established inInternal Control—Control — Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated February 29, 2008,March 2, 2009, expressed an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Las Vegas, Nevada
March 2, 2009

Las Vegas, Nevada

February 29, 2008-53-


CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

 

    December 31,
    2007   2006  December 31,
    (In thousands, except per share data)  2008  2007

ASSETS

         (In thousands, except per share data)

Current assets

          

Cash and cash equivalents

    $165,701   $169,397  $98,152  $165,701

Restricted cash

     52,244    12,604   24,309   52,244

Accounts receivable, net

     23,602    26,275   21,375   23,602

Inventories

     11,269    11,037   11,325   11,269

Prepaid expenses and other current assets

     39,896    42,417   40,416   39,896

Assets held for sale, net of cash

     23,188    102,977

Assets held for sale

   853   23,188

Income taxes receivable

     17,969    8,286   15,115   17,969

Deferred income taxes

     5,259    1,685   2,903   5,259
               

Total current assets

     339,128    374,678   214,448   339,128

Property and equipment, net

     2,716,036    2,129,445   3,249,254   2,716,036

Investments in and advances to unconsolidated subsidiaries, net

     393,616    385,751   419,389   393,616

Other assets, net

     96,515    100,469   86,597   96,515

Intangible assets, net

     538,095    506,750   422,163   538,095

Goodwill, net

     404,206    404,206   213,576   404,206
               

Total assets

    $4,487,596   $3,901,299  $4,605,427  $4,487,596
               

LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

          

Current liabilities

          

Current maturities of long-term debt

    $629   $5,550  $616  $629

Accounts payable

     74,073    77,532   50,128   74,073

Construction payables

     72,215    23,516   118,888   72,215

Accrued liabilities

          

Payroll and related

     65,272    72,162   54,176   65,272

Interest

     17,597    20,620   14,514   17,597

Gaming

     60,717    64,085   55,009   60,717

Accrued expenses and other

     89,629    65,532   59,992   89,629

Liabilities related to assets held for sale

     —      2,993
               

Total current liabilities

     380,132    331,990   353,323   380,132

Long-term debt, net of current maturities

     2,265,929    2,133,016   2,647,058   2,265,929

Deferred income taxes

     365,370    301,639   313,743   365,370

Other long-term tax liabilities

     39,361    —     37,321   39,361

Other liabilities

     51,398    24,702   110,460   51,398

Commitments and contingencies (Note 8)

      

Commitments and contingencies (Note 7)

    

Stockholders’ equity

          

Preferred stock, $.01 par value, 5,000,000 shares authorized

     —      —     —     —  

Common stock, $.01 par value, 200,000,000 shares authorized, 87,747,080 and 87,105,106 shares outstanding

     877    871

Common stock, $.01 par value, 200,000,000 shares authorized, 87,814,061and 87,747,080 shares outstanding

   878   877

Additional paid-in capital

     599,751    561,298   616,304   599,751

Retained earnings

     795,693    544,080   546,358   795,693

Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), net

     (10,915)   3,703

Accumulated other comprehensive loss, net

   (20,018)   (10,915)
               

Total stockholders’ equity

     1,385,406    1,109,952   1,143,522   1,385,406
               

Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity

    $4,487,596   $3,901,299  $4,605,427  $4,487,596
               

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

-54-


CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

 

  Year Ended December 31,   Year Ended December 31, 
  2007 2006 2005   2008 2007 2006 
  (In thousands, except per share data)   (In thousands, except per share data) 

Revenues

        

Gaming

  $1,666,422  $1,811,716  $1,772,053   $1,477,476  $1,666,422  $1,811,716 

Food and beverage

   273,036   304,864   311,119    251,854   273,036   304,864 

Room

   153,691   172,781   172,617    140,651   153,691   172,781 

Other

   128,870   145,560   146,140    117,574   128,870   145,560 
                    

Gross revenues

   2,222,019   2,434,921   2,401,929    1,987,555   2,222,019   2,434,921 

Less promotional allowances

   224,900   242,287   240,844    206,588   224,900   242,287 
                    

Net revenues

   1,997,119   2,192,634   2,161,085    1,780,967   1,997,119   2,192,634 
                    

Costs and expenses

        

Gaming

   752,047   836,675   783,863    690,847   752,047   836,675 

Food and beverage

   163,775   187,908   193,961    144,092   163,775   187,908 

Room

   46,574   55,052   51,012    43,851   46,574   55,052 

Other

   95,401   110,106   128,028    89,222   95,401   110,106 

Selling, general and administrative

   310,926   311,551   313,410    299,662   310,926   311,551 

Maintenance and utilities

   96,278   100,659   94,072    95,963   96,278   100,659 

Depreciation and amortization

   165,959   188,539   170,660    168,997   165,959   188,539 

Corporate expense

   60,143   54,229   44,101    52,332   60,143   54,229 

Preopening expenses

   22,819   20,623   7,690    20,265   22,819   20,623 

Write-downs and other charges, net

   12,101   8,838   64,615    385,521   12,101   8,838 
                    

Total costs and expenses

   1,726,023   1,874,180   1,851,412    1,990,752   1,726,023   1,874,180 
                    

Operating income from Borgata

   83,136   86,196   96,014    56,356   83,136   86,196 
                    

Operating income

   354,232   404,650   405,687 

Operating income (loss)

   (153,429)  354,232   404,650 
                    

Other income (expense)

    

Other expense (income)

    

Interest income

   119   112   224    (1,070)  (119)  (112)

Interest expense, net of amounts capitalized

   (137,573)  (145,545)  (126,312)   110,146   137,573   145,545 

Decrease in value of derivative instruments

   (1,130)  (1,801)  —   

Loss on early retirements of debt

   (16,945)  —     (17,529)

Decrease (increase) in value of derivative instruments

   (425)  1,130   1,801 

Loss (gain) on early retirements of debt

   (28,553)  16,945   —   

Other non-operating expenses from Borgata, net

   (13,768)  (10,577)  (11,718)   16,009   13,768   10,577 
                    

Total

   (169,297)  (157,811)  (155,335)

Total other expense, net

   96,107   169,297   157,811 
                    

Income from continuing operations before provision for income taxes and cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle

   184,935   246,839   250,352 

Provision for income taxes

   (64,027)  (85,491)  (85,984)

Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes

   (249,536)  184,935   246,839 

Benefit from (provision for) income taxes

   26,531   (64,027)  (85,491)
                    

Income from continuing operations before cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle

   120,908   161,348   164,368 

Income (loss) from continuing operations

   (223,005)  120,908   161,348 
          

Discontinued operations:

        

Income (loss) from discontinued operations (including a gain on disposition of $285,033 in 2007 and an impairment loss of $65,000 in 2006)

   281,949   (69,219)  (5,253)   —     281,949   (69,219)

Benefit from (provision for) income taxes

   (99,822)  24,649   1,934    —     (99,822)  24,649 
                    

Net income (loss) from discontinued operations

   182,127   (44,570)  (3,319)   —     182,127   (44,570)
                    

Income before cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle

   303,035   116,778   161,049 

Cumulative effect of a change in accounting for intangible assets, net of taxes of $8,984

   —     —     (16,439)

Net income (loss)

  $(223,005) $303,035  $116,778 
                    

Net income

  $303,035  $116,778  $144,610 
          

-55-


CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS—continuedOPERATIONS — (Continued)

 

   Year Ended December 31, 
   2007  2006  2005 

Basic net income per common share:

     

Income from continuing operations before cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle

  $1.38  $1.83  $1.86 

Net income (loss) from discontinued operations

   2.08   (0.51)  (0.04)

Cumulative effect of a change in accounting for intangible assets, net of taxes

   —     —     (0.19)
             

Net income

  $3.46  $1.32  $1.63 
             

Weighted average basic shares outstanding

   87,567   88,380   88,528 
             

Diluted net income per common share:

     

Income from continuing operations before cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle

  $1.36  $1.80  $1.82 

Net income (loss) from discontinued operations

   2.06   (0.50)  (0.04)

Cumulative effect of a change in accounting for intangible assets, net of taxes

   —     —     (0.18)
             

Net income

  $3.42  $1.30  $1.60 
             

Weighted average diluted shares outstanding

   88,608   89,593   90,507 
             

Dividends declared per common share

  $0.585  $0.53  $0.46 
             

   Year Ended December 31, 
   2008  2007  2006 

Basic net income (loss) per common share:

     

Income (loss) from continuing operations

  $(2.54) $1.38  $1.83 

Net income (loss) from discontinued operations

   —     2.08   (0.51)
             

Net income (loss)

  $(2.54) $3.46  $1.32 
             

Weighted average basic shares outstanding

   87,854   87,567   88,380 
             

Diluted net income (loss) per common share:

     

Income (loss) from continuing operations

  $(2.54) $1.36  $1.80 

Net income (loss) from discontinued operations

   —     2.06   (0.50)
             

Net income (loss)

  $(2.54) $3.42  $1.30 
             

Weighted average diluted shares outstanding

   87,854   88,608   89,593 
             

Dividends declared per common share

  $0.30  $0.585  $0.53 
             

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

-56-


CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

 

 Other
Comprehensive
Income
  Common Stock Additional
Paid-In
Capital
  Retained
Earnings
  Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Income (Loss),
Net
  Total
Stockholders’
Equity
  Other
Comprehensive
 Common Stock Additional
Paid-In
 Retained Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Income (Loss),
 Total
Stockholders’
 
 Shares Amount  Income (Loss) Shares Amount Capital Earnings Net Equity 
 (In thousands, except per share data)  (In thousands, except per share data) 

Balances, January 1, 2005

  87,537,122  $875  $574,723  $370,089  $(1,917) $943,770 

Balances, January 1, 2006

  89,286,491  $893  $619,852  $473,964  $3,295  $1,098,004 

Net income

 $144,610  —     —     —     144,610   —     144,610  $116,778  —     —     —     116,778   —     116,778 

Derivative instruments market adjustment, net of taxes of $3.2 million

  5,340  —     —     —     —     5,340   5,340 

Restricted available for sale securities market adjustment, net of taxes

  (128) —     —     —     —     (128)  (128)
         

Comprehensive income

 $149,822       
         

Stock options exercised, including taxes of $23.1 million

  1,749,369   18   45,129   —     —     45,147 

Dividends paid on common stock

  —     —     —     (40,735)  —     (40,735)
                   

Balances, December 31, 2005

  89,286,491   893   619,852   473,964   3,295   1,098,004 

Net income

 $116,778  —     —     —     116,778   —     116,778 

Derivative instruments market adjustment, net of taxes of $0.2 million

  358  —     —     —     —     358   358 

Derivative instruments fair value adjustment, net of taxes of $200

  358  —     —     —     —     358   358 

Restricted available for sale securities market adjustment, net of taxes of $28

  50  —     —     —     —     50   50   50  —     —     —     —     50   50 
                  

Comprehensive income

 $117,186        $117,186       
                  

Stock options exercised

  1,266,116   12   19,498   —     —     19,510   1,266,116   12   19,498   —     —     19,510 

Tax benefit from share-based compensation arrangements

  —     —     12,256   —     —     12,256   —     —     12,256   —     —     12,256 

Stock repurchased and retired

  (3,447,501)  (34)  (111,956)  —     —     (111,990)  (3,447,501)  (34)  (111,956)  —     —     (111,990)

Share-based compensation costs

  —     —     21,648   —     —     21,648   —     —     21,648   —     —     21,648 

Dividends paid on common stock

  —     —     —     (46,662)  —     (46,662)  —     —     —     (46,662)  —     (46,662)
                                      

Balances, December 31, 2006

  87,105,106   871   561,298   544,080   3,703   1,109,952   87,105,106   871   561,298   544,080   3,703   1,109,952 

Cumulative effect of a change in accounting for uncertainty in income taxes

  —     —     —     (105)  —     (105)

Our share of Borgata’s cumulative effect of a change in accounting for uncertainty in income taxes

  —     —     —     (122)  —     (122)

Net income

 $303,035  —     —     —     303,035   —     303,035  $303,035  —     —     —     303,035   —     303,035 

Derivative instruments market adjustment, net of taxes of $8.3 million

  (14,727) —     —     —     —     (14,727)  (14,727)

Derivative instruments fair value adjustment, net of taxes of $8,274

  (14,727) —     —     —     —     (14,727)  (14,727)

Restricted available for sale securities market adjustment, net of taxes of $59

  109  —     —     —     —     109   109   109  —     —     —     —     109   109 
                  

Comprehensive income

 $288,417        $288,417       
                  

Cumulative effect of a change in accounting for uncertainty in income taxes

  —     —     —     (105)  —     (105)

Our share of Borgata’s cumulative effect of a change in accounting for uncertainty in income taxes

  —     —     —     (122)  —     (122)

Stock options exercised

  641,974   6   15,555   —     —     15,561   641,974   6   15,555   —     —     15,561 

Tax benefit from share-based compensation arrangements

  —     —     5,528   —     —     5,528   —     —     5,528   —     —     5,528 

Share-based compensation costs

  —     —     17,370   —     —     17,370   —     —     17,370   —     —     17,370 

Dividends paid on common stock

  —     —     —     (51,195)  —     (51,195)  —     —     —     (51,195)  —     (51,195)
                                      

Balances, December 31, 2007

  87,747,080  $877  $599,751  $795,693  $(10,915) $1,385,406   87,747,080   877   599,751   795,693   (10,915)  1,385,406 

Net loss

 $(223,005) —     —     —     (223,005)  —     (223,005)

Derivative instruments fair value adjustment, net of taxes of $5,118

  (9,103) —     —     —     —     (9,103)  (9,103)
                            

Comprehensive loss

 $(232,108)      
         

Stock options exercised

  55,700   1   471   —     —     472 

Award of restricted stock units

  11,281   —     —     —     —     —   

Tax benefit from share-based compensation arrangements

  —     —     660   —     —     660 

Share-based compensation costs

  —     —     15,422   —     —     15,422 

Dividends paid on common stock

  —     —     —     (26,330)  —     (26,330)
                   

Balances, December 31, 2008

  87,814,061  $878  $616,304  $546,358  $(20,018) $1,143,522 
                   

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

-57-


CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

 

  Year ended December 31,   Year ended December 31, 
  2007 2006 2005   2008 2007 2006 
  (In thousands)   (In thousands) 

CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES

        

Net income

  $303,035  $116,778  $144,610 

Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:

    

Net income (loss)

  $(223,005) $303,035  $116,778 

Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities:

    

Depreciation and amortization

   165,959   208,187   174,939    168,997   165,959   208,187 

Amortization of debt issuance costs

   5,180   4,486   4,784    4,737   5,180   4,486 

Deferred income taxes

   68,370   (14,108)  (18,253)   (44,153)  68,370   (14,108)

Operating and non-operating income from Borgata

   (69,369)  (75,618)  (84,296)   (40,347)  (69,369)  (75,618)

Distributions of earnings received from Borgata

   70,570   82,603   29,338    19,579   70,570   82,603 

Share-based compensation expense

   16,059   20,818   —      14,024   16,059   20,818 

Excess tax benefit from share-based compensation arrangements

   (4,614)  (12,256)  —   

Gain on disposition of Barbary Coast

   (285,033)  —     —      —     (285,033)  —   

Loss on early retirements of debt

   16,945   —     17,529 

Decrease in value of derivative instruments

   1,130   1,801   —   

Loss (gain) on early retirements of debt

   (28,553)  16,945   —   

Asset write-downs

   3,744   101,592   56,000    382,012   3,744   101,592 

Gain from insurance recoveries for property damage

   —     (33,450)  —      —     —     (33,450)

Tax benefit from stock options exercised

   —     —     23,148 

Cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle

   —     —     25,423 

Other

   194   830   1,432 

Other operating activities

   (435)  (3,783)  (9,625)

Changes in operating assets and liabilities:

        

Restricted cash

   (8,216)  (4,192)  (1,011)   (2,817)  (8,216)  (4,192)

Accounts receivable, net

   3,067   (983)  3,552    2,227   3,067   (983)

Insurance receivable

   —     4,313   372    —     —     4,313 

Inventories

   (103)  3,052   (1,805)   (56)  (103)  3,052 

Prepaid expenses and other

   5,915   (5,180)  (4,507)   (1,613)  5,915   (5,180)

Income taxes receivable

   (5,069)  10,972   9,002    2,871   (5,069)  10,972 

Other assets

   (16,238)  4,237   (8,343)   3,505   (16,238)  4,237 

Other current liabilities

   (32,446)  559   41,290    (38,543)  (32,446)  559 

Other liabilities

   5,346   5,072   6,704    1,257   5,346   5,072 

Other long-term tax liabilities

   39,256   —     —      792   39,256   —   
                    

Net cash provided by operating activities

   283,682   419,513   419,908    220,479   283,189   419,513 
                    

CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES

        

Capital expenditures

   (296,894)  (436,464)  (618,444)   (667,400)  (296,894)  (436,464)

Net cash paid for Dania Jai-Alai

   (80,904)  —     —      —     (80,904)  —   

Investments in and advances to unconsolidated subsidiaries

   (10,297)  (2,966)  —      (5,991)  (10,297)  (2,966)

Net proceeds from sale of undeveloped land and other assets

   7,859   3,198   4,001 

Net proceeds from sale of South Coast

   —     401,430   —      —     —     401,430 

Insurance recoveries for replacement assets

   —     34,450   6,000    —     —     34,450 

Other investing activities

   115   8,352   3,198 
                    

Net cash used in investing activities

   (380,236)  (352)  (608,443)   (673,276)  (379,743)  (352)
                    

CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES

        

Payments on long-term debt

   (502)  (16,074)  (684)   (629)  (502)  (16,074)

Borrowings under bank credit facility

   817,100   496,950   965,400    1,394,935   817,100   496,950 

Payments under bank credit facility

   (437,500)  (1,150,450)  (518,600)   (866,720)  (437,500)  (1,150,450)

Payments on retirement of long-term debt

   (260,938)  —     (209,325)   (116,497)  (260,938)  —   

Proceeds from termination of derivative instruments

   5,718   —     —      —     5,718   —   

Net proceeds from issuance of long-term debt

   —     246,300   —      —     —     246,300 

Proceeds from exercise of stock options

   15,561   19,510   21,999    472   15,561   19,510 

Excess tax benefit from share-based compensation arrangements

   4,614   12,256   —      17   4,614   12,256 

Dividends paid on common stock

   (51,195)  (46,662)  (40,735)   (26,330)  (51,195)  (46,662)

Other

   —     —     (1,837)
                    

Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities

   92,858   (438,170)  216,218    385,248   92,858   (438,170)
                    

Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents

   (3,696)  (19,009)  27,683 

Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents

   (67,549)  (3,696)  (19,009)

Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year

   169,397   188,406   160,723    165,701   169,397   188,406 
                    

Cash and cash equivalents, end of year

  $165,701  $169,397  $188,406   $98,152  $165,701  $169,397 
                    

-58-


CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS—continuedFLOWS — (Continued)

 

   Year Ended December 31,
   2007  2006  2005

SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION

     

Cash paid for interest, net of amounts capitalized

  $135,940  $162,332  $128,234

Cash paid for income taxes, net of refunds

   60,279   63,974   61,171

SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULE OF NON-CASH INVESTING AND FINANCING ACTIVITIES

     

Payables for capital expenditures

  $79,811  $28,326  $137,524

Capitalized share-based compensation costs

   1,311   830   —  

Restricted cash received as a deposit for Morgans Las Vegas, LLC joint venture

   31,424   —     —  

Restricted cash proceeds from maturities of restricted investments

   8,381   1,450   —  

Restricted cash used to purchase restricted investments

   6,765   1,783   3,773

Restricted cash proceeds from sales of restricted investments

   8,589   —     4,539

Land acquired in exchange for Barbary Coast

   364,000   —     —  

Non-monetary portion of land exchange

   18,177   —     —  

Repurchase of common stock for issuance of note payable to related party

   —     111,990   —  

Transfer of land from property and equipment, net to assets held for sale, net of cash

   —     26,188   —  

Acquisition of Dania Jai-Alai

     

Fair value of non-cash assets acquired

  $84,724  $—    $—  

Net cash paid

   (80,904)  —     —  
            

Liabilities assumed

  $3,820  $—    $—  
            

   Year Ended December 31, 
   2008  2007  2006 

SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION

    

Cash paid for interest, net of amounts capitalized

  $110,618  $135,940  $162,332 

Cash paid for income taxes, net of refunds

   13,267   60,279   63,974 

SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULE OF NON-CASH INVESTING AND FINANCING ACTIVITIES

    

Payables for capital expenditures

  $122,310  $79,811  $28,326 

Capitalized share-based compensation costs

   1,398   1,311   830 

Restricted cash received as a deposit for Morgans Las Vegas, LLC joint venture

   672   31,424   —   

Disbursement of restricted cash received as a deposit for Morgans Las Vegas, LLC joint venture

   29,506   —     —   

Restricted cash proceeds from maturities of restricted investments

   —     8,381   1,450 

Restricted cash used to purchase restricted investments

   —     6,765   1,783 

Restricted cash proceeds from sales of restricted investments

   —     8,589   —   

Change in fair value of derivative instruments

   (14,221)  (23,001)  558 

Land acquired in exchange for Barbary Coast

   —     364,000   —   

Non-monetary portion of land exchange

   —     18,177   —   

Repurchase of common stock for issuance of note payable to related party

   —     —     111,990 

Transfer of land to (from) property and equipment, net to/from assets held for sale, net of cash

   23,188   —     (26,188)

Acquisition of Dania Jai-Alai

    

Fair value of non-cash assets acquired

  $—    $131,372  $—   

Net cash paid

   —     (80,904)  —   

Contingent liability recorded

   —     (46,648)  —   
             

Liabilities assumed

  $—    $3,820  $—   
             

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

-59-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

NOTE 1.—SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Principles of Consolidation

The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Boyd Gaming Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiaries. Investments in unconsolidated affiliates, which are 50% or less owned and do not meet the consolidation criteria of Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Interpretation No. 46(R)46 (R) (as amended),Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities—Entities – An Interpretation of ARB No. 51”51 (“FIN 46(R)”), are accounted for under the equity method. All material intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated.

As of December 31, 2007,2008, we wholly-owned and operated 15 casino entertainment facilities located in Nevada, Mississippi, Illinois, Louisiana and Indiana. In addition, we own and operate a pari-mutuel jai alai facility located in Dania Beach, Florida, two travel agencies, and an insurance company that underwrites travel-related insurance. We are also a 50% partner in a joint venture that owns a limited liability company, that operatesoperating Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa (“Borgata”) in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

We are developingIn conjunction with our multibillion dollar Echelon ourdevelopment on the Las Vegas Strip, development project, which we expect to open in the third quarter of 2010, and havepreviously entered into two joint ventures associated with Echelon:venture agreements:

Morgans Las Vegas, LLCThis entity is a 50/50 joint venture with Morgans Hotel Group LLCCo. (“Morgans”), which will was originally formed to develop, construct and operate the Delano Las Vegas and the Mondrian Las Vegas hotels at Echelon (see Note 4,3,Investments in and Advances to Unconsolidated Subsidiaries Net”, and Note 8,7,Commitments and Contingencies”Contingencies). On September 23, 2008, we entered into an amended joint venture agreement with Morgans (see Note 7,Commitments and Contingencies, for a description of the principal terms of this third amendment). We currently account for thisthe joint venture under the equity method, as we are not the primary beneficiary of this entity under FIN 46(R). We will continue to evaluate our accounting treatment for this joint venture under FIN 46(R) as the entityit is developed.

Echelon Place Retail Promenade, LLCThis entity is a 50/50 joint venture with General Growth Properties (“GGP”), which will was originally formed to develop, construct and operate the High Street retail promenade at Echelon (see Note 8,7,Commitments and Contingencies”Contingencies). We currently consolidateThrough October 2008, we consolidated this joint venture, as we are currentlywere the primary beneficiary of this entity under FIN 46(R). We will continue to evaluate our accounting treatment forGGP’s minority interest in this joint venture under FIN 46(R) aswas $0.5 million at December 31, 2007 and is included in other liabilities on our consolidated balance sheet. In October 2008, we purchased GGP’s membership interest in this joint venture for $9.7 million, which represents the return of GGP’s capital contribution to the joint venture, plus accrued interest, thereby making this entity is developed.a wholly-owned subsidiary of Boyd Gaming Corporation.

On August 1, 2008, we announced our decision to delay the Echelon development project. See Note 7,Commitments and Contingencies – Echelon, for a discussion regarding our decision to delay the Echelon project and its impact on our joint venture and other agreements.

Cash and Cash Equivalents

Cash and cash equivalents include highly liquid investments with maturities of three months or less at their date of purchase. The carrying valuevalues of these investments approximatesapproximate their fair valuevalues due to their short maturities.

Restricted Cash

At December 31, 2008, our restricted cash consisted primarily of customer payments related to advanced bookings with our Hawaiian travel agency that are invested with a maximum maturity of 90 days and amounts on deposit for horse racing purposes at Delta Downs.

At December 31, 2007, our restricted cash consisted primarily of a $30 million deposit, plus accrued interest, from Morgans as an advance toward their $91.5 million capital contribution to be made to our joint venture at EchelonEchelon. This deposit, plus accrued interest, was included in restricted cash and accrued expenses on our consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2007; however, the deposit was returned in conjunction with the amended joint venture agreement (see Note 8,7,Commitments and Contingencies”Contingencies),. Also included in the restricted cash balance at December 31, 2007, were customer payments related to advancedadvance bookings with our Hawaiian travel agency that are invested in investments with a maximum maturity of 90 days (see Note 2, “Restricted Cash and Investments”)and amounts on deposit for horse racing purposes at Delta Downs.

-60-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—STATEMENTS — (Continued)

Accounts Receivable, net

Accounts receivable consist primarily of casino, hotel and other receivables, net of an allowance for doubtful accounts of $4.8$5.4 million and $4.6$4.8 million at December 31, 20072008 and 2006,2007, respectively. The allowance for doubtful accounts is estimated based upon our collection experience and the age of the receivables.

Inventories

Inventories consist primarily of food and beverage and retail items and are stated at the lower of cost or market. Cost is determined using the weighted-average inventory method.

Property and Equipment

Property and equipment are stated at cost. Depreciation is computed using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets or, for leasehold improvements, over the shorter of the asset’s useful life or life of the lease. Gains or losses on disposaldisposals of assets are recognized as incurred. Costs of major improvements are capitalized, while costs of normal repairs and maintenance are charged to expense as incurred.

Long-Lived Assets

We evaluate our long-lived assets in accordance with Statementthe application of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”)SFAS No. 144,Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets. For assets to be disposed of we recognize the asset at the lower of carrying value or fair market value, less costs of disposal, as estimated based on comparable asset sales, solicited offers, or a discounted cash flow model. For long-lived assets to be held and used, we review for impairment whenever indicators of impairment exist.events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount may not be recoverable. We then compare the estimated undiscounted future cash flows of the asset on an undiscounted basis, to the carrying value of the asset. IfThe asset is not impaired if the undiscounted future cash flows exceed its carrying value. If the carrying value no impairment is indicated. Ifexceeds the undiscounted future cash flows, do not exceed the carrying value, then an impairment charge is recorded, based on the fair value of the asset, typically measured using a discounted cash flow model.model, which is based on the estimated future results of the relevant reporting unit discounted using our weighted-average cost of capital and market indicators of terminal year free cash flow multiples. If an asset is under development, future cash flows include remaining construction costs. All recognized impairment losses, whether for assets to be disposed of or for assets to be held and used,charges are recorded as operating losses.expenses. See Note 10, “9,Write-Downs and Other Charges, Net”Net and Note 11,10,Assets and Liabilities Held for Sale”,Sale, for informationa discussion of impairment charges related to impairment charges forour long-lived assets recognized in the three years ended December 31, 2007.

Due to a prior history of operating losses at Sam’s Town Tunica, in prior reporting periods, we tested the assets of Sam’s Town Tunica for recoverability pursuant to SFAS No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets.”The asset recoverability test required the estimation of Sam’s Town Tunica’s undiscounted future cash flows and comparing that aggregate total to the property’s carrying value. Sam’s Town Tunica’s financial performance improved during 2007 and its profitability is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. In 2007, the property’s estimated undiscounted future cash flows exceeded its carrying value; therefore, we do not believe Sam’s Town Tunica’s assets to be impaired and we did not perform an impairment test of its long-lived assets; however, we will continue to monitor the performance of Sam’s Town Tunica and, if necessary, continue to update our asset recoverability test under SFAS No. 144. If future asset recoverability tests indicate that the assets of Sam’s Town Tunica are impaired, we will be subject to a non-cash write-down of its assets, which could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated statements of operations.assets.

Goodwill and Intangible Assets

We evaluate our goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets in accordance with the applications of SFAS No. 142,Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets.Goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets are not subject to amortization, but they are reviewed forsubject to an annual impairment at least annuallytest in the second quarter of each year and between annual test dates in certain circumstances. In September 2004, new accounting literature was introduced related to impairment testing of indefinite-lived intangible assets. Refer to

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

See Note 5, “4,Intangible Assets and Goodwill”Goodwilland Note 9,Write-Downs and Other Charges, Netfor additional information relatinga discussion of impairment charges related to its effect on our consolidated financial statements.goodwill and other intangible assets.

Capitalized Interest

Interest costs associated with major construction projects are capitalized as part of the cost of the constructed assets. When no debt is incurred specifically for a project, interest is capitalized on amounts expended for the project using our weighted-average cost of borrowing. Capitalization of interest ceases when the project (or discernible portions of the project) is substantially complete. If substantially all of the construction activities of a project are suspended, capitalization of interest will cease until such activities are resumed. We amortize capitalized interest over the estimated useful life of the related asset.assets. Capitalized interest for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006 and 2005 was $37.7 million, $18.1 million and $7.5 million, and $22.9 million, respectively.

-61-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

Debt Issuance Costs

Debt issuance costs incurred in connection with the issuance of long-term debt are capitalized and amortized to interest expense over the expected termsterm of the related debt agreements.agreement.

Self-Insurance Reserves

We are self-insured up to certain stop loss amounts for employee health coverage, workers’ compensation and general liability costs. Insurance claims and reserves include accruals of estimated settlements for known claims, as well as accruals of estimates for claims incurred but not yet reported. In estimating these accruals, we consider historical loss experience and make judgments about the expected levels of costs per claim. We believe our estimates of future liability are reasonable based upon our methodology; however, changes in health care costs, accident frequency and severity and other factors could materially affect the estimate for these liabilities. Self-insurance reserves are included in accrued expenses and other on our consolidated balance sheets.

Revenue Recognition and Promotional Allowances

Gaming revenue represents the net win from gaming activities, which is the difference between gaming wins and losses. All other revenue isrevenues are recognized as the service isservices are provided. The majority of our gaming revenue is counted in the form of cash and chips and therefore is not subject to any significant or complex estimation procedures. Gross revenues include the estimated retail value of rooms, food and beverage, and other goods and services provided to customers on a complimentary basis. Such amounts are then deducted as promotional allowances. The estimated costs and expenses of providing these promotional allowances are charged to the gaming department in the following amounts:

 

  Year Ended December 31,  Year Ended December 31,
  2007  2006  2005  2008  2007  2006
  (In thousands)  (In thousands)

Room

  $23,597  $24,189  $21,400  $25,271  $23,597  $24,189

Food and beverage

   118,968   128,360   126,147   123,444   118,968   128,360

Other

   6,906   6,568   5,617   8,418   6,906   6,568
                  

Total

  $149,471  $159,117  $153,164  $157,133  $149,471  $159,117
                  

Promotional allowances also include incentives such as cash, goods and services (such as complimentary rooms and food and beverages) earned in our slot club and other gaming loyalty programs. We reward customers, through the use of loyalty programs, with points based on amounts wagered or won that can be redeemed for a specified period of time, principally for cash, and to a lesser extent for goods or services,

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

depending upon the casino property. We record the estimated retail value of these goods and services as revenue and then deduct them as a promotional allowance.allowances.

Corporate Expense

Corporate expense represents unallocated payroll, professional fees, aircraft costs and various other expenses that are not directly related to our casino hotel operations. Corporate expense totaled $52.3 million, $60.1 million $54.2 million and $44.1$54.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 2006 and 2005,2006, respectively.

Preopening Expenses

We expense certain costs of start-up activities as incurred. During the yearyears ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, we expensed $20.3 million, $22.8 million and $20.6 million in preopening costs, respectively, including $16.3 million, $15.6 million and $11.6 million, respectively, related to our Echelon development project. During the year ended December 31, 2006, we expensed $20.6 million in preopening costs, including $11.6 million related to Echelon. During the year ended December 31, 2005, we expensed $7.7 million in preopening costs, including $3.5 million related to Echelon. The remaining expense incurred in 2008, 2007 2006 and 20052006 relates to various projects, including our expansion projectsnew hotel at Blue Chip and expansion project at Dania Jai-Alai, and efforts to develop gaming activities in other jurisdictions.

-62-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

Advertising Expense

Direct advertising costs are expensed the first time such advertising appears. Advertising costs from continuing operations are included in selling, general and administrative expenses on the accompanying consolidated statements of operations and totaled $23.4 million, $25.7 million and $29.3 million and $26.3 million, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, and 2005.respectively.

Derivative Instruments and Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)

Generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, require all derivative instruments to be recognized on the balance sheet at fair value. Derivatives that are not designated as hedges for accounting purposes must be adjusted to fair value through income. If the derivative qualifies and is designated as a hedge, depending on the nature of the hedge, changes in its fair value will either be offset against the change in fair value of the hedged item through earnings or recognized in other comprehensive income (loss) until the hedged item is recognized in earnings. The ineffective portion of a derivative’s change in fair value will be immediately recognized in earnings. During the three years in the period ended December 31, 2007, we utilizedWe utilize derivative instruments to manage interest rate risk on certain of our borrowings. In addition, Borgata, our joint venture, utilized derivative financial instruments to comply with the requirements of its bank credit agreement. For further information, see Note 7, “6,Derivative Instruments and Other Comprehensive Income (Loss).

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

In December 2007, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued SFAS No. 160,“Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements—An Amendment of ARB No. 51.”SFAS No. 160 establishes new accounting and reporting standards for the noncontrolling interest in a subsidiary and for the deconsolidation of a subsidiary. Specifically, this statement requires the recognition of a noncontrolling interest (minority interest) as equity in the consolidated financial statements and separate from the parent’s equity. The amount of net income attributable to the noncontrolling interest will be included in consolidated net income on the face of the income statement. SFAS No. 160 clarifies that changes in a parent’s ownership in a subsidiary that do not result in deconsolidation are equity transactions if the parent retains its controlling financial interest. In addition, this statement requires that a parent recognize a gain or loss in net income when a subsidiary is

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

deconsolidated. Such gain or loss will be measured using the fair value of the noncontrolling equity investment on the deconsolidation date. SFAS No. 160 also includes expanded disclosure requirements regarding the interests of the parent and its noncontrolling interest. SFAS No. 160 is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning on or after December 15, 2008. Earlier adoption is prohibited. We do not expect the adoption of SFAS No. 160 to have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 141(R),“Business Combinations.” SFAS No. 141(R) retains the fundamental requirements in SFAS No. 141 that the acquisition method be used for all business combinations and for an acquirer to be identified for each business combination. SFAS No. 141(R) defines the acquirer as the entity that obtains control of one or more businesses in the business combination and establishes the acquisition date as the date that the acquirer achieves control. By applying the acquisition method to all transactions and other events in which one entity obtains control over one or more other businesses, this statement improves the comparability of the information about business combinations provided in financial reports. SFAS No. 141(R) applies prospectively to business combinations for which the acquisition date is on or after the beginning of the first annual reporting period beginning on or after December 15, 2008. We do not expect the adoption of SFAS No. 141(R) to have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159,“The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities,” SFAS No. 159 permits companies to choose to measure many financial instruments and certain other items at fair value. The objective is to improve financial reporting by providing companies with the opportunity to mitigate volatility in reported earnings caused by measuring related assets and liabilities differently without having to apply complex hedge accounting provisions. The fair value option established by SFAS No. 159 permits all companies to choose to measure eligible items at fair value at specified election dates. At each subsequent reporting date, companies must report in earnings any unrealized gains and losses on items for which the fair value option has been elected. SFAS No. 159 is effective as of the beginning of a company’s first fiscal year that begins after November 15, 2007. Early adoption is permitted as of the beginning of a fiscal year that begins on or before November 15, 2007, provided the company also elects to apply the provisions of SFAS No. 157,“Fair Value Measurements” (see below). We are currently evaluating whether to adopt the fair value option under SFAS No. 159 and evaluating what impact such adoption would have on our consolidated financial statements.

In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157,“Fair Value Measurements,” which defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in GAAP, and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. SFAS No. 157 applies under other accounting pronouncements that require or permit fair value measurements, the FASB having previously concluded in those accounting pronouncements that fair value is the relevant measurement attribute. SFAS No. 157 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007, and interim periods within those fiscal years. We are currently evaluating whether to adopt the fair value option under SFAS No. 157 and evaluating what impact such adoption would have on our consolidated financial statements.

In September 2006, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 108 (“SAB No. 108”), which adds Section N to Topic 1,“Financial Statements”.Section N provides guidance on the consideration of the effects of prior year misstatements in quantifying current year misstatements for the purpose of a materiality assessment. To provide full disclosure, registrants electing not to restate prior periods should reflect the effects of initially applying the guidance in Topic 1N in their financial statements covering the first fiscal year ending after November 15, 2006. The adoption of SAB No. 108 did not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

In July 2006, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 48 (“FIN 48”),“Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes—an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109”.FIN 48 clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in income

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

taxes recognized in an enterprise’s financial statements in accordance with SFAS No. 109, “Accounting for Income Taxes.” FIN 48 prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement attribute for the financial statement recognition and measurement of a tax position taken or expected to be taken in a tax return. FIN 48 also provides guidance on derecognition, classification, interest and penalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosure and transition. FIN 48 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2006, and applies to all tax positions accounted for in accordance with SFAS No. 109. See Note 15,“Income Taxes,” for disclosure regarding the effect of FIN 48 on our consolidated financial statements.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Significant estimates incorporated into our consolidated financial statements include the estimated useful lives for depreciable and amortizable assets, the estimated allowance for doubtful accounts receivable, the estimated valuation allowance for deferred tax assets, certain tax liabilities, estimated cash flows in assessing the recoverability of long-lived assets asset impairments,and goodwill and related intangible assets, share-based payment valuation assumptions, fair valuevalues of derivative instruments, fair values of acquired assets and liabilities, property closure costs, our self-insured liability reserves, slot bonus point programs, contingencies and litigation, claims and assessments. Actual results could differ from these estimates.

ReclassificationsRecently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

Certain priorIn December 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position (“FSP”) FAS 140-4 and FIN 46(R)-8,Disclosures by Public Entities (Enterprises) about Transfers of Financial Assets and Interests in Variable Interest Entities. This FASB FSP amends SFAS No. 140,Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities, to require public entities to provide additional disclosures about transfers of financial assets. It also amends FASB Interpretation No. 46 (R),Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, to require public enterprises, including sponsors that have a variable interest in a variable interest entity, to provide additional disclosures about their involvement with variable interest entities. Additionally, this FSP requires certain disclosures to be provided by a public enterprise that is (a) a sponsor of a qualifying special purpose entity (“SPE”) that holds a variable interest in the qualifying SPE but was not the transferor of financial assets to the qualifying SPE, and (b) a servicer of a qualifying SPE that holds a significant variable interest in the qualifying SPE but was not the transferor of financial assets to the qualifying SPE. The disclosures required by this FSP are intended to provide greater transparency to financial statement users about a transferor’s continuing involvement with transferred financial assets and an enterprise’s involvement with variable interest entities and qualifying SPEs. This FSP is effective for the first reporting period ending after December 15, 2008, and shall apply for each annual and interim reporting period thereafter. We believe that the adoption of this FSP will not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In June 2008, the FASB issued FSP No. EITF 03-6-1,Determining Whether Instruments Granted In Share-Based Payment Transactions Are Participating Securities. This FSP concludes that those unvested share-based payment awards that contain non-forfeitable rights to dividends or dividend equivalents, whether paid or unpaid, are participating securities and must be included in the computation of both basic and diluted earnings per share (the two-class method). This FSP is effective during the three months ending March 31, 2009 and is to be applied on a retrospective basis to all periods presented. The issue is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years and interim periods within those fiscal years beginning January 1, 2009. The adoption of FSP No. EITF 03-6-1 will not have an impact on our consolidated financial statements, as our current share-based awards do not include dividend rights.

-63-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

In May 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No.162,Hierarchy of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“SFAS 162”). This statement is intended to improve financial reporting by identifying a consistent framework, or hierarchy, for selecting accounting principles to be used in preparing financial statements of nongovernmental entities that are presented in conformity with GAAP. This statement was effective November 15, 2008.We currently adhere to the hierarchy of GAAP as presented in SFAS 162, and the adoption is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In April 2008, the FASB issued FSP No. FAS 142-3,Determination of the Useful Life of Intangible Assets (“FSP 142-3”). FSP 142-3 amends the factors that should be considered in developing renewal or extension assumptions used to determine the useful life of a recognized intangible asset under SFAS No. 142,Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, and requires enhanced related disclosures. FSP 142-3 must be applied prospectively to all intangible assets acquired as of and subsequent to fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008. We believe that the adoption of FSP 142-3 will not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 161,Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities — An Amendment of FASB Statement No. 133 (“SFAS 161”). SFAS 161 requires enhanced qualitative disclosures about objectives and strategies for using derivatives, quantitative disclosures about fair value amounts of gains and losses on derivative instruments, and disclosures about credit-risk-related contingent features in derivative agreements. SFAS 161 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after November 15, 2008. We do not believe that the adoption of SFAS 161 will have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In February 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position No. FAS 157-2,Effective Date of FASB Statement No. 157, which defers the effective date of SFAS No. 157,Fair Value Measurements, (“SFAS 157”) to fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2008 for nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities, except for items that are recognized or disclosed at fair value in the financial statements on a recurring basis. Early adoption of SFAS 157 is permitted. We have applied SFAS 157 to recognize the liability related to our derivative instruments at fair value to consider the changes in the creditworthiness of the Company and our counterparties in determining any credit valuation adjustment.

In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 160,Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements – An Amendment of ARB No. 51 (“SFAS 160”). SFAS 160 establishes new accounting and reporting standards for the noncontrolling interest in a subsidiary and for the deconsolidation of a subsidiary. Specifically, this statement requires the recognition of a noncontrolling interest (minority interest) as equity in the consolidated financial statements includingand separate from the discontinued operations presentationparent’s equity. The amount of net income attributable to the noncontrolling interest will be included in consolidated net income on the face of the income statement. SFAS 160 clarifies that changes in a parent’s ownership in a subsidiary that do not result in deconsolidation are equity transactions if the parent retains its controlling financial interest. In addition, this statement requires that a parent recognize a gain or loss in net income when a subsidiary is deconsolidated. Such gain or loss will be measured using the fair value of the noncontrolling equity investment on the deconsolidation date. SFAS 160 also includes expanded disclosure requirements regarding the interests of the parent and its noncontrolling interest. SFAS No. 160 is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning on or after December 15, 2008. We do not believe that the adoption of SFAS 160 will have a material impact on our consolidated statements of operationsfinancial statements.

In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159,The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities (“SFAS 159”). SFAS 159 permits companies to choose to measure many financial instruments and certain other items at fair value. The objective is to improve financial reporting by providing companies with the opportunity to mitigate volatility in reported earnings caused by measuring related assets and liabilities helddifferently without having to apply complex hedge accounting provisions. The fair value option established by SFAS 159 permits all companies to choose to measure eligible items at fair value at specified election dates. At each subsequent reporting date, companies must report in earnings any unrealized gains and losses on items for sale relatedwhich the fair value option has been elected. SFAS 159 is effective as of the beginning of a company’s first fiscal year that begins after November 15, 2007. Early adoption is permitted as of the beginning of a fiscal year that begins on or before November 15, 2007, provided the company also elects to discontinued operationsapply the provisions of SFAS No. 157,Fair Value Measurements. We do not believe that the adoption of SFAS 159 will have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

A variety of proposed or otherwise potential accounting standards are currently under study by standard-setting organizations and certain regulatory agencies. Because of the tentative and preliminary nature of such proposed standards, we have not yet determined the effect, if any, that the implementation of such proposed standards would have on our consolidated balance sheets,financial statements.

-64-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

Reclassifications

Certain prior period amounts presented in our consolidated financial statements have been reclassified to conform to the December 31, 2007 presentation due to the sale of our South Coast Hotel and Casino on October 25, 2006, and the exchange of our Barbary Coast Hotel and Casino for certain real property on February 28, 2007.2008 presentation. These reclassifications had no effect on our net income as previously reported. For further information, see

Effective April 1, 2008, we reclassified the reporting of our Midwest and South segment to exclude the results of Dania Jai-Alai, our pari-mutuel jai alai facility, since it does not share similar economic characteristics with our other Midwest and South operations; therefore, the results of Dania Jai-Alai are included as part of the “Other” category. In addition, as of the same date, we reclassified the reporting of corporate expense to exclude it from our subtotal for Reportable Segment Adjusted EBITDA and include it as part of total other operating costs and expenses. Furthermore, corporate expense has been presented to include its portion of share-based compensation expense (see Note 11,17,“AssetsSegment Information). Due to the disposition of Barbary Coast and Liabilities Held for Sale—Discontinued Operations.”South Coast, the operating results from these two properties are classified as discontinued operations in our consolidated statements of operations and are excluded from our presentation in the Las Vegas Locals segment. All prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current presentation.

NOTE 2.—RESTRICTED CASH AND INVESTMENTS

Pursuant to our investment policy related to customer payments for advanced bookings with our Hawaii travel agency, we invest in certain financial instruments. Hawaii regulations require us to maintain a separate charter tour client trust account solely for the purpose of the travel agency’s charter tour business. Our investment policy generally allowed us to invest these restricted funds in investments with a maximum maturity of three years and with certain credit ratings as determined by specified rating agencies; however, in April 2007, we amended our investment policy to allow these restricted funds to be invested in investments that have a maximum maturity of 90 days.

At December 31, 2006, our restricted investments consisted of domestic fixed income U.S Treasury bonds. We have classified these investments as available for sale. The table below sets forth certain information about our restricted investments.

        Gross Unrealized  Market
Value
   Cost    Gains    Losses  
   (In thousands)

December 31, 2006

  $10,029    5    (174) $9,860
                  

We have classified the fair market value of these restricted investments on our accompanying consolidated balance sheet as current or long-term based upon the maturities of the investments. Investments maturing in less

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

than one year have been presented in prepaid expenses and other, while all other long-term investments have been presented in other assets. Net unrealized holding gains and losses have been recorded in other comprehensive income (loss), net of taxes, on the accompanying consolidated balance sheet.

During the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2005, we sold certain of our restricted investments and recorded restricted cash proceeds of approximately $8.6 million and $4.5 million respectively, which approximated our cost basis in these investments as determined by specific identification. There were no sales of our restricted investments during the year ended December 31, 2006.

NOTE 3.—PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT

Property and equipment consists of the following:following.

 

  Estimated Life
(Years)
  December 31,  Estimated Life
(Years)
  December 31,
  2007  2006  2008  2007
  (In thousands)     (In thousands)

Land

  —    $677,314  $261,428  —    $686,716  $677,314

Buildings and improvements

  10-40   1,829,335   1,939,611  10-40   1,863,998   1,829,335

Furniture and equipment

  3-10   790,451   718,647  3-10   834,391   790,451

Riverboats and barges

  10-40   166,287   165,362  10-40   168,427   166,287

Construction in progress

  —     241,241   95,556  —     820,818   241,241
                

Total

     3,704,628   3,180,604

Total property and equipment

     4,374,350   3,704,628

Less accumulated depreciation

     988,592   1,051,159     1,125,096   988,592
                

Property and equipment, net

    $2,716,036  $2,129,445    $3,249,254  $2,716,036
                

Major items included in construction in progress at December 31, 2008 and 2007 consisted principally of construction costs related to Echelon. In addition, land with a bookcarrying value of approximately $215$225 million at December 31, 2008 and 2007 is currently under development for Echelon.

In connection with the closing of the Stardust on November 1, 2006, we reevaluated the useful lives of all of the depreciable assets residing on the land associated withrelated to our Echelon development project including our corporate office building,on the Las Vegas Strip (see Note 7,Commitments and recorded an additional $11.2 million in accelerated depreciation related to these assets during 2006.Contingencies – Echelon).

NOTE 4.3. —INVESTMENTS IN AND ADVANCES TO UNCONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES, NET

Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa

We and MGM MIRAGE, through wholly-owned subsidiaries, each have a 50% interest in Marina District Development Holding Co., LLC (“Holding Company”). The Holding Company owns all the equity interests in Marina District Development Company, LLC, d.b.a. Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa. As the managing venturer, we are responsible for the day-to-day operations of Borgata, including the operation and improvement of the facility and business. Borgata employs a management team and full staff to perform these services for the property. We maintain the oversight responsibility for the operations, but do not directly operate Borgata. As such, we do not receive a management fee from Borgata. Borgata’s bank credit agreement is secured by substantially all of its real and personal property and is non-recourse to MGM MIRAGE and us.

-65-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—STATEMENTS — (Continued)

Summarized financial information of Borgata is as follows:follows.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET INFORMATION

 

  December 31,  December 31,
  2007  2006  2008  2007
  (In thousands)  (In thousands)

Assets

      

Current assets

  $136,145  $126,446  $110,279  $136,145

Property and equipment, net

   1,379,932   1,201,607   1,431,118   1,379,932

Other assets, net

   26,004   23,155   36,266   26,004
            

Total assets

  $1,542,081  $1,351,208  $1,577,663  $1,542,081
            

Liabilities and Member Equity

        

Current liabilities

  $131,719  $114,125  $103,534  $131,719

Long-term debt

   722,700   554,600   740,536   722,700

Other liabilities

   20,981   15,750   22,782   20,981

Member equity

   666,681   666,733   710,811   666,681
            

Total liabilities and member equity

  $1,542,081  $1,351,208  $1,577,663  $1,542,081
            

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS INFORMATION

 

   Year Ended December 31, 
   2007  2006  2005 
   (In thousands) 

Gaming revenue

  $748,649  $735,145  $696,965 

Non-gaming revenue

   286,030   273,879   247,740 
             

Gross revenues

   1,034,679   1,009,024   944,705 

Less promotional allowances

   196,036   195,759   180,722 
             

Net revenues

   838,643   813,265   763,983 

Expenses

   597,127   566,252   512,249 

Depreciation and amortization

   68,576   63,088   56,951 

Preopening expenses

   3,116   6,519   —   

Write-downs and other charges, net

   956   2,418   160 
             

Operating income

   168,868   174,988   194,623 
             

Interest and other expenses, net

   (31,194)  (23,271)  (24,738)

Benefit from income taxes

   3,658   2,116   1,303 
             

Total non-operating expenses

   (27,536)  (21,155)  (23,435)
             

Net income

  $141,332  $153,833  $171,188 
             

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

   Year Ended December 31, 
   2008  2007  2006 
   (In thousands) 

Gaming revenue

  $734,306  $748,649  $735,145 

Non-gaming revenue

   310,157   286,030   273,879 
             

Gross revenues

   1,044,463   1,034,679   1,009,024 

Less promotional allowances

   213,974   196,036   195,759 
             

Net revenues

   830,489   838,643   813,265 

Expenses

   633,353   597,127   566,252 

Depreciation and amortization

   76,096   68,576   63,088 

Preopening expenses

   5,570   3,116   6,519 

Write-downs and other charges, net

   162   956   2,418 
             

Operating income

   115,308   168,868   174,988 
             

Interest and other expenses, net

   (29,049)  (31,194)  (23,271)

Benefit from (provision for) state income taxes

   (2,970)  3,658   2,116 
             

Total non-operating expenses

   (32,019)  (27,536)  (21,155)
             

Net income

  $83,289  $141,332  $153,833 
             

Our share of Borgata’s results has been included in our accompanying consolidated statements of operations for the following periods on the following lines:

 

  Year Ended December 31,   Year Ended December 31, 
  2007 2006 2005   2008 2007 2006 
  (In thousands)   (In thousands) 

Our share of Borgata’s operating income

  $84,434  $87,494  $97,312   $57,654  $84,434  $87,494 

Net amortization expense related to our investment in Borgata

   (1,298)  (1,298)  (1,298)   (1,298)  (1,298)  (1,298)
                    

Our share of Borgata’s operating income, as reported

  $83,136  $86,196  $96,014   $56,356  $83,136  $86,196 
                    

Our share of Borgata’s non-operating expenses, net

  $(13,768) $(10,577) $(11,718)  $(16,009) $(13,768) $(10,577)
                    

-66-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

Borgata Tax Credits. Based on New Jersey state income tax rules, Borgata is eligible for a refundable state tax credit under the New Jersey New Jobs Investment Tax Credit (“New Jobs Tax Credit”) because it made a qualified investment in a new business facility that created new jobs. The total net credit related to Borgata’s original investment was approximately $75 million over a five-year period that ended in 2007. An incrementalIncremental net creditcredits related to Borgata’s public space expansion isand The Water Club are estimated to be approximately $2.7$8.4 million and $5.2 million, respectively, over a five-year periodperiods ending in 2010.2010 and 2012, respectively. Borgata recorded $5.0 million, $17.4 million $16.9 million and $18.7$16.9 million, respectively, of net New Jobs Tax Credits in arriving at its state income tax benefit (provision) for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 2006 and 2005.2006. Borgata expects to generate net New Jobs Tax Credits of approximately $0.6$2.7 million per annum for the years 2008 through 2010. Borgata may also be entitled to incremental New Jobs Tax Credits as a result of its second hotel project, The Water Club, which is expected to be completed in June 2008.2009 and 2010 and $1.0 million per annum for the years 2011 and 2012.

Borgata Expansions. Borgata completed its $200 million public space expansion in June 2006 which added both gaming and non-gaming amenities, including additional slot machines, table games, poker tables, restaurants and a nightclub.

Borgata is in the process of its second expansion that will add aOn June 27, 2008, Borgata’s second hotel, The Water Club, which will includeheld its grand opening. The Water Club is an 800-room hotel, featuring five swimming pools, a state-of-the-art spa, and additional meeting roomand retail space. This expansion project is estimated to cost approximately $400 million. Borgata expects to financefinanced the expansion from its cash flowflows from operations and from its bank credit agreement. We do not expect to make further capital contributions to Borgata for this project.facility.

On September 23, 2007, The Water Club sustained a fire that caused damage to property with a carrying value of approximately $11.4 million in property damage, based on current estimates.million. Borgata carries insurance policies that its management believes will cover most of the replacement costs related to the property damage, with the exception of minor amounts principally related to insurance deductibles and certain other limitations. During 2007,As of December 31, 2008, Borgata incurred $0.3 million of expenseshas received insurance advances related to property damage totaling $22.4 million. Borgata has recorded a deferred gain of $11.1 million on its consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2008, representing the fire. Althoughamount of insurance advances related to property damage in excess of the $11.3 million net carrying value of assets damaged or destroyed by the fire damage will delay(after its opening, Borgata currently believes$0.1 million deductible). The Water Club will be able to open in June 2008; however, no assurances can be madedeferred gain, and any other deferred gain that it will open by that time, thatmay arise from further advances from insurance will cover the total replacement cost of the property damage, or that the costsrecoveries related to the property damage, will not increase above current estimates.be recognized on its consolidated statement of operations until final settlement with its insurance carrier. In addition, Borgata has “delay-in-completion” insurance coverage for The Water Club for certain costs, totaling up to $40 million, subject to various limitations and deductibles, which Borgata believes may help to offset some of the costs related to the postponement of its opening. In addition, Borgata maintains business interruption insurance that covers certain lost profits; however, Borgata has not pursued a possible claim at this time. As such, Borgata’s insurance carrier has yet to confirm or deny coverage. Recoveries, if any, from the insurance carrier for lost profits will be recorded bywhen realized. The management of Borgata when earned and realized. As of December 31, 2007, Borgata had received $7 million in advances fromcontinues to work with its insurance carrier.

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

carrier on the scope of the claims and can provide no assurance with respect to the ultimate resolution of these matters.

Borgata Distributions. Borgata began distributions of its earnings to us in 2005 and distributed a total of $70.6 million, $82.6 million and $29.3 million in 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively. Both the joint venture agreement related to Borgata and Borgata’s amended bank credit agreement allowallows for certain limited distributions to be made to its partners. In FebruaryOur distributions from Borgata were $19.6 million, $70.6 million and $82.6 million in 2008, 2007 and 2006, Borgata amended its bank credit agreement, which increased the amount of allowable distributions to us.respectively. Borgata has significant uses for its cash flows, including maintenance and expansion capital expenditures, interest payments, state income taxes, and debt principal payments.the repayment of debt. Borgata’s cash flows are primarily used for its business needs and are not generally available, (exceptexcept to the extent those distributions are paid to us)us, in order to service our indebtedness. In addition, Borgata’s amended bank credit facility contains certain covenants, including, without limitation, various covenants (i) requiring the maintenance of a minimum required fixed-charge coverage ratio, (ii) establishing a maximum permitted total leverage ratio, (iii) imposing limitations on the incurrence of additional secured indebtedness, and (iv) imposing restrictions on investments, dividends and certain other payments. In the event that Borgata fails to comply with its covenants, it may be prevented from making any distributions to us during such period of noncompliance.

Other Unconsolidated Entities

In January 2006, we formedWe have a 50/50 joint venture with Morgans to develop two hotel properties, the Delano Las Vegas and the Mondrian Las Vegas at Echelon. We will contribute approximately 6.1 acrescurrently account for the joint venture under the equity method, as we are not the primary beneficiary of land and Morgans will ultimately contribute approximately $91.5 million to the venture. The expected cost of the project, including the land, is estimated to be approximately $950 million; however, we can provide no assurances that the estimated cost will approximate the actual cost.this entity under FIN 46(R). As of December 31, 20072008 and 2006,2007, our net investment in and advances to the Morgans joint venture were $17.9 million and $13.1 million, respectively. See Note 7,Commitments and $3.0 million, respectively,Contingencies, for a discussion regarding the September 2008 amendment to this joint venture and are presentedthe potential for an impairment charge related to our investment in investments in and advances to unconsolidated subsidiaries, net, on our consolidated balance sheets.the event that the joint venture is dissolved.

We alsoIn addition, we have a one-third investment in Tunica Golf Course, L.L.C. (d.b.a. River Bend Links) located in Tunica, Mississippi. We account for our share of the golf course’s net loss under the equity method of accounting. At December 31, 20072008 and 2006,2007, our net investment in and advances to the golf course were $0.4$0.1 million and $0.6$0.4 million, respectively, and are presented in investments in and advances to unconsolidated subsidiaries, net, on the accompanyingour consolidated balance sheets.

-67-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

The following table reconciles our investments in and advances to our unconsolidated subsidiaries.

 

  December 31,   December 31, 
  2007   2006   2008 2007 
  (In thousands)   (In thousands) 

Investment in and advances to Borgata (50%):

     

Cash contributions

  $254,157   $254,157   $254,157  $254,157 

Accumulated amortization of 50% of our unilateral equity contribution

   (1,540)   (1,155)   (1,925)  (1,540)

Deferred gain on sale of asset to Borgata, net

   (360)   (383)   (336)  (360)

Capitalized interest, net

   33,219    34,155    32,283   33,219 

Equity income

   277,220    206,554    318,865   277,220 

Distributed earnings

   (182,512)   (111,941)   (202,091)  (182,512)

Other advances, net

   (44)   805    369   (44)
               

Net investment in Borgata

   380,140    382,192    401,322   380,140 

Investment in and advances to Morgans Las Vegas, LLC (50%)

   13,105    2,966    17,929   13,105 

Investment in and advances to Tunica Golf Course, L.L.C. (33.3%)

   371    593    138   371 
               

Total investments in and advances to unconsolidated subsidiaries, net

  $393,616   $385,751   $419,389  $393,616 
               

Our net investment in Borgata differs from our share of the underlying equity in Borgata. In 2004, pursuant to an agreement with MGM MIRAGE related to the funding of Borgata’s project costs, we made a unilateral capital contribution to Borgata of approximately $31 million. We are ratably amortizing $15.4 million (50% of the unilateral contribution, which corresponds to our ownership percentage of Borgata) over 40 years. Also,

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

during Borgata’s initial development, construction and preopening phases, we capitalized the interest on our investment and are ratably amortizing our capitalized interest over 40 years. Additionally, we are ratably accreting a $0.4 million deferred gain related to the sale of our airplane to Borgata over the airplane’s remaining useful life.

NOTE 5.4. —INTANGIBLE ASSETS AND GOODWILL

During 2007, we acquired Dania Jai-Alai (see Note 12,“Acquisition of Dania Jai-Alai”) and in 2004, we acquired Sam’s Town Shreveport and Coast Casinos. In connection with those transactions, we recorded significant amounts of intangible assets and goodwill that are included in the tables below. In 2005, as further described below, we wrote-down Delta Downs’ license rights by $25.4 million.

Intangible assets consist of the following:following.

 

  December 31,  December 31,
  2007    2006  2008  2007
  (In thousands)  

(In thousands)

Las Vegas Locals trademarks

  $50,700  $50,700

Las Vegas Locals customer lists

   300   300

Midwest and South license rights

  $521,217    $486,064   405,365   521,217

Midwest and South customer lists

   100     100   100   100

Las Vegas Locals trademarks

   50,700     54,400

Las Vegas Locals customer lists

   300     350
              

Total intangible assets

   572,317     540,914   456,465   572,317

Less accumulated amortization:

          

License rights

   33,939     33,939   33,939   33,939

Customer lists

   283     225   363   283
              

Total accumulated amortization

   34,222     34,164   34,302   34,222
              

Intangible assets, net

  $538,095    $506,750  $422,163  $538,095
              

-68-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

The following table sets forth the change in our intangible assets, net during the years ended December 31, 20072008 and 20062007 (in thousands):.

 

Balance as of January 1, 2006

  $506,838 

Amortization expense

   (88)
    

Balance as of December 31, 2006

   506,750 

Intangible license right from Dania Jai-Alai acquisition (see Note 12)

   35,153 

Balance as of January 1, 2007

  $506,750 

Intangible license right from Dania Jai-Alai acquisition (see Note 11)

   35,153 

Write-off of Barbary Coast trademark

   (3,700)   (3,700)

Write-off of Barbary Coast customer list, net

   (28)   (28)

Amortization expense

   (80)   (80)
        

Balance as of December 31, 2007

  $538,095    538,095 

Finalization of Dania Jai-Alai purchase price allocation (see Note 11)

   46,648 

Write-off of Dania Jai-Alai intangible license right (see Note 9 and Note 11)

   (81,800)

Write-down of Blue Chip gaming license right (see Note 9)

   (80,700)

Amortization expense

   (80)
        

Balance as of December 31, 2008

  $422,163 
    

License rights are intangible assets acquired from the purchase of gaming entities that are located in gaming jurisdictions where competition is limited to a specified number of licensed gaming operators. License rights and trademarks are not subject to amortization as we have determined that they have an indefinite useful life.

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

Customer lists are being ratably amortized over a five-year period. For each of the years ended December 31, 20072008 and 2006,2007, amortization expense for the customer lists was less than $0.1 million. For eachthe year in the period ending December 31, 2009, amortization expense related to the customer lists is expected to be approximately $0.1 million, at which time the assets are expected to be fully amortized.

Included in intangible assets, net, on our consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2006, is the Barbary Coast trademark with a carrying value of $3.7 million. This trademark was excluded from the February 27, 2007 exchange transaction pursuant to the terms of the Exchange Agreement entered into between Coast Hotels and Casinos, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, and Harrah’s Operating Company, Inc., a subsidiary of Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc., or Harrah’s, (see Note 11,“Asset and Liabilities Held for Sale—Discontinued Operations: Barbary Coast”for information related to the transaction); however, as we do not have any intended future use for this trademark, it was written off during 2007 upon the completion of the exchange transaction, as the underlying cash flows of the Barbary Coast would no longer support its carrying value.

In September 2004, the Emerging Issues Task Force (“EITF”), of the FASB issued EITF D-108, “Use of the Residual Method to Value Acquired Assets Other Than Goodwill,” which requires the application of the direct value method for intangible assets acquired in business combinations completed after September 29, 2004. In addition, EITF D-108 requires companies that have applied the residual method to the valuation of intangible assets acquired prior to such date for purposes of impairment testing to perform an impairment test using the direct value method beginning with their fiscal year beginning after December 15, 2004. Impairments of intangible assets recognized upon application of the direct value method should be reported as a cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle.

We have utilized a residual cash flow methodology in performing our annual impairment tests for all of our indefinite-lived intangible assets acquired prior to 2004. Beginning with the transition testing in 2005, as well as annually thereafter, we utilize the direct value method to perform our impairment tests on such indefinite-lived intangible assets. Effective January 1, 2005, we completed this transition testing for all of our intangible license rights and determined that the fair value of our Delta Downs intangible license right was less than its book value. Accordingly, for the year ended December 31, 2005, we recorded a non-cash charge of $25.4 million, $16.4 million net of taxes, to reduce the balance of this asset to its fair value. This charge has been reflected as a cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle, net of taxes, in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations.

Goodwill represents the excess of total acquisition costs over the fair market value of net assets acquired in a business combination and consists of the following:

 

  December 31,  December 31,
  2007  2006  2008  2007
  (In thousands)  (In thousands)

Las Vegas Locals goodwill

  $381,024  $381,024  $212,713  $381,024

Downtown Las Vegas goodwill

   6,997   6,997   6,997   6,997

Midwest and South goodwill

   22,319   22,319   —     22,319
            

Total goodwill

   410,340   410,340   219,710   410,340

Less accumulated amortization

   6,134   6,134   6,134   6,134
            

Goodwill, net

  $404,206  $404,206  $213,576  $404,206
            

The following table sets forth the change in our goodwill, net, during the year ended December 31, 2008 (in thousands).

Balance as of January 1, 2008

  $404,206 

Resolution of Coast Casinos, Inc. acquisition tax reserves (see Note 14)

   (2,832)

Write-down of Coast Casinos, Inc. goodwill

   (165,479)

Write-down of Sam’s Town Shreveport goodwill

   (22,319)
     

Balance as of December 31, 2008

  $213,576 
     

Asset Impairment Testing

We have significant amounts of goodwill and indefinite-life intangible assets on our consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2008 and 2007. In accordance with SFAS No. 142,Goodwill and indefinite-livedOther Intangible Assets,we perform an annual impairment test of these assets must be testedin the second quarter of each year, which resulted in no impairment charge for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006.

-69-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

In addition, we are required to test these assets for impairment at least annually and between annual test dates in certain circumstances. We performAs of December 31, 2008, we performed interim impairment tests that resulted in a $165.5 million and $22.3 million non-cash write-down of goodwill related to our annual2004 acquisitions of Coast Casinos, Inc. and Sam’s Town Shreveport, respectively, and an $80.7 million non-cash write-down of our indefinite-life gaming license right at Blue Chip. The impairment test for these assets was principally due to the decline in our stock price that caused our book value to exceed our market capitalization, which was an indication that these assets may not be recoverable. The primary reason for these impairment charges relates to the ongoing recession, which has caused us to reduce our estimates for projected cash flows, has reduced overall industry valuations, and has caused an increase in discount rates in the credit and equity markets.

The impairment test for goodwill included the income, market and cost approaches, as applicable. The income approach incorporated the use of the discounted cash flow method, whereas the market approach incorporated the use of the guideline company method. In the valuation of the indefinite-lived assets, in the second quarter of each year. No impairments were indicated as a result ofincome approach was applied, which utilized the annual impairment reviews for

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

goodwillrelief from royalty and indefinite-lived assets for 2007, 2006 or 2005. During 2005, we performed impairment tests on our license rights at Treasure Chest and Delta Downs pursuant to triggering events related to hurricanes. For more information, see Note 10,“Write-Downs and Other Charges, Net – Hurricane and Related Items.”multi-period excess earnings methods.

NOTE 6.5. —LONG-TERM DEBT

Long-term debt consists of the following:following.

 

   December 31, 
   2007  2006 
   (In thousands) 

Bank credit facility

  $1,352,900  $973,300 

8.75% Senior Subordinated Notes Due 2012

   —     250,000 

7.75% Senior Subordinated Notes Due 2012

   300,000   300,000 

6.75% Senior Subordinated Notes Due 2014

   350,000   350,000 

7.125% Senior Subordinated Notes Due 2016

   250,000   250,000 

Other

   13,658   14,160 
         

Total long-term debt

   2,266,558   2,137,460 

Less current maturities

   (629)  (5,550)

Market value adjustment related to interest rate swaps

   —     1,106 
         

Total

  $2,265,929  $2,133,016 
         

In connection with our fair value hedging transaction, as of December 31, 2006 we increased the carrying value of certain of our long-term debt instruments by $1.1 million and also recorded a corresponding asset on the accompanying consolidated balance sheet, representing the fair market value of the derivative instrument at that date.

   December 31, 
   2008  2007 
   (In thousands) 

Bank credit facility

  $1,881,115  $1,352,900 

7.75% Senior Subordinated Notes Due 2012

   203,530   300,000 

6.75% Senior Subordinated Notes Due 2014

   300,000   350,000 

7.125% Senior Subordinated Notes Due 2016

   250,000   250,000 

Other

   13,029   13,658 
         

Total debt outstanding

   2,647,674   2,266,558 

Less current maturities

   (616)  (629)
         

Total long-term debt

  $2,647,058  $2,265,929 
         

Bank Credit Facility

On May 24, 2007, we entered into a $4.0 billion revolving bank credit facility that matures on May 24, 2012. The bank credit facility may be increased atupon our request, by up to an aggregate of $1.0 billion, if certain commitments are obtained. The interest rate on the bank credit facility is based upon, at our option, the LIBOR rate or the “base rate,” plus, in each case, an applicable margin in either case.margin. The applicable margin is a percentage per annum (which ranges from 0.625% to 1.625% if we elect to use the LIBOR rate, and 0.0% to 0.375% if we elect to use the base rate) determined in accordance with a specified pricing grid based upon our predefined total leverage ratio. In addition, we incur commitment fees on the unused portion of the bank credit facility that range from 0.200% to 0.350% per annum. The bank credit facility is guaranteed by our material subsidiaries and is secured by the capital stock of those subsidiaries.

The blended interest rates for outstanding borrowings under our bank credit facility at December 31, 2008 and 2007 were 2.9% and 2006 were 6.0% and 6.8%, respectively. At December 31, 2007,2008, approximately $1.4$1.9 billion was outstanding under our revolving credit facility, with $12.4$29.9 million allocated to support various letters of credit, leaving availability under the bank credit facility of approximately $2.6$2.1 billion.

The bank credit facility contains certain financial and other covenants, including various covenants (i) requiring the maintenance of a minimum consolidated interest coverage ratio of 2.00 to 1.00, (ii) establishing a maximum permitted consolidated total leverage ratio (discussed below), (iii) imposing limitations on the incurrence of indebtedness, (iv) imposing limitations on transfers, sales and other dispositions, and (v) imposing restrictions on investments, dividends and certain other payments. Management believes that

-70-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

The maximum permitted Total Leverage Ratio is calculated as Consolidated Funded Indebtedness to twelve-month trailing Consolidated EBITDA (all capitalized terms are defined in the bank credit facility). The following table provides our maximum Total Leverage Ratio during the remaining term of the bank credit facility.

Four Fiscal Quarters Ending

Maximum Total
Leverage Ratio

December 31, 2008

6.00 to 1.00

March 31, 2009 through December 31, 2009

6.50 to 1.00

March 31, 2010

6.75 to 1.00

June 30, 2010

7.00 to 1.00

September 30, 2010

7.25 to 1.00

December 31, 2010

7.50 to 1.00

March 31, 2011

6.50 to 1.00

June 30, 2011 and each quarter thereafter

5.25 to 1.00

We believe we are in compliance with the bank credit facility covenants at December 31, 2007.2008, which includes the Total Leverage Ratio covenant, which is 5.65 to 1.00 at December 31, 2008. During 2009, assuming our current level of Consolidated Funded Indebtedness remains constant, we estimate that a 13% or greater decline in our twelve-month trailing Consolidated EBITDA, as compared to 2008, would cause us to exceed our maximum Total Leverage Ratio covenant for that period. However, in the event that we project that our Consolidated EBITDA may decline by 13% or more, we could implement certain actions in an effort to minimize the possibility of a breach of the Total Leverage Ratio covenant. These actions may include, among others, reducing payroll and certain other operating costs, deferring or eliminating certain maintenance, expansion or other capital expenditures, reducing our outstanding indebtedness through repurchases or redemption, selling assets or issuing equity.

The bank credit facility replaced our previous $1.85 billion bank credit facility. We recorded a $4.4 million non-cash loss on the early retirementretirements of debt during 2007 for the write-off of unamortized debt fees associated with our former bank credit facility.

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

7.75% Senior Subordinated Notes due December 2012. On December 30, 2002, we issued $300 million principal amount of 7.75% senior subordinated notes due December 2012. The notes require semi-annual interest payments on June 15th15 and December 15th15 of each year, that began in June 2003 and will continue through December 2012, at which time the entire principal balance becomes due and payable. The notes contain certain restrictive covenants regarding, among other things, incurrence of debt, sales of assets, mergers and consolidations, and limitations on restricted payments (as defined in the indenture governing the notes). We believe that we are in compliance with these covenants as ofat December 31, 2007.2008. After December 15, 2007, we may redeem all or a portion of the notes at redemption prices (expressed as percentages of the principal amount) ranging from 103.875% in 2007 to 100% in 2010 and thereafter, plus accrued and unpaid interest.

During the year ended December 31, 2008, we purchased and retired $96.5 million principal amount of our 7.75% senior subordinated notes due December 2012. The total purchase price of the notes was approximately $83.6 million, resulting in a gain of approximately $11.9 million, net of associated deferred financing fees, which is recorded on our consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2008. The transactions were funded by availability under our bank credit facility. There were no such transactions during years ended December 31, 2007 or 2006.

6.75% Senior Subordinated Notes due April 2014. On April 15, 2004, we issued, through a private placement, $350 million principal amount of 6.75% senior subordinated notes due April 2014. In July 2004, all, butexcept for $50,000 in aggregate principal amount of these notes, were exchanged for substantially similar notes that were registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The notes require semi-annual interest payments on April 15 and October 15 of each year, that began in October 2004 and will continue through April 2014, at which time the entire principal balance becomes due and payable. The notes contain certain restrictive covenants regarding, among other things, incurrence of debt, sales of assets, mergers and consolidations, and limitations on restricted payments (as defined in the indenture governing the notes). We believe that we are in compliance with these covenants as ofat December 31, 2007.2008. After April 15, 2009, we may redeem all or a portion of the notes at redemption prices (expressed as percentages of the principal amount) ranging from 103.375% in 2009 to 100% in 2012 and thereafter, plus accrued and unpaid interest.

-71-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

During the year ended December 31, 2008, we purchased and retired $50.0 million principal amount of our 6.75% senior subordinated notes due April 2014. The total purchase price of the notes was approximately $32.9 million, resulting in a gain of approximately $16.6 million, net of associated deferred financing fees, which is recorded on our consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2008. The transactions were funded by availability under our bank credit facility. There were no such transactions during years ended December 31, 2007 or 2006.

7.125% Senior Subordinated Notes due February 2016.On January 30, 2006, we issued $250 million principal amount of 7.125% senior subordinated notes due February 2016. The net proceeds of this debt issuance were approximately $246 million, which were used to repay a portion of the outstanding borrowings on the revolving portion of our bank credit facility. The notes require semi-annual interest payments on February 1st1 and August 1st1 of each year, that began in August 2006 and will continue through February 2016, at which time the entire principal balance becomes due and payable. The notes contain certain restrictive covenants regarding, among other things, incurrence of debt, sales of assets, mergers and consolidations, and limitations on restricted payments (as defined in the indenture governing the notes). We believe that we are in compliance with these covenants as ofat December 31, 2007.2008. At any time prior to February 1, 2009, we may redeem up to 35% of the aggregate principal amount of the outstanding notes with the net proceeds from one or more public equity offerings at a redemption price of 107.125% of the principal amount, plus accrued and unpaid interest, subject to certain conditions. At any time prior to February 1, 2011, we may redeem the notes, in whole or in part, pursuant to a “make-whole” call as provided in the indenture governing the notes, plus accrued and unpaid interest. On or after February 1, 2011, we may redeem all or a portion of the notes at redemption prices (expressed as percentages of the principal amount) ranging from 103.563% in 2011 to 100% in 2014 and thereafter, plus accrued and unpaid interest.

8.75% Senior Subordinated Notes Originally due April 2012. On April 16, 2007, we redeemed our $250 million principal amount of 8.75% senior subordinated notes that were originally due to mature in April 2012 at a redemption price of $1,043.75 per $1,000.00 principal amount of notes. The redemption was funded by availability under our former bank credit facility. In connection with the redemption of these notes, we terminated our $50 million notional amount fixed-to-floating interest rate swap. During 2007, we recorded a $12.5 million loss on the early retirement of these notes and the related interest rate swap of $12.5 million.swap.

9.25% Senior Notes Originally due August 2009. On August 1, 2005, we redeemed all $200 million principal amount of our 9.25% senior notes originally due in 2009 at a redemption price of $1.046.25 per $1,000.00 principal amount of notes. The redemption was funded by availability under our bank credit facility. A loss on the early retirement of debt of $17.5 million, comprised of the premium related to the call for redemption of

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

these notes, unamortized deferred loan costs for the notes and the notes’ market adjustments from fair value hedges, was recorded on our consolidated statement of operations during 2005.

Other Debt. In November 2004, in connection with the acquisition of certain real estate, we assumed a mortgage with a balance of $15.8 million that was secured by the real property. The mortgage was payable in equal monthly installments of principal and interest at the rate of 8.8% per annum through May 1, 2007, when the remaining balance was to become due and payable. We paid the remaining balance of approximately $15.4 million in October 2006.

In February 2003, we issued a note in the amount of $16 million to finance the purchase of a company airplane. The note bears interest at the rate of 5.7% per annum. The note is payable in 120 equal monthly installments of principal and interest until March 2013, when the remaining balance becomes due and payable. The note is secured by the airplane.

The estimated fair value of our long-term debt at December 31, 2008 was approximately $1.7 billion, versus its book value of $2.6 billion. The estimated fair value of our long-term debt at December 31, 2007 was approximately $2.2 billion, versus its book value of $2.3 billion. The estimated fair value of our long-term debt at December 31, 2006 was approximately $2.2 billion, versus its book value of $2.1 billion. The estimated fair value amounts were based on quoted market prices on or about December 31, 20072008 and 20062007 for our debt securities that are traded. For the debt securities that are not traded, fair value was based on book value due primarily to the short maturities of the debt components.

The scheduled maturities of our long-term debt for the years ending December 31 are as follows (in thousands):

 

2008

  $629

2009

   616  $616

2010

   652   652

2011

   690   690

2012

   1,653,630   2,085,375

2013

   10,341

Thereafter

   610,341   550,000
      

Total

  $2,266,558  $2,647,674
      

-72-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

NOTE 7.6. —DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS AND OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)

GAAP requires all derivative instruments to be recognized on the balance sheet at fair value. Derivatives that are not designated as hedges for accounting purposes must be adjusted to fair value through income. We have designated our current interest rate swaps as cash flow hedges and measure their effectiveness using the long-haul method. If the derivative qualifies and is designated as a hedge, depending on the nature of the hedge, changes in its fair value will either be offset against the change in fair value of the hedged item through earnings or recognized in other comprehensive income (loss) until the hedged item is recognized in earnings. The effective portion of any gain or loss on our interest rate swaps is recorded in other comprehensive income (loss). We use the hypothetical derivative method to measure the ineffective portion of our interest rate swaps. The ineffective portion of a derivative’s change in fair value will be immediately recognized in earnings.

We utilize derivative instruments to manage certain interest rate risk. The net effect of our floating-to-fixed interest rate swaps resulted in a reductionan increase in interest expense of $5.2 million during the year ended December 31, 2008, and reductions in interest expense of $3.5 million and $2.2 million, and $0.5 million, respectively, as compared to the contractual rate of the underlying hedged debt for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, and 2005.

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

respectively.

The following tables reporttable reports the effects of the changes in the mark-to-market valuations of our derivative instruments:instruments.

 

   Year Ended December 31, 
   2007  2006  2005 
   (In thousands) 

Net gains (losses) from cash flow hedges from:

    

Change in value of derivatives excluded from the assessment of hedge ineffectiveness

  $(3,546) $(1,801) $—   

Net gain from ineffective portion of change in value of cash flow hedges

   2,416   —     —   
             

Decrease in value of derivative instruments, as reported on our consolidated statements of operations

  $(1,130) $(1,801) $—   
             

Derivative instruments market adjustment

  $(23,001) $558  $8,539 

Tax effect of derivative instruments market adjustment

   8,274   (200)  (3,199)
             

Net derivative instruments market adjustment, as reported on our consolidated statements of changes in stockholders’ equity

  $(14,727) $358  $5,340 
             
   Year Ended December 31, 
   2008  2007  2006 
   (In thousands) 

Net gains (losses) from cash flow hedges from:

     

Change in value of derivatives excluded from the assessment of hedge ineffectiveness

  $—    $(3,546) $(1,801)

Ineffective portion of change in value of cash flow hedges

   425   2,416   —   
             

Increase (decrease) in value of derivative instruments, as reported on our consolidated statements of operations

  $425  $(1,130) $(1,801)
             

The following table reports the effects of the changes in the fair valuations of our derivative instruments.

   Year Ended December 31, 
   2008  2007  2006 
   (In thousands) 

Derivative instruments fair value adjustment

  $(14,221) $(23,001) $558 

Tax effect of derivative instruments fair value adjustment

   5,118   8,274   (200)
             

Net derivative instruments fair value adjustment, as reported on our consolidated statements of changes in stockholders’ equity

  $(9,103) $(14,727) $358 
             

A portion of the net derivative instruments market adjustment included in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)loss, net, at December 31, 20072008 relates to certain derivative instruments that we de-designated as cash flow hedges in connection with breaking certain LIBOR contracts under our previous bank credit facility (see Note 6,“Long-term Debt”).during the three months ended June 30, 2007. As a result, we expect $2.1 million of deferred net gain included in other comprehensive income (loss) at December 31, 2007 related to these derivative instruments, included in accumulated other comprehensive loss, net, at December 31, 2008, will be accreted as a reduction of interest expense on our consolidated statementstatements of operations during the next twelve months.

AtIn addition, at December 31, 2008 and 2007, we were a party to four floating-to-fixed interest rate swaps which wereswap agreements with an aggregate notional amount of $750 million, whereby we receive payments based upon the three-month LIBOR and make payments based upon a stipulated fixed rate. These derivative instruments are accounted for as cash flow hedges. Our bank credit facilityWe have partially adopted SFAS 157,Fair Value Measurements (see Note 1,Summary of Significant Accounting Policies), which applies to all assets and liabilities that are being measured and reported on a fair value basis. SFAS 157 requires enhanced disclosures about investments that are measured and reported at fair value. SFAS 157 establishes a hierarchal disclosure framework that prioritizes and ranks the level of market price observability used in measuring investments at fair value. Market price observability is impacted by a number of factors, including the underlying debt associatedtype of investment and the characteristics specific to the investment. Investments with these interest rate swaps. The principal terms of these interest rate swaps at December 31, 2007 are as follows:readily available active quoted prices or for which fair value can be measured from actively

 

Effective
Date

  Notional
Amount
  Fair Value
Liability
  Maturity
Date
(In thousands)

September 28, 2007

  $100,000  $4,073  June 30, 2011

September 28, 2007

   200,000   8,156  June 30, 2011

September 28, 2007

   250,000   3,025  June 30, 2009

June 30, 2008

   200,000   7,404  June 30, 2011
          
  $750,000  $22,658  
          

-73-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—STATEMENTS — (Continued)

quoted prices generally will have a higher degree of market price observability and a lesser degree of judgment used in measuring fair value. This statement requires that assets and liabilities carried at fair value will be classified and disclosed in one of the following categories:

At December 31, 2006, we were a party to eight

Level 1: Quoted market prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.

Level 2: Observable market-based inputs or unobservable inputs that are corroborated by market data.

Level 3: Unobservable inputs that are not corroborated by market data.

Our derivative instruments are classified as Level 2, as the LIBOR swap rate is observable at commonly quoted intervals for the full term of the interest rate swaps, seven of which were accounted for as cash flow hedges and one as a fair value hedge, and two interest rate collars. Our bank credit facility was the underlying debt associated with the cash flow hedges, while our $250 million principal amount of 8.75% senior subordinated notes was the underlying debt associated with the fair value hedge. The principal terms of these interest rate swaps at December 31, 2006 were as follows:swaps.

Effective
Date

  Notional
Amount
  Fair Value
Asset/(Liability)
  Termination
Date
      (In thousands)   

Fair Value Hedge

     

April 25, 2002

  $50,000  $1,106  April 16, 2007

Cash Flow Hedges

     

June 30, 2005

   50,000   1,380  July 31, 2007

June 30, 2005

   50,000   1,571  July 31, 2007

June 30, 2005

   50,000   1,380  July 31, 2007

June 30, 2005

   50,000   1,589  July 31, 2007

Interest Rate Collars

     

August 16, 2005

   50,000   323  July 31, 2007

August 16, 2005

   50,000   320  July 31, 2007

Cash Flow Hedges

     

June 30, 2008

   50,000   (133) July 31, 2007

June 30, 2008

   50,000   (123) July 31, 2007

June 30, 2008

   100,000   (1,546) July 31, 2007
          
  $550,000  $5,867  
          

We are exposed to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by the counterparties to our interest rate swap agreements; however, we believe that this risk is minimized because we monitor the credit ratings of the counterparties to the agreements. If we had terminated our interest rate swaps as of December 31, 2008 or December 31, 2007, we would have been required to pay a total of $47.9 million or $22.7 million, respectively, based on the fairmark-to-market values of thesesuch derivative instruments. If we had terminatedThe principal terms of our interest rate swaps at December 31, 2008 and 2007 are presented below (dollars in thousands).

Effective

Date

  Notional
Amount
  Fixed
Rate
Paid
  Fair Value of Liability
December 31,
  Maturity
Date
     2008 (a)  2007  

September 28, 2007

  $100,000  5.13% $6,097  $4,073  June 30, 2011

September 28, 2007

   200,000  5.14%  12,198   8,156  June 30, 2011

September 28, 2007

   250,000  4.62%  3,831   3,025  June 30, 2009

June 30, 2008

   200,000  5.13%  12,182   7,404  June 30, 2011
               
  $750,000   $34,308  $22,658  
               

(a)The fair value of our derivative instruments at December 31, 2008 incorporates $13.6 million of credit valuation adjustments to reflect the impact of the credit ratings of both the Company and our counterparties, based upon the market value of the credit default swaps of the respective parties, and reduces the fair value of our liability.

NOTE 7. — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

Echelon

On August 1, 2008, due to the difficult environment in the capital markets, as well as weak economic conditions, we announced the delay of our multibillion dollar Echelon development project on the Las Vegas Strip. Due to the continued deterioration in credit market conditions and the economic outlook, it is unlikely that we will resume construction in 2009. Nonetheless, we remain committed to having a meaningful presence on the Las Vegas Strip. Over the course of 2009, we intend to prepare alternative development options to consider for Echelon, which may include developing the project in phases, alternative capital structures for the project, scope modifications to the project, or additional strategic partnerships, among others. We can provide no assurances as to when, or if, construction will resume on the project, or if we will be able to obtain alternative sources of financing for the project.

As of December 31, 2008, we have incurred approximately $900 million in capitalized costs related to the Echelon project, including land. As part of our wind-down procedures related to the project, we expect to incur approximately $30 million of capitalized costs, principally related to the offsite fabrication of steel, during 2009.

��

-74-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

The following information summarizes the contingencies with respect to our various material commitments related to Echelon:

Morgans Las Vegas, LLC – On September 23, 2008, we amended our 50/50 joint venture with Morgans, which provided for the following:

(a)a potential future reduction of each member’s ownership interest in the joint venture, possibly through additional third party equity financing;

(b)a reduction in Morgan’s capital commitment and in Morgan’s and our future pro rata contribution obligations for predevelopment costs to $0.4 million for each member;

(c)an extension of the outside start date for the project to December 31, 2009;

(d)the right of each member to dissolve the joint venture and terminate the joint venture agreement upon twenty (20) days prior written notice at any time prior to the outside start date; and

(e)the deletion of Morgan’s construction loan guaranty and obligation to fund cost overruns related to the project.

In the event that the joint venture is dissolved, neither member will be entitled to the use of the architectural plans and designs for the Delano Las Vegas and the Mondrian Las Vegas projects; therefore, all or a portion of our investment in and advances to the joint venture ($17.9 million at December 31, 2008) may be subject to an impairment charge. Furthermore, pursuant to an earlier amendment to the joint venture agreement, Morgans deposited $30 million with us as an advance toward their original capital commitment to the venture. This deposit, plus accrued interest, was included in restricted cash and accrued expenses on our consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2007; however, the deposit was returned in conjunction with the amended joint venture agreement. The terms of the management agreement, which provided for a Morgans affiliate to operate the joint venture hotels upon completion, remain unchanged but, pursuant to its original terms, would be terminated in the event of a termination of the joint venture agreement.

Echelon Place Retail Promenade, LLC – On October 1, 2008, GGP exercised its right to require us to purchase its 50% membership interest in the joint venture, while retaining the right to re-enter the venture for one year, based upon the terms of the original joint venture agreement. We purchased GGP’s membership interest in October 2008 for $9.7 million, which represents the return of GGP’s capital contributions to the joint venture of $9.5 million, plus accrued interest. We retain all architectural plans and designs for the project.

Energy Services Agreement (“ESA”) – In April 2007, we entered into an ESA with a third party, Las Vegas Energy Partners, LLC (“LVE”). LVE will design, construct, own (other than the underlying real property which is leased from Echelon), and operate a central energy center and energy distribution system to provide electricity, emergency electricity generation, and chilled and hot water to Echelon and potentially other joint venture entities associated with the Echelon development project or other third parties. The term of the ESA is 25 years, beginning when Echelon commences commercial operations. Assuming the central energy center is completed and functions as planned, we will pay a monthly service fee, which is comprised of a fixed capacity charge, an escalating operations and maintenance charge, and an energy charge. The aggregate of our monthly fixed capacity charge portion of the service fee will be $23.4 million per annum, payable for a 25-year period commencing in November 2010.

The central energy center has currently suspended construction while Echelon delays its construction. The delay in construction of Echelon may change LVE’s construction cost of the central energy center. We have entered into negotiations with LVE regarding the change in construction cost expected to be incurred as a result of the delay, which may impact the fixed capacity charge portion of the service fee that begins in November 2010. However, we are unable to quantify the new fixed capacity charge portion of the service fee at this time, as the negotiations over the new terms are ongoing with LVE.

Line Extension and Service Agreement (“LEA”) – In March 2007, we entered into an LEA with Nevada Power Company (currently known as NV Energy) related to the construction of a substation at Echelon and the delivery of power to Echelon. We have assigned most of our obligations under the LEA to LVE (seeEnergy Services Agreement (“ESA”) above), but we have retained an obligation to pay liquidated damages of $5.0 million to NV Energy, in the event that Echelon does not commence commercial operations by January 1, 2012, as may be extended due to “force majeure” or other applicable events. This contingent liability will be recorded and charged to expense on our consolidated statement of operations when, or if, it becomes probable that we will have to make this payment.

-75-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

Shangri-La Hotel Management Agreement – In January 2006, we entered into a management agreement with a subsidiary of Shangri-La to manage Shangri-La Las Vegas, one of our three wholly-owned hotels at Echelon. Under the terms of the agreement, if the hotel does not commence commercial operations by June 2011, Shangri-La has the right to terminate the agreement and receive a termination fee of $3.0 million, which would have received a net totalbe charged to expense on our consolidated statement of $5.9 million based on the fair values of these derivative instruments.operations when, or if, Shangri-La exercises its termination right.

Borgata Derivative Instruments.Construction Agreements –We have exercised our rights under our standard form construction contracts to terminate our agreements with our contractors. With the exception of certain custom equipment orders, steel fabrication and crane and hoist rentals, all major construction agreements have been terminated and closed-out with final payments made to the contractors in exchange for final releases.

Design Agreements – We are continuing to evaluate design services that remain to be completed. The majority of our design agreements allow us either to suspend performance of the services under these agreements or to terminate these agreements. In addition, Borgata,each case, we would be required to pay only for those costs incurred through the date of suspension or termination as well as, in certain agreements, the payment for reasonable demobilization and other costs. Demobilization costs include the removal of rental equipment and the associated termination fees, among others. The demobilization and other costs are subject to negotiation; therefore, we are unable to estimate future costs at this time. We have estimated the cost of completion of construction drawings after December 31, 2008 to be between $5.5 million and $6.0 million; however, we can provide no assurances that actual costs will approximate the estimated costs.

Any demobilization, per diem, and related costs incurred related to the suspension or termination of our joint venture, utilized derivative financial instruments designatedconstruction and design contracts will be charged to the project as cash flow hedges,preopening expense on our consolidated statement of operations in the lastperiod incurred. As of December 31, 2008, we incurred $1.3 million of demobilization costs, which expiredis included in December 2005. Ourpreopening expenses on our consolidated statement of operations.

Clark County Fees – In November 2007, we entered into an agreement with Clark County for the development of the project. The agreement requires the payment of approximately $5.2 million, allocated among four annual installments, which commenced in January 2008. We have made the first of those payments. Furthermore, we are also responsible for our share of the change in fair valuecost of certain financial instruments related to hedges deemednew pedestrian bridges that may be constructed by Clark County, of which our share is estimated to be ineffective wasapproximately $8 million. In December 2008, Clark County granted us a net lossone year deferral for each of $0.4the remaining fixed annual installments due under the development agreement.

Construction Insurance – Effective July 2007, we obtained construction insurance coverage from various insurance carriers for worker’s compensation and employer’s liability, general liability, excess liability catastrophe, builder’s risk, and related coverage. The policies have varying provisions regarding fixed and variable premiums, prepaid and annual premiums, minimum premiums, and cancellation rights. We believe that each of the policies may be terminated by us, and in each case, we are only liable for the earned premium set forth in each of the policies. All premiums have been fully paid through June 2009. The remaining aggregate premium due under each of the policies is $9.3 million, unless terminated.

Employment Contracts – We do not have any contracts with our employees. Due to the delay in 2005the project, we have terminated many of our employees and is reportedhave paid severance costs that have been included in preopening expense on our accompanying consolidated statement of operations.operations for the year ended December 31, 2008, the total amount of which is immaterial.

NOTE 8.LEED Tax Credits – We are pursuing Echelon’s certification under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (“LEED”) Silver Standard for the project as part of the State of Nevada’s tax incentive program (the “LEED Program”). The LEED Program allows for Echelon to receive an exemption of 5.75% of the sales and use tax on qualifying construction materials purchased prior to December 31, 2010. As we intend to resume construction of Echelon and qualify for the LEED Silver Standard certification, we will not record a liability for the 5.75% portion of sales and use tax on the qualifying construction materials; however, if Echelon does not open or if it fails to qualify for the LEED Silver Standard certification after its completion, we will accrue and pay the deferral amount of sales and use tax ($6.8 million at December 31, 2008), plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum, which will be recorded as construction in progress on our consolidated balance sheet. We remain eligible for the LEED program, notwithstanding our suspension of the Echelon project.

Other Agreements – Certain other agreements, such as office leases, warehouse leases and certain communications and information technology support services, will be charged to preopening expense as incurred. While we can provide no assurances, we do not believe that any of our other agreements for the project give rise to any material liabilities resulting from the delay of the project. We believe that continuing committed costs under these agreements, on an aggregate basis, approximate $0.4 million per month, until terminated.

-76-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)

Leases

In connection with the July 1, 2004 merger with Coast Casinos, we assumed certain land leases. The Orleans is situated on approximately 77 acres of leased land. The lease had an effective commencement date of October 1, 1995, an initial term of 50 years, and includes an option, exercisable by us, to extend the initial term for an additional 25 years. The lease provides for monthly rental payments of $0.2 million through February 2006 and $0.3 million during the 60-month period thereafter. In March 2011, annual rental payments will increase inby a compounding basis at a rate of 3.0% per annum. In addition, we have an option to purchase the real property during the two-year period commencing in February 2016.

Suncoast is situated on approximately 49 acres of leased land. The initial term of the land lease expires in December 2055. The lease contains three options to extend the term of the lease for 10 years each. The lease

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

provides for monthly rental payments of approximately $0.2 million in 2004 that increase slightly each year. The landlord has the option to require us to purchase the property at the end of 2014 and each year-endyear end through 2018, at the fair market value of the real property at the time the landlord exercises the option, subject to certain pricing limitations. If we do not purchase the property if and when required, we would be in default under the lease agreement.

In addition, we have other land leases related primarily to the California, the Fremont, Sam’s Town Tunica, Treasure Chest and Sam’s Town Shreveport. Future minimum lease payments required under noncancelable operating leases, (primarily forof which are primarily land leases)leases, as of December 31, 20072008 are as follows (in thousands):.

 

2008

  $16,017

2009

   14,441  $14,969

2010

   11,434   12,015

2011

   10,997   11,078

2012

   9,023   9,409

2013

   8,691

Thereafter

   457,870   432,090
      

Total

  $519,782  $488,252
      

Rent expense for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006 and 2005 was $19.8 million, $22.0 million $22.3 million and $31.1$22.3 million, respectively, and is included in selling, general and administrative expenses on the accompanying consolidated statements of operations.

EchelonContingencies

In January 2006, we formed a 50/50 joint venture with Morgans to develop, construct and operate two hotel properties, the Delano Las Vegas and the Mondrian Las Vegas hotels at Echelon. We will contribute approximately 6.1 acres of land and Morgans will ultimately contribute approximately $91.5 million to the venture. The expected cost of the project, including the land, is estimated to be approximately $950 million; however, we can provide no assurances that the estimated cost will approximate the actual cost. Pursuant to an amendment on May 15, 2006 to our joint venture agreement, Morgans deposited $30 million with us as an advance toward their $91.5 million capital contribution to be made to the venture. This deposit, plus accrued interest, is included in restricted cash and accrued expenses and other on our accompanying consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2007 and 2006.

In May 2007, we formed a 50/50 joint venture with GGP whereby we will initially contribute above-ground real estate (air rights) and GGP will initially contribute $100 million to develop the High Street retail promenade at Echelon. The expected cost of the project, including air rights, is estimated to be approximately $500 million; however, we can provide no assurances that the estimated cost will approximate the actual cost. We expect that the joint venture will be 100% equity funded. We anticipate that any additional cash outlay from us will come from cash flows from operations and availability under our bank credit facility, to the extent availability exists after we meet our working capital needs.

In April 2007, we entered into an Energy Services Agreement (“ESA”) with a third party, who will design, construct, own and operate a central energy center and energy distribution system that will provide electricity, emergency generation and chilled and hot water to Echelon. The term of the ESA is 25 years beginning when Echelon commences commercial operations. We pay a monthly service fee, which is comprised of a fixed capacity charge and an escalating operations and maintenance charge that is based upon our capacity requirement for energy at Echelon. Our fixed portion of the service fee is $23.4 million annually over the term of the ESA.

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

Dania Jai-Alai Slot Initiative

On August 8, 2006, a three-judge panel of the First District Court of Appeals in Broward County, Florida overturned a lower court decision, which, in turn, could lead to the invalidation of a November 2004 initiative approved by Florida voters to operate slot machines at certain pari-mutuel gaming facilities in Broward County. This decision was essentially reaffirmed by the First District Court of Appeals on November 30, 2006, with two questions being certified to the Florida Supreme Court. On March 27, 2007, the Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction to hear the certified questions. On September 27, 2007, the Florida Supreme Court reconsidered its March 27, 2007 decision and declined jurisdiction over the matter. Consequently, the matter has been remanded to the circuit court for a trial on the merits. If the initiative is invalidated, we may notnever be able to operate slot machines at the Dania Jai-Alai facility, which wouldcould materially affect any potential revenue and cash flow expected from the Dania Jai-Alai facility (see Note 12,11,Acquisition of Dania Jai-Alai”Jai-Alai). In February 2008, management decided if we restore our plans to postpone redevelopment ofoperate slot machines at the Dania Jai-Alai facility.

-77-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

Copeland

Alvin C. Copeland, the sole shareholder (deceased) of an unsuccessful applicant for a riverboat license at the location of our Treasure Chest Casino, has made several attempts to have the Treasure Chest license revoked and awarded to his company. In 1999 and 2000, Copeland unsuccessfully opposed the renewal of the Treasure Chest license and has brought two separate legal actions against us.Treasure Chest. In November 1993, Copeland objected to the relocation of Treasure Chest Casino from the Mississippi River to its current site on Lake Pontchartrain. The predecessor to the Louisiana Gaming Control Board allowed the relocation over Copeland’s objection. Copeland then filed an appeal of the agency’s decision with the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. Through a number of amendments to the appeal, Copeland unsuccessfully attempted to transform the appeal into a direct action suit and sought the revocation of the Treasure Chest license. Treasure Chest intervened in the matter in order to protect its interests. The appeal/suit, as it related to Treasure Chest, Casino, was dismissed by the District Court and that dismissal was upheld on appeal by the First Circuit Court of Appeal. Additionally, in 1999, Copeland filed a direct action against Treasure Chest and certain other parties seeking the revocation of Treasure Chest’s license, an award of the license to him, and monetary damages. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, citing that Copeland failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The dismissal was appealed by Copeland to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal. On June 21, 2002, the First Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the matter to the trial court. On January 14, 2003, we filed a motion to dismiss the matter and that motion was partially denied. The Court of AppealsAppeal refused to reverse the denial of the motion to dismiss. In May 2004, we filed additional motions to dismiss on other grounds. There was no activity regarding this matter during 2005 and 2006, and the case was set to be dismissed by the court for failure to prosecute by the plaintiffs in mid-May 2007; however on May 1, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion to set a hearing date related to the motions to dismiss. The hearing was scheduled for September 10, 2007, at which time all parties agreed to postpone the hearing indefinitely. Mr. Copeland recently passed away and his son, the executor of his estate, has petitioned the court to be substituted as plaintiff in the case. We currently are vigorously defending the lawsuit. If this matter ultimately results in the Treasure Chest license being revoked, it could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Legal Matters

We are also parties to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. We believe that, except for the Copeland matter discussed above, all pending claims, if adversely decided, would not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position or results of operations.

Nevada Use Tax Refund Claims

On March 27, 2008, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a decision inSparks Nugget, Inc. vs. The State of Nevada Department of Taxation (the “Department”), holding that food purchased for subsequent use in the provision of complimentary and/or employee meals was exempt from both sales and use tax. On April 24, 2008, the Department filed a Petition for Rehearing (the “Petition”) on the decision. Additionally, on the same date the Nevada Legislature filed anAmicus Curiae brief in support of the Department’s position. The Nevada Supreme Court denied the Department’s Petition on July 17, 2008. We have paid use tax on food purchased for subsequent use in complimentary and employee meals at our Nevada casino properties and estimate the refund to be in the range of $15.4 million to $17.6 million, including interest, from January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2008. We have been notified by the Department that they intend to pursue an alternative legal theory through an available administrative process, and they continue to deny our refund claims. Hearings before the Nevada Administrative Law Judge are currently being scheduled and we anticipate a hearing to occur during the summer of 2009. Due to uncertainty surrounding the potential arguments that may be raised in the administrative process, we will not record any gain until the tax refund is realized. For periods subsequent to June 2008, we have not recorded an accrual for sales or use tax on complimentary and employee meals at our Nevada casino properties, as it is not probable that we will owe this tax, given the decision by the Nevada Supreme Court.

Blue Chip Property Taxes

In May 2007, Blue Chip received a valuation notice indicating an unanticipated increase of nearly 400% to its assessed property value as of January 1, 2006. At that time, we estimated that the increase in assessed property value could result in a property tax assessment ranging between $4 million and $11 million for the eighteen-month period ended June 30, 2007. We recorded an additional charge of $3.2 million during the three months ended June 30, 2007 to increase our property tax liability to $5.8 million at June 30, 2007 as we believed that was the most likely amount to be assessed within the range. We subsequently received a property tax bill related to our 2006 tax assessment for $6.2 million in December 2007. As we have appealed the assessment, Indiana

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

statutes allow for a minimum required payment of $1.9 million, which was paid against the $6.2 million assessment in January 2008. In February 2009, we received a notice of revaluation, which reduced the property’s assessed value by $100 million and the tax assessment by approximately $2.2 million per year. We believe the assessment for the twenty four-monththirty six-month period ended December 31, 20072008 could result in a property tax assessment ranging between $4$6.5 million

-78-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

and $13$14 million. We have accrued approximately $7.5$13 million of property tax liability as of December 31, 2007,2008, based on what we believe to be the most likely assessment within our range, once all appeals have been exhausted; however, we can provide no assurances that the estimated amount will approximate the actual amount. The final 2006 assessment, post appeals, as well as the March 1, 2007 and 2008 assessment noticenotices, which ishave not expected until the second quarterbeen received as of December 31, 2008, could result in further adjustment to our estimated property tax liability at Blue Chip.

State of Illinois Wagering Tax

In 2005, the Illinois legislature passed new legislation for wagering taxes that imposes a minimum wagering tax for casinos for the next two state-based fiscal years ending June 30, 2007. Under these minimum wagering tax provisions, during each of the State’s fiscal years ending June 30, 2006 and 2007, Par-A-Dice was required to remit to the State the amount, if any, by which $43 million exceeded the wagering taxes actually paid by Par-A-Dice during each of those fiscal years. The payments, if any, were required by each of June 15, 2006 and 2007. Effective July 1, 2005, we incorporated this minimum payment provision into the effective gaming tax rate for Par-A-Dice. Par-A-Dice paid $13.7 million and $6.2 million for Illinois State wagering taxes on June 15, 2007 and 2006, respectively.

In addition, Par-A-Dice paid $6.7 million on June 15, 2006 for a retroactive Illinois gaming tax assessment, which was the result of a 2006 modification by the Illinois State Legislature requiring licensees to pay an additional 5% tax on adjusted gross gaming revenues retroactive to July 1, 2005.

Treasure Chest

We are required to pay to the City of Kenner, Louisiana, a boarding fee of $2.50 for each passenger boarding our Treasure Chest riverboat casino during the year. The future minimum payment due in 20082009 to the City of Kenner, based upon a portion of actual passenger counts from the prior year, is approximately $2.6 million.

Long-termLong-Term Management Incentive Plan

Certain of our executive officers participate in a long-term management incentive plan (the “Plan”), which currently extends through December 31, 2010.2009. The components of the Plan cannot be measured until the end of the performance period, as they will not be known until the end of the performance period.such period ends. As such, we do not accrue for these items over the life of the Plan, but rather accrue for that portion of the Plan when it becomes measurable. PossibleThe possible future maximum payouts arepayout is $5.2 million for each of the yearsyear ending December 31, 2008, 2009 and 2010.

Legal Matters

We are also parties to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. We believe that, except for the matters discussed above, all pending claims, if adversely decided, would not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position or results of operations.2009.

NOTE 9.8. —STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY AND STOCK INCENTIVE PLANS

On January 1, 2006, we adopted SFAS No. 123R, “Share-Based Payment,” usingThe following table provides classification detail of the modified prospective method and as such, results for prior periods have not been restated. This statement requires ustotal costs related to measure the

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)our share-based employee compensation plans reported in our consolidated financial statements.

 

cost of employee services received in exchange for an award of equity instruments based on the grant-date fair value of the award (with limited exceptions). This cost is recognized over the period during which an employee is required to provide service in exchange for the award. Under the modified prospective method, we expense the cost of share-based compensation awards issued after January 1, 2006. Additionally, we recognize compensation cost for the portion of awards outstanding on January 1, 2006 for which the requisite service has not been rendered over the period the requisite service is being rendered after January 1, 2006.

   Year Ended December 31,
   2008  2007  2006
      (In thousands)   

Gaming

  $499  $571  $732

Food and beverage

   90   94   103

Room

   52   54   50

Selling, general and administrative

   3,183   2,900   4,212

Corporate expense

   8,838   11,183   14,248

Preopening expenses

   1,362   1,257   1,268
            

Total share-based compensation expense from continuing operations

   14,024   16,059   20,613

Discontinued operations

   —     —     205
            

Total share-based compensation expense

   14,024   16,059   20,818

Capitalized share-based compensation

   1,398   1,311   830
            

Total share-based compensation costs

  $15,422  $17,370  $21,648
            

Stock OptionsIncentive Plan

AsOn May 15, 2008, at our 2008 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, the Company’s stockholders approved an amendment to our 2002 Stock Incentive Plan, increasing the maximum number of shares of Boyd Gaming Corporation’s common stock authorized for issuance over the term of such plan by 5 million shares, from 12 million to 17 million shares. Under our 2002 Stock Incentive Plan, approximately 5.4 million shares remain available for grant at December 31, 2007, we had two stock option plans in effect, both of which have been approved by our shareholders. Stock options awarded under these plans are granted to our employees and directors.2008. The number of authorized but unissued shares of common stock under these plansthis plan as of December 31, 20072008 was approximately 9.514.8 million shares.

-79-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

The following table summarizes our share-based compensation costs by award type.

   Year Ended December 31, 
   2008  2007  2006 
      (In thousands)    

Stock options

  $14,041  $16,208  $20,893 

Restricted Stock Units

   1,045   848   755 

Career Shares

   336   314   —   
             

Total share-based compensation costs

   15,422   17,370   21,648 

Capitalized share-based compensation costs

   (1,398)  (1,311)  (830)
             

Share-based compensation costs recognized as expense

  $14,024  $16,059  $20,818 
             

Stock Options

As of December 31, 2008, we had one stock option plan in effect, which has been approved by our shareholders. Stock options awarded under this plan are granted to our employees and board members.

Options granted under the plansplan generally become exercisable ratably over a three-year period from the date of grant. Options that have been granted under the plansplan had an exercise price equal to the market price of our common stock on the date of grant and will expire no later than ten years after the date of grant.

Share-based compensation costs related to stock option awards are calculated based on the fair value of each option grant on the date of the grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The following table discloses the weighted-average assumptions used in estimating the fair value of our significant stock option grants during the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 2006 and 2005.2006.

 

   Year Ended December 31, 
   2007  2006  2005 

Expected stock price volatility

   34.3%  38.0%  38.1%

Annual dividend rate

   1.5%  1.4%  1.2%

Risk-free interest rate

   3.7%  4.6%  4.3%

Expected option life (years)

   4.3   4.5   4.1 

Estimated fair value per share of options granted

  $11.62  $13.27  $13.01 

For the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, we recorded compensation costs related to our share-based employee compensation plans in our consolidated financial statements in the following categories:

   Year Ended December 31, 
   2008  2007  2006 

Expected stock price volatility

   49.5 %  34.3%  38.0%

Annual dividend rate

   —  %  1.5%  1.4%

Risk-free interest rate

   2.2%  3.7%  4.6%

Expected option life (years)

   4.3   4.3   4.5 

Estimated fair value per share of options granted

  $2.79  $11.62  $13.27 

 

   Year Ended December 31,
   2007    2006
   (In thousands)

Gaming

  $571    $732

Food and beverage

   94     103

Room

   54     50

Selling, general and administrative

   2,900     4,212

Corporate expense

   11,183     14,248

Preopening expenses

   1,257     1,268
          

Total share-based compensation expense from continuing operations

   16,059     20,613

Discontinued Operations

   —       205
          

Total share-based compensation expense

   16,059     20,818

Capitalized share-based compensation

   1,311     830
          

Total share-based compensation costs

  $17,370    $21,648
          

-80-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—STATEMENTS — (Continued)

The total income tax benefit recognized in income resulting from share-based compensation expense was $5.6 million and $7.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.

Prior to the adoption of SFAS No. 123R, we presented the benefit of all tax deductions resulting from the exercise of stock options as an operating activity in our consolidated statements of cash flows. SFAS No. 123R requires the excess tax benefit from stock option exercises (tax deduction in excess of compensation costs recognized) to be reported as a financing activity on our consolidated statement of cash flows. Excess tax benefits of $4.6 million and $12.3 million recorded during the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006.

For periods prior to January 1, 2006, we accounted for employee stock options in accordance with Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees,and related Interpretations.” No share-based employee compensation cost was reflected in net income for those periods as all options granted under our plans had an exercise price equal to the market value of the common stock on the date of grant.

The following table illustrates the effect on our income from continuing operations before cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle and net income and the related per share amounts as if we had applied the fair value recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123R to share-based employee compensation for the year ended December 31, 2005:

(In thousands, except per share data)

  Year Ended
December 31, 2005
 

Income from continuing operations before cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle

  

As reported

  $164,368 

Pro forma share-based compensation expense, net of tax

   (13,378)
     

Pro forma

  $150,990 
     

Net income

  

As reported

  $144,610 

Pro forma share-based compensation expense, net of tax

   (13,513)
     

Pro forma

  $131,097 
     

Basic income per share from continuing operations before cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle

  

As reported

  $1.86 

Pro forma

   1.71 

Diluted income per share from continuing operations before cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle

  

As reported

  $1.82 

Pro forma

   1.67 

Basic net income per share

  

As reported

  $1.63 

Pro forma

   1.48 

Diluted net income per share

  

As reported

  $1.60 

Pro forma

   1.45 

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

Summarized stock option plan activity for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 2006 and 20052006 is as follows:follows.

 

  Options Range of
Options
Prices
  Weighted
Average
Option
Price
  Weighted
Average
Remaining
Contractual
Life (Years)
  Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value

(In
thousands)
  Options Weighted
Average
Option
Price
  Weighted
Average
Remaining
Contractual
Life (Years)
  Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value
(In thousands)

Options outstanding at January 1, 2005

  6,637,511  $4.35 - $36.76  $20.97    

Options outstanding at January 1, 2006

  6,587,229  $28.71    

Options granted

  1,895,000   39.96 - 52.35   40.14      1,694,000   39.18    

Options canceled

  (195,913)  4.56 - 36.76   20.88    

Options exercised

  (1,749,369)  4.50 - 36.76   12.58    
           

Options outstanding at December 31, 2005

  6,587,229  $4.35 - $52.35  $28.71    

Options granted

  1,694,000   39.00 - 48.40   39.18    

Options canceled

  (463,326)  4.56 - 39.96   37.08    

Options cancelled

  (463,326)  37.08    

Options exercised

  (1,266,116)  4.50 - 39.96   15.42  7.91    (1,266,116)  15.42    
                     

Options outstanding at December 31, 2006

  6,551,787  $4.35 - $52.35  $33.40    $78,280  6,551,787  $33.40  7.91  $78,280

Options granted

  1,918,700   38.11 - 48.65   39.66      1,918,700   39.66    

Options canceled

  (158,161)  5.56 - 39.96   38.03    

Options cancelled

  (158,161)  38.03    

Options exercised

  (641,076)  4.50 - 39.96   24.27      (641,076)  24.27    
                    

Options outstanding at December 31, 2007

  7,671,250  $4.35 - $52.35  $35.63  1.95  $20,398  7,671,250  $35.63  7.45  $20,398

Options granted

  1,396,240   7.08    

Options cancelled

  (225,310)  38.68    

Options exercised

  (55,700)  8.47    
                         

Options exercisable at December 31, 2006

  3,193,713    $27.75  6.64  $55,194

Options outstanding at December 31, 2008

  8,786,480  $31.19  7.19  $14
                          

Options exercisable at December 31, 2007

  4,145,649    $32.27  6.87  $20,376  4,145,649  $32.27  6.87  $20,376
                          

Shares available for grant at December 31, 2007

  2,147,676        

Options exercisable at December 31, 2008

  5,680,977  $34.59  6.17  $14
                       

The following table summarizes the information about stock options outstanding and exercisable at December 31, 2007:2008.

 

   Options Outstanding  Options Exercisable

Range of Exercise Prices

  Number
Outstanding
  Weighted
Average
Remaining
Contractual
Life (Years)
  Weighted
Average
Exercise
Price
  Number
Exercisable
  Weighted
Average
Exercise
Price

$  4.35 - $25.75

  1,078,349  4.95  $15.15  1,076,349  $15.14

  36.76 -   36.76

  1,546,991  6.93   36.76  1,546,991   36.76

  38.11 -   38.11

  491,000  9.93   38.11  —     —  

  39.00 -   39.00

  1,592,334  8.83   39.00  532,049   39.00

  39.78 -   52.35

  2,962,576  8.78   40.27  990,260   40.26
              
  7,671,250  7.95   35.63  4,145,649   32.27
            
   Options Outstanding  Options Exercisable
Range of
Exercise Prices
  Number
Outstanding
  Weighted
Average
Remaining
Contractual
Life (Years)
  Weighted
Average
Exercise
Price
  Number
Exercisable
  Weighted
Average
Exercise
Price
$4.35 -$14.23  1,837,561  8.28  $8.02  470,321  $12.16
14.50 - 36.76  2,110,236  5.18   31.98  2,085,236   31.97
38.11 - 39.00  2,035,503  7.86   38.79  1,200,882   38.88
39.78 - 39.96  2,660,880  7.49   39.88  1,841,269   39.92
41.99 - 52.35  142,300  7.50   47.38  83,269   47.54
                  
$4.35 -$52.35  8,786,480  7.19   31.19  5,680,977   34.59
                  

The weighted-average grant-date fair value of options granted during the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 was $11.62, $13.27 and $13.01, respectively. The total intrinsic value of in-the-money options exercised during the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006 was $0.6 million, $15.8 million and $35.0 million,

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

respectively. The total fair value of options vested during the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006 was approximately $21.5, $24.8 million and $21.4 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2007,2008, there was approximately $32$22 million of total unrecognized share-based compensation costs related to unvested stock options, which is expected to be recognized over approximately two years, the weighted averageweighted-average remaining requisite service period.

-81-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

Restricted Stock Units

On May 18, 2006, our board of directorsOur amended and restated our 2002 Stock Incentive Plan to provideprovides for the grant of Restricted Stock Units (“RSUs”). An RSU is an award which may be earned in whole, or in part, upon the passage of time or the attainment of performance criteria and which may be settled for cash, shares, or other securities or a combination of cash, shares or other securities.such. The RSUs do not contain voting rights and are not entitled to dividends. In May 2007The RSUs are subject to the terms and May 2006, we awardedconditions contained in the applicable award agreement and our 2002 Stock Incentive Plan.

We annually award RSUs to certain members of our boardBoard of directors a total of 19,600 and 17,500 RSUs with a grant date fair value of $43.27 and $43.17 per unit, respectively, eachDirectors. Each RSU is fully vested upon grant and is to be paid in shares of common stock upon cessation of service on the boardBoard of directors. We recorded $0.8 millionDirectors. In April 2008, certain of our executive management employees were granted RSUs, totaling approximately 160,000 units. Each of these RSUs represents a contingent right to receive one share of Boyd Gaming Corporation common stock upon vesting. These RSUs will vest in bothfull upon the sooner to occur of (i) April 16, 2013, or (ii) a date after October 16, 2009, upon which the closing price of the Company’s common stock is $25.98 (which represents 150% of the closing price of our common stock on April 15, 2008) or greater for twenty consecutive trading days beginning on or after October 16, 2009. In November 2008, certain of our executive management employees were granted RSUs, totaling approximately 346,000 units. Each of these RSUs represents a contingent right to receive one share of Boyd Gaming Corporation common stock upon vesting. These RSUs will vest three years from the date of issuance.

Summarized Restricted Stock Unit activity for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006 for expensesis as follows.

   Shares  Weighted
Average
Grant Date
Fair Value

RSUs outstanding at January 1, 2006

  —    

RSUs granted

  17,500  $43.17
     

RSUs outstanding at December 31, 2006

  17,500  

RSUs granted

  19,600  $43.27
     

RSUs outstanding at December 31, 2007

  37,100  

RSUs granted

  547,948  $10.67

RSUs cancelled

  (1,696) 

RSUs awarded

  (11,281) 
     

RSUs outstanding at December 31, 2008

  572,071  
     

RSUs vested at December 31, 2008

  12,549  
     

As of December 31, 2008, there was approximately $4 million of total unrecognized share-based compensation costs related to the issuance of these RSUs.unvested RSUs, which is expected to be recognized over approximately four years.

Career Shares

Our Career Shares Program is a stock incentive award program for certain executive officers to provide for additional capital accumulation opportunities for retirement and to reward long-service executives. Our Career Shares Program was adopted in December 2006 as part of the overall update of our compensation programs. In January 2008 and January 2007, we issued approximately 37,000 and 26,000 Career Shares with a grant date fair value of $33.31 per share and $44.36 per share, respectively, to certain of our executive management employees. The Career Shares rewardProgram rewards eligible executives with annual grants of Boyd Gaming Corporation stock units, to be paid out at retirement. The payout at retirement is dependent upon the respective executive’s age at such retirement and the number of years of service with the Company. Executives must be at least 60 years old and have at least 15 years of service to receive a payout at retirement. We recorded $0.3 million annually in 2008Career Shares do not contain voting rights and 2007 for expenses relatedare not entitled to dividends. Career Shares are subject to the issuance of theseterms and conditions contained in the applicable award agreement and our 2002 Stock Incentive Plan.

-82-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

Summarized Career Shares activity for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and we paid out 8482006 is as follows.

   Shares  Weighted
Average
Grant
Date Fair
Value

Career Shares outstanding at January 1, 2006

  —    

Career Shares granted

  25,896  $45.95

Career Shares awarded

  (898) 

Career Shares cancelled

  (1,561) 
     

Career Shares outstanding at December 31, 2007

  23,437  

Career Shares granted

  36,665  $33.31

Career Shares cancelled

  (313) 
     

Career Shares outstanding at December 31, 2008

  59,789  
     

Career Shares vested at December 31, 2008

  10,104  
     

Subsequent Event – Career Shares in 2007.

In January 2009, we issued approximately 250,000 Career Shares with a grant date fair value of $5.00 per share and recorded approximately $0.4 million of share-based compensation expense.

StockShare Repurchase PlanProgram

On November 11, 2002, we announced thatIn July 2008, our Board of Directors had authorized an amendment to our existing share repurchase program to increase the repurchaseamount of upcommon stock available to two million shares of our common stock. Depending upon market conditions, shares may be repurchased from time-to-time at prevailing market prices through open market or negotiated transactions. No date was established for the completion of the share repurchase program.to $100 million. We are not obligated to purchase any shares under our stock repurchase any shares. program.

Subject to applicable corporate securities laws, repurchases under our stock repurchase program may be made at such times and in such amounts as management deemswe deem appropriate. RepurchasesPurchases under theour stock repurchase program can be discontinued at any time management feelsthat we feel additional repurchasespurchases are not warranted. We intend to fund the repurchases under the stock repurchase program with existing cash resources and availability under our bank credit facility.

We are subject to certain limitations regarding the repurchase of common stock, such as restricted payment limitations related to our outstanding notes and our bank credit facility.

In the future, we may acquire our debt or equity securities, through open market purchases, privately negotiated transactions, tender offers, exchange offers, redemptions or otherwise, upon such terms and at such prices as we may determine.

During the year ended December 31, 2006, we repurchased approximately 3.4 million shares of our common stock at a price per share of $32.4844. These shares were repurchased pursuant to the terms of the Unit Purchase Agreement that we entered into with Michael J. Gaughan in connection with the sale of South Coast and were not purchased as a part of the aforementioned repurchase program. See Note 11,10,Assets and Liabilities Held for Sale: - Discontinued Operations: South Coast”Coast for more information related to this sale. We did not repurchase any stock during the years ended December 31, 20072008 or 2005. As of December 31, 2007, approximately 0.9 million shares of our common stock was available to be repurchased under the plan.2007.

-83-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—STATEMENTS — (Continued)

Dividends

Dividends are declared at our Board’s discretion. We are subject to certain limitations regarding the payment of dividends, such as restricted payment limitations related to our outstanding notes and our bank credit facility. The following table sets forth the cash dividends declared and paid induring the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006.

 

Payment Date

  

Record Date

  

Dividend
Per
Share

March 1, 2006

  February 10, 2006  $0.125

June 1, 2006

  May 12, 2006   0.135

September 1, 2006

  August 11, 2006   0.135

December 1, 2006

  November 10, 2006   0.135

March 1, 2007

  February 9, 2007   0.135

June 1, 2007

  May 11, 2007   0.150

September 4, 2007

  August 17, 2007   0.150

December 3, 2007

  November 16, 2007   0.150

Payment Date

Record Date                

Dividend Per Share

March 1, 2006

February 10, 2006$0.125

June 1, 2006

May 12, 20060.135

September 1, 2006

August 11, 20060.135

December 1, 2006

November 10, 20060.135

March 1, 2007

February 9, 20070.135

June 1, 2007

May 11, 20070.150

September 4, 2007

August 17, 20070.150

December 3, 2007

November 16, 20070.150

March 3, 2008

February 18, 20080.150

June 2, 2008

May 14, 20080.150

In July 2008, our Board of Directors suspended the quarterly dividend for the current and future periods. Dividends paid induring the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006 totaled $26.3 million, $51.2 million and $46.7 million, respectively. On February 7, 2008, our board of directors declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.15 per share of our common stock, payable March 3, 2008 to shareholders of record on February 18, 2008.

NOTE 10.9. —WRITE-DOWNS AND OTHER CHARGES, NET

Write-downs and other charges, net, includeare as follows.

   Year Ended December 31, 
   2008  2007  2006 
      (In thousands)    

Asset write-downs

  $382,506  $16  $31,778 

Hurricane and related items

   3,015   —     (36,294)

Property closure costs

   —     11,141   13,354 

Acquisition related expenses

   —     944   —   
             

Total write-downs and other charges, net

  $385,521  $12,101  $8,838 
             

Asset Write-Downs

In 2008, asset write-downs primarily consist of the following:

 

   Year Ended December 31, 
   2007  2006  2005 
   (In thousands) 

Property closure costs

  $11,141  $13,354  $—   

Asset write-downs

   16   31,778   56,000 

Acquisition related expenses

   944   —     —   

Hurricane and related items

   —     (36,294)  9,274 

Gain on sales of undeveloped land and other assets

   —     —     (659)
             

Total write-downs and other charges, net

  $12,101  $8,838  $64,615 
             

Property Closure Costs

In connection withAggregate $290.2 million non-cash impairment charges to write-down certain portions of our Echelon development project, we closed the Stardust Hotelgoodwill, intangible assets and Casino on November 1, 2006 and demolished the property in March 2007. During the year endedother long-lived assets to their fair value at December 31, 2007, we recorded $11.1 million2008. The impairment tests for these assets were principally due to the decline in property closure costs relatedour stock price that caused our book value to demolitionexceed our market capitalization, which was an indication that these assets may not be recoverable. The primary reason for these impairment charges relates to the ongoing recession, which has caused us to reduce our estimates for projected cash flows, has reduced overall industry valuations, and rubble removal costs. Duringhas caused an increase in discount rates in the year ended December 31, 2006, we recorded $13.4 million in property closure costs, the majority of which represents exitcredit and disposal costs related to one-time employee termination benefits and contract termination costs.equity markets.

An $84.0 million non-cash impairment charge, principally related to the write-off of Dania Jai-Alai’s intangible license right, following our decision to indefinitely postpone redevelopment plans to operate slot machines at the facility. Our decision to postpone the development is based on numerous factors, including the introduction of expanded gaming at a nearby Native American casino, the potential for additional casino gaming venues in Florida, and the existing Broward County pari-mutuel casinos performing below our expectations for the market (see Note 11,Acquisition of Dania Jai-Alai and Note 4,Intangible Assets and Goodwill).

-84-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

Asset Write-downs

Asset write-downs during the year ended December 31, 2006 include $28 million related to the write-off of the net book value of the original Blue Chip gaming vessel, which was replaced with a new gaming vessel in conjunction with our expansion project. After analysis of alternative uses for the original vessel, management decided in June 2006 to permanently retire the asset from further operations, resulting in the write-off. In addition, we recorded a $3.0 million asset write-down during the year ended December 31, 2006 related to land

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

held for sale in Pennsylvania that we previously planned to utilize as a site for a gaming operation. In September 2006, we withdrew our application for gaming approval, which led to our decision to sell the land (see Note 11,10,Assets and Liabilities Held for Sale—Sale – Land Held for Sale”Sale).

During the year ended December 31, 2005, we recorded a $56 million non-cash impairment loss to write down the long-lived assets at Stardust to their estimated fair value. Because we intend to redevelop the land on which Stardust is located and our plans included demolishing Stardust’s existing buildings and abandoning other related assets, we performed an impairment test for this property. This non-cash charge was the result of our calculation of the estimated remaining net cash flows for Stardust compared to the net book value of the assets expected to be demolished or abandoned.

Hurricane and Related Items

Hurricane and related expenses during the year ended December 31, 2008 consist of repair and maintenance charges as a result of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. The hurricanes directly impacted two of our three Louisiana operations, with the related closures totaling ten days for Treasure Chest and thirteen days for Delta Downs. The properties suffered minor damage from the hurricanes. No insurance claims have been filed, as the damages did not meet our deductibles for either property.

OnIn August 27, 2005, Treasure Chest Casino in Kenner, Louisiana closed as a result of Hurricane Katrina. The property suffered minor damage from the hurricane and reopened for business on October 10, 2005. OnIn September 22, 2005, Delta Downs Racetrack Casino & Hotel closed as a result of Hurricane Rita. Delta Downs reopened for business on November 3, 2005, with limited hours of operation and limited food and beverage outlets. Delta Downs resumed normal operating hours beginning in December 2005 and horse racing resumed in April 2006. During the year ended December 31, 2005, we recorded $9.3 million of net hurricane related expenses. In December 2006, we reached a final settlement with our insurance carrier for our coverage at Delta Downs and recognized a gain of $36 million during the year ended December 31, 2006. See Note 13, “12,Insurance Coverage Related to Hurricane Impacts”Impacts for additional information.

Property Closure Costs

In connection with our Echelon development project, we closed the Stardust Hotel and Casino in November 2006 and demolished the property in March 2007. During the year ended December 31, 2007, we recorded $11.1 million in property closure costs related to demolition and rubble removal costs. During the year ended December 31, 2006, we recorded $13.4 million in property closure costs, the majority of which represents exit and disposal costs related to one-time employee termination benefits and contract termination costs.

Acquisition Related Expenses

Acquisition related expenses represent indirect and general costs incurred in connection with our acquisition of Dania Jai-Alai (see Note 12,11,Acquisition of Dania Jai-Alai”Jai-Alai).

NOTE 11.10. —ASSETS AND LIABILITIES HELD FOR SALE

Land Held for Sale

InOn September 2006,5, 2007, we made the decisionentered into an agreement to sell approximately 125 acres of land that we own in Limerick Township, Pennsylvania thatfor $26.5 million, before selling costs, contingent upon certain conditions. In September 2006, we previously planned to utilize as a site for a gaming operation. We withdrew our application for gaming approval, which led to our decision to sell the land and record a $3.0 million non-cash write-down of the land to its fair value, less estimated costs to sell. The remaining $23.2 million carrying value of the land iswas $23.2 million at December 31, 2008 and 2007. On November 3, 2008, the agreement to sell such land was terminated; therefore, the carrying value of the land was reclassified from assets held for sale to property and equipment on our consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2008, since it no longer meets the criteria to be classified as held for sale on our accompanying consolidated balance sheets. On September 5, 2007 (the “effective date”), we entered into an agreement to sell the land for $26.5 million, before selling costs, contingent upon certain conditions. As of the date of this filing, the sale has not closed; however, the closing date of the sale must occur no later than fifteen months after the effective date. The closing of the transaction is subject to various conditions; therefore, we can provide no assurances that the transaction will close on time, if at all. The expected gain will be recognized on our consolidated statement of operations if and when the sale is closed.sale.

Discontinued Operations

South Coast

On July 25, 2006, we entered into a Unit Purchase Agreement, as amended, (the “Agreement”) to sell South Coast to Michael J. Gaughan for a total purchase price of approximately $513 million. This transaction closed on October 25, 2006.

-85-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—STATEMENTS — (Continued)

As consideration for South Coast, Mr. Gaughan:

 

paid us the net proceeds from the public offering of his 12,342,504 shares of our common stock and

 

applied the principal amount of the term note described below to the purchase price.

A total of 12,342,504 shares of our common stock owned by Mr. Gaughan were sold to a group of underwriters in a registered public offering for $32.4844 per share, or an aggregate of approximately $401 million.

Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, on August 7, 2006, we repurchased 3,447,501 shares of our common stock from Mr. Gaughan directly. As consideration for the repurchase, we issued a term note to Mr. Gaughan in the aggregate amount of approximately $112 million. In connection with the closing of the transaction, the term note was cancelled on October 25, 2006.

Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Mr. Gaughan resigned from his position as a member of our board of directors on September 6, 2006 and ceased to be a Boyd Gaming employee on October 25, 2006. In addition, on August 4, 2006, Mr. Gaughan surrendered all of his options to acquire Boyd Gaming common stock, effectively canceling his vested options to purchase 88,334 shares and forfeiting his unvested options to purchase 176,666 shares.

In connection with the sale of South Coast, we recorded a loss on the sale of approximately $69 million during the year ended December 31, 2006, which is included in the loss from discontinued operations on our consolidated statement of operations.

Barbary Coast

On February 27, 2007, we completed our exchange of the Barbary Coast and its related 4.2 acres of land for a total of approximately 24 acres located north of and contiguous to our Echelon development project on the Las Vegas Strip in a nonmonetary, tax-free transaction with Harrah’s Operating Company, Inc., a subsidiary of Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (“Harrah’s”). Harrah’s purchased the 24-acre site in October 2006 from unrelated third parties for aggregate cash consideration of approximately $364 million. Upon the closing of this transaction, we recorded a non-cash pre-tax gain of approximately $285 million and wrote-off the $3.7 million carrying value of the Barbary Coast trademark, as we will retain the trademark but no longer have underlying cash flows to support its value.

Summary Financial Information for Discontinued Operations

The operating results of South Coast and Barbary Coast for the years ended December 31, 2007 2006 and 20052006 are presented as net income (loss) from discontinued operations on our consolidated statements of operations. The assets held for sale and liabilities related to assets held for sale for South Coast and Barbary Coast are separately presented on our consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2006. Included in the income (loss) from discontinued operations is an allocation of interest expense related to the $401 million of debt repaid as a result of the South Coast disposition, as well as other consolidated interest based on the ratio of: (i) the net assets of our discontinued operations less the debt repaid as a result of the South Coast disposition, to (ii) the sum of total consolidated net assets and consolidated debt of the Company, other than the debt repaid as a result of the disposition. The amount of interest expense that was allocated to discontinued operations was $0.6 million $26.2 million and $2.7$26.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, and 2005, respectively.

-86-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—STATEMENTS — (Continued)

Summary operating results for the discontinued operations are as follows:follows.

 

  Year Ended December 31,   Year Ended December 31, 
  2007 2006 2005   2007 2006 
  (In thousands)   (In thousands) 

Net revenues

  $10,179  $204,819  $61,935   $10,179  $204,819 

Asset impairment charges

   (3,700)  (65,000)  —      (3,700)  (65,000)

Loss on disposition of South Coast

   —     (3,606)  —      —     (3,606)

Operating loss

   (2,484)  (42,972)  (2,542)   (2,484)  (42,972)

Gain on disposition of Barbary Coast

   285,033   —     —      285,033   —   

Income (loss) from discontinued operations

   281,949   (69,219)  (5,253)   281,949   (69,219)

Benefit from (provision for) income taxes

   (99,822)  24,649   1,934    (99,822)  24,649 

Net income (loss) from discontinued operations

   182,127   (44,570)  (3,319)   182,127   (44,570)

The major classes of assets and liabilities classified as held for sale as of December 31, 2006 were as follows (in thousands):

 

Accounts receivable, net

  $40

Inventories

   312

Prepaid expenses and other current assets

   —  

Property and equipment, net

   102,625

Other assets, net

   —  

Accrued liabilities

   2,993

NOTE 12.—11. – ACQUISITION OF DANIA JAI-ALAI

On March 1, 2007, we acquired Dania Jai-Alai and approximately 47 acres of related land located in Dania Beach, Florida. Dania Jai-Alai is one of four pari-mutuel facilities in Broward County approved under Florida law to operate 2,000 Class III slot machines (see Note 8, “7,Commitments and Contingencies, for information related to the Broward County slot initiative and the pending challenge to its validity). We purchased Dania Jai-Alai with the intention of redeveloping the property into a casino with slot casino. Wemachines. In March 2007, we paid approximately $81 million to close this transaction, and if certain conditions are satisfied, we will be requiredagreed to pay, in March 2010 or earlier, a contingent payment of an additional $75 million to the seller, plus interest accrued at the prime rate (the “contingent payment”), in March 2010 or earlier. We can provide no assurances asif certain legal conditions were satisfied. See further discussion below regarding the amendment to when, or whether, such conditions will be satisfied. We will not record a liability forthe purchase agreement that settled the contingent payment unless or until the contingency has been resolved and the additional consideration is distributable. If the contingency is resolved and the contingent payment is made, it will be added to the cost of the acquisition.payment.

We are in the process of finalizing our valuation of significant identifiable intangible assets, as well as other assets acquired and liabilities assumed based upon the estimated fair value at the date of acquisition. Our initial allocation is preliminary and may be adjusted up to one year after the acquisition date; therefore, we can provide no assurances that our preliminary allocations will approximate the final allocations or that the estimated fair value will approximate the actual fair value.

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

The following table sets forth the preliminary allocationfair values assigned to the assets and liabilities of Dania Jai-Alai, including all purchase adjustments at the purchase price:time of acquisition.

 

  March 1, 2007   March 1, 2007 
  (In thousands)   (In thousands) 

Current assets, including cash of $780

  $4,351   $4,352 

Property and equipment

   46,000    46,000 

Intangible gaming license right

   35,153    81,800 
        

Total assets acquired

   85,504    132,152 

Current liabilities assumed

   (3,820)   (3,820)

Non-current contingent liability

   (46,648)
        

Net assets acquired

  $81,684   $81,684 
        

The intangible gaming license right is not subject to amortization as we have determined that it has an indefinite useful life.

We also reported $0.9 million of indirect and general expenses related to this acquisition, which is included in write-downs and other charges, net on our condensed consolidated statement of operations forDuring the year ended December 31, 2007 (see Note 10,“Write-downs2008, we recorded an $84.0 million non-cash impairment charge to write-off Dania Jai-Alai’s intangible license right and Other Charges, Net”). In addition, pro forma financial information is not provided herein as Dania Jai-Alai is not a significant subsidiary of the Companywrite-down its property and its primary gaming operations have not yet commenced.

In February 2008, management completed its analysis ofequipment to their estimated fair values, following our opportunitydecision to indefinitely postpone redevelopment plans to operate slot machines at Dania Jai-Alai and decidedthe facility. Our decision to postpone redevelopment of the facility due to the following considerations: the continued poor performance of the Broward County pari-mutuel casinos;

-87-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

development is based on numerous factors, including the introduction of Class III slot machines and the probable pending addition of table gamesexpanded gaming at a nearby Native American casino;casino, the prohibitively high gaming tax ratepotential for pari-mutuel slot operators; the pending introduction ofadditional casino gaming venues in Miami-Dade CountyFlorida, and the introductionexisting Broward County pari-mutuel casinos performing below our expectations for the market (see Note 9,Write-Downs and Other Charges, net).

Subsequent Event – Contingent Liability

The $46.6 million non-current contingent liability represents the excess of legislationthe fair value of the net assets acquired over our initial cost paid for Dania Jai-Alai and is included in other liabilities on our consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2008. In January 2009, we amended the purchase agreement to allow for slot machines at all pari-mutuel facilities in the State of Florida. As circumstances change, management will monitor our opportunities with respect to Dania Jai-Alai.

Due to the change in circumstances, during the first quarter of 2008 we will test Dania Jai-Alai’s long-lived and intangible assets, as well as any goodwill that may arise from the finalization of our purchase price allocation, for impairment. Although we cannot quantify an amount at this time, we expect this impairment test to result in the write-down of a portion of these assets. In addition, we may be subject to another impairment charge if and whensettle the contingent payment is resolvedprior to the satisfaction of the legal conditions. The principal terms of the amendment are as follows:

We paid $9.4 million to the seller in January 2009, plus $9.1 million of interest accrued from the March 1, 2007 date of acquisition.

We issued an 8% promissory note to the seller in the amount of $65.6 million, plus accrued interest. The terms of the note require principal payments of $9.4 million, plus accrued interest in April 2009 and added toJuly 2009 with a final principal payment of $46.9 million, plus accrued interest due in January 2010.

In conjunction with this amendment, we will record the remaining $28.4 million portion of the $75 million contingent liability as an additional cost of the acquisition.acquisition (goodwill) during the three months ending March 31, 2009. We will test the goodwill for recoverability, and we expect that the test will result in an additional impairment charge during the three months ending March 31, 2009.

NOTE 13.—12. – INSURANCE COVERAGE RELATED TO HURRICANE IMPACTS

Treasure Chest Casino.On August 27, 2005, Treasure Chest Casino in Kenner, Louisiana closed as a result of Hurricane Katrina. The property suffered minor damage from the hurricane and reopened for business on October 10, 2005.

Delta Downs Racetrack Casino & Hotel.On September 22, 2005, Delta Downs Racetrack Casino & Hotel closed as a result of Hurricane Rita. Delta Downs reopened for business on November 3, 2005 with limited hours of operation and limited food and beverage outlets. Delta Downs resumed normal operating hours beginning in December 2005 and horse racing resumed in April 2006.

Property Damage—Damage - Delta Downs.Our insurance policy carried on Delta Downs for the policy year ended June 30, 2006 included coverage for replacement costs related to property damage with an associated deductible of $1.0 million and certain other limitations. We have submitted insurance claims for the property damage sustained by Delta Downs from the hurricane because the damage exceeded the related insurance deductible.

During 2006, we completed substantially all of the hurricane reconstruction work at Delta Downs and incurred approximately $42 million of capital expenditures related to this reconstruction project. As of

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

December 31, 2006, we had received insurance advances related to property damage at Delta Downs of $40 million. In December 2006, we reached a final settlement with our insurance carrier and recognized a gain of $36 million on our consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2006, of which approximately $33 million of which represents the amount of insurance advances related to property damage in excess of the $7.0$7 million net book value of assets damaged or destroyed by the hurricane.

Business Interruption—Interruption - Delta Downs.For the policy year ended June 30, 2006, Delta Downs maintained business interruption insurance that covers lost profits and continuing normal operating expenses, up to a maximum of $1 million per day. During 2006 and 2005, we had received advances totaling $11.7 million related to business interruption coverage as part of the final settlement from our insurance carrier, approximately $9.1 million of which relates to recoveries of post-closing costs and $2.6 million of which related to lost profits at Delta Downs. The $2.6 million of insurance recoveries related to lost profits has been included in our gain of $36 million on our consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2006.

Business Interruption—Interruption - Treasure Chest.For the policy year ended June 30, 2006, Treasure Chest maintained business interruption insurance that covers lost profits and continuing normal operating expenses, up to a maximum amount of $10 million. This coverage pertains to business interruption due to civil authority, ingress/egress or off-premise utility interruption.

-88-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

Our insurance carrier has notified us that they are denying our business interruption claim. Therefore, we have not recorded a receivable from our insurance carrier for post-closing expenses as recovery of these amounts currently does not appear to be probable. We intend to vigorously pursue our claims under Treasure Chest’s insurance policy.

During the year ended December 31, 2008, severe weather associated with Hurricanes Gustav and Ike caused the closures of Treasure Chest and Delta Downs; however, the damages did not exceed their respective insurance deductibles and no claims were filed.

NOTE 14.13. —EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS

We contribute to multi-employer pension plans under various union agreements. Contributions, based on wages paid to covered employees, totaled approximately $1.0 million, $1.1 million $2.2 million and $2.5$2.2 million, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 2006 and 2005.2006. Our share of the unfunded liability related to multi-employer plans, if any, is not determinable.

We have retirement savings plans under Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code covering our non-union employees. The plans allow employees to defer up to the lesser of the Internal Revenue Code prescribed maximum amount or 100% of their income on a pre-tax basis through contributions to the plans. We expensed our voluntary contributions to the 401(k) profit-sharing plans and trusts of $8.3 million, $8.6 million $11.7 million and $10.5$11.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, and 2005, respectively.

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

NOTE 15.14. —INCOME TAXES

A summary of the provision (benefit) forbenefit from (provision for) income taxes is as follows:follows.

 

  Year Ended December 31, 
  2007 2006 2005   Year Ended December 31, 
  (In thousands)   2008 2007 2006 

Current

        (In thousands)   

Federal

  $56,669  $81,737  $90,930   $(14,408) $(56,669) $(81,737)

State

   (1,207)  (310)  1,059    (1,924)  1,207   310 
                    
   55,462   81,427   91,989    (16,332)  (55,462)  (81,427)
                    

Deferred

        

Federal

   7,362   1,821   (5,093)   43,948   (7,362)  (1,821)

State

   1,203   2,243   (912)   (1,085)  (1,203)  (2,243)
                    
   8,565   4,064   (6,005)   42,863   (8,565)  (4,064)
                    

Provision for income taxes related to continuing operations

  $64,027  $85,491  $85,984 

Benefit from (provision for) income taxes related to continuing operations

  $26,531  $(64,027) $(85,491)
                    

Income tax provision (benefit) included on the consolidated statements of operations

    

Provision for income taxes related to continuing operations

  $64,027  $85,491  $85,984 

Provision (benefit) for income taxes related to discontinued operations

   99,822   (24,649)  (1,934)

Income tax benefit related to cumulative effect of a change in change in accounting principle

   —     —     (8,984)

Income tax benefit (provision) included on the consolidated statements of operations

    

Benefit from (provision for) income taxes related to continuing operations

  $26,531  $(64,027) $(85,491)

Benefit from (provision for) income taxes related to discontinued operations

   —     (99,822)  24,649 
                    

Total

  $163,849  $60,842  $75,066   $26,531  $(163,849) $(60,842)
                    

The following table provides a reconciliation between the federal statutory rate and the effective income tax rate from continuing operations where both are expressed as a percentage of income.

 

  December 31,   December 31, 
  2007 2006 2005   2008 2007 2006 

Tax provision at statutory rate

  35.0% 35.0% 35.0%  35.0% 35.0% 35.0%

Goodwill impairment

  (23.2) —    —   

Other, net

  (0.4) (0.4) (0.7)  (1.2) (0.4) (0.4)
                    

Total

  34.6% 34.6% 34.3%  10.6% 34.6% 34.6%
                    

-89-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—STATEMENTS — (Continued)

The tax items comprising our net deferred tax liabilities are as follows:follows.

 

  December 31,   December 31, 
  2007 2006   2008 2007 
  (In thousands)   (In thousands) 

Deferred tax liabilities:

     

Difference between book and tax basis of property

  $283,789  $207,120   $309,856  $283,789 

Difference between book and tax basis of intangible assets

   109,174   99,675    41,897   109,174 

Prepaid services and supplies

   4,083   4,280 

State tax liability, net of federal effect

   4,614   11,339    2,404   4,614 

Prepaid services and supplies

   4,280   2,177 

Reserve differential for gaming activities

   —     2,965    124   —   

Derivative instruments market adjustment

   —     2,298 

Other

   2,234   2,169    1,826   2,234 
              

Gross deferred tax liabilities

   404,091   327,743    360,190   404,091 
              

Deferred tax assets:

      

Share-based compensation

   15,972   11,510 

Derivative instruments market adjustment

   11,033   5,916 

Reserve for employee benefits

   12,207   9,509    9,406   12,207 

Share-based compensation

   11,510   6,999 

Preopening expenses

   8,425   5,529 

State net operating loss carryforwards, net of federal effect

   8,155   5,110    8,135   8,155 

Derivative instruments market adjustment

   5,916   —   

Preopening expenses

   5,529   2,038 

Provision for doubtful accounts

   3,251   2,888    2,134   3,251 

Reserve differential for gaming activities

   733   —      —     733 

Other

   4,900   2,873    5,056   4,900 
              

Gross deferred tax assets

   52,201   29,417    60,161   52,201 

Valuation allowance

   (8,221)  (1,628)   (10,811)  (8,221)
              

Deferred tax assets, net of valuation allowance

   43,980   27,789    49,350   43,980 
              

Net deferred tax liabilities

  $360,111  $299,954   $310,840  $360,111 
              

The items comprising our deferred income taxes as presented on the consolidated balance sheets are as follows:follows.

 

  December 31,  December 31,
  2007  2006  2008  2007
  (In thousands)  

(In thousands)

Net deferred tax liabilities

  $360,111  $299,954  $310,840  $360,111

Current deferred tax asset separately presented

   5,259   1,685   2,903   5,259
            

Deferred income taxes

  $365,370  $301,639  $313,743  $365,370
            

The Internal Revenue Service is currently examining our federal tax returns filed for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003. Additionally, although tax years 2001 and 2002 are closed by statute, the tax returns filed in those years are subject to adjustment to the extent of the net operating losses carried back for refundloss carry-backs utilized in thesethose years. Our acquired subsidiary, Coast Casinos, Inc., is currently under examinationStatute of limitations expirations related to our federal tax returns for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002 andthrough 2005 have been extended to September 15, 2010. The statute of limitations for our remaining federal tax returns will expire over the six-month period ended June 30, 2004, the day prior to our acquisition date. We do not believe that the resolution of these examinations will have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.September 2010 through September 2012.

We are also currently under examination for various state income and franchise tax matters. As it related to our material state returns, the statute of limitations will begin to expire over the period of October 2010 through October 2013. Based on our current expectations for the final resolutions of these matters, we believe that we will have adequately reserved for any tax liability; however, the ultimate resolution of these examinations may result in an outcome that is

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

different from our current expectation. We do not believe that the resolution of these examinations will have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

-90-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

As of December 31, 2007,2008, we have state net operating loss carryforwardscarry-forwards of approximately $152$154 million, primarily in the states of Indiana and Louisiana, to reduce future state income taxes. TheThese net operating losses will expire at various dates from December 31, 2013 to December 31, 20272028 if not fully utilized. A valuation allowance has been recorded to reflecton a material portion of our state net operating losses in Indiana and Louisiana along with other deferred tax assets which are not presently expected to be realized. Certain state net operating losses arising from stock option exercises will result in approximately $2.6$1.7 million of additional paid-in capital, if realized. Our valuation allowance also includes amounts related to goodwill acquired in connection with the original purchase of one of our operating properties that was closed in 2007. Realization of thea tax benefit associated with the goodwillthis attribute is contingent upon the occurrence of future events which, at present, we do not believe likely to occur.

The 2008 tax benefit includes a one-time permanent unfavorable tax adjustment of $3.7 million related to non-recurring state income tax valuation allowances. The 2007 tax provision includes one-time permanent tax benefits of $1.3 million resulting from a charitable contribution and a state income tax credit.benefit. The 20052006 tax provision includes a net tax benefit of $1.5$0.4 million for tax retention credits related to the hurricanes that impacted our Louisiana operations.operations in 2005.

Other Long-term Tax Liabilities

In July 2008, the FASB issued Interpretation No. 48 (“FIN 48”),Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes – an Interpretation of FASB Statement 109. FIN 48 clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in income taxes recognized in an enterprise’s financial statements in accordance with SFAS No. 109,Accounting for Income Taxes. FIN 48 prescribes a threshold and measurement attribute for the financial statement recognition and measurement of a tax position taken or expected to be taken in a tax return.

Under FIN 48, the impact of an uncertain income tax position on the income tax return must be recognized at the largest amount that is more-likely-than-not to be sustained upon audit by the relevant taxing authority. An uncertain income tax position will not be recognized if it has less than a 50% likelihood of being sustained. Additionally, FIN 48 provides guidance on derecognition, classification, interest and penalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosure and transition. FIN 48 was effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2006, and applies to all tax positions accounted for in accordance with SFAS No. 109.

The total amount of unrecognized tax benefits upon the adoption of FIN 48 on January 1, 2007 was $32.7 million. As a result of the implementation of FIN 48, we recognized a $31.7 million increase in the liability for unrecognized tax benefits which was accounted for as follows (in thousands):

 

Reduction in retained earnings (cumulative effect)

  $105

Additional deferred tax assets

   31,639
    

Increase in income tax liabilities

  $31,744
    

A reconciliation of the beginning and ending amount of unrecognized tax benefits is as follows (in thousands):.

 

Balance at January 1, 2007

  $32,744 
  December 31, 
  2008 2007 
  (In thousands) 

Beginning unrecognized tax benefit

  $34,750  $32,744 

Additions based on tax positions related to the current year

   3,164    2,366   3,164 

Reductions for tax positions of prior years

   (158)   (1,976)  (158)

Reductions for settlements with taxing authorities

   (1,000)   (4,655)  (1,000)
           

Balance at December 31, 2007

  $34,750 

Ending unrecognized tax benefit

  $30,485  $34,750 
           

Included in the $34.8$30.5 million balance of unrecognized tax benefits at December 31, 2007,2008 are benefits of $6.0$5.8 million, net of federal taxes that, if recognized, would impact the effective tax rate. Included in the total unrecognized tax benefits is $4.5 million, net of federal taxes, that will not have an impact on our effective tax rate if realized (or remeasured) prior to the adoption of SFAS No. 141R, but would have an impact on our effective tax rate if realized (or remeasured) after the adoption of SFAS No. 141R. Prior to the adoption of SFAS No. 141R, the adjustment to the FIN 48 reserve is recorded as an increase to goodwill if an expense and, if a

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

benefit, is applied to (a) reduce to zero any goodwill related to the acquisition, (b) reduce to zero other noncurrent intangible assets related to the acquisition, and (c) reduce income tax expense. Subsequent to the adoption of SFAS No. 141R (effective on January 1, 2009), the preceding rule will no longer apply and any expense or benefit associated with realizing (or remeasuring) the unrecognized tax benefit will be recorded as income tax expense.

We recognize accrued interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits in our income tax provision. During the year ended December 31, 2007,2008, we recognized accrued interest of $2.2$2.0 million. As a result of the closing of the Internal Revenue Service’s examination of Coast Casinos Inc., we

-91-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

released interest receivable of $0.2 million. We recognized an increase of $2.1 million and a reduction of $1.0 million and an increase of $1.8 million in accrued interest and penalties during the years ended 20062007 and 2005,2006, respectively. We recorded $4.6$6.8 million and $2.8$4.6 million of accrued interest and penalties at December 31, 20072008 and 2006,2007, respectively. Upon our adoption of FIN 48 on January 1, 2007, we decreased accrued interest by $0.4 million.

Our federal and material state income tax returns are subject to examination for tax yearsDuring the year ended on or after December 31, 2001.2008, we closed the audit of our Coast Casinos properties for periods prior to our acquisition on July 1, 2004. As a result, we decreased our unrecognized tax benefits by $4.7 million, none of which impacted our effective tax rate. Pursuant to SFAS No. 141, in connection with the release of the unrecognized tax benefits, we reduced the amount of goodwill that we recorded upon the purchase of Coast Casinos, Inc. by $2.8 million during the year ended December 31, 2008 (see Note 4).

We are in various stages of the examination and appeal process in connection with many of our audits, itaudits. It is difficult to determine when these examinations will be closed; however, it is reasonably possible that over the next twelve-month period we may experience a decrease in our unrecognized tax benefits which, as of December 31, 2007, were less than $5.0 million, none of which would impact our effective tax rate. Such a reduction is due primarily to IRS examination adjustments related to Coast Casino properties prior to our acquisition. Other than the resolution of the audit discussed above,closed, but we do not expect resolution within the next 12 months, nor do we anticipate any additionalmaterial changes to our unrecognized tax benefits over the next twelve-month period.

NOTE 16.15. —EARNINGS PER SHARE

Income (loss) from continuing operations before cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle and the weighted-average number of common shares and common share equivalents used in the calculation of basic and diluted earnings per share consistedconsist of the following:following.

 

   Year Ended December 31,
   2007  2006  2005
   (In thousands)

Income from continuing operations before cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle

  $120,908  $161,348  $164,368
            

Weighted-average common shares outstanding

   87,567   88,380   88,528

Dilutive effect of stock options

   1,041   1,213   1,979
            

Weighted-average common and potential shares outstanding

   88,608   89,593   90,507
            
   Year Ended December 31,
   2008  2007  2006
   (In thousands)

Income (loss) from continuing operations

  $(223,005) $120,908  $161,348
            

Weighted-average common shares outstanding

   87,854   87,567   88,380

Potential dilutive effect

   —     1,041   1,213
            

Weighted-average common shares and common share equivalents

   87,854   88,608   89,593
            

Anti-dilutive optionsDue to the loss from continuing operations for the year ended December 31, 2008, all potential common shares were anti-dilutive, and therefore were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share. Anti-dilutive options excluded from the computation of diluted earnings per share amounted to 2.0 million shares 2.0 million shares and 0.4 million shares for each of the years ended December 31, 2007 2006 and 2005,2006, respectively.

NOTE 17.16. —RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

Percentage Ownership

William S. Boyd, our Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors, together with his immediate family, beneficially owned approximately 36% of our outstanding shares of common stock as of December 31, 2007.2008. As a result,such, the Boyd family has the ability to significantly influence our affairs, including the election of members of our directorsBoard of Directors and, except as otherwise provided by law, approving or disapproving other matters submitted to a vote

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

of our stockholders, including a merger, consolidation or sale of assets. For each of the three years ended December 31, 2007,2008, there were no related party transactions between usthe Company and the Boyd family.

South Coast Sale

On July 25, 2006, we entered into the Agreement to sell South Coast to Mr.Michael J. Gaughan, who at the time was an Officer and a member of our Board of Directors, for a purchase price equal to the net proceeds from the sale of all 15,790,00515.8 million shares of Boyd Gaming stock owned by Mr. Gaughan.that he owned. The transaction closed onin October 25, 2006. See Note 11, “10,Assets and Liabilities Held For Sale – Discontinued Operations: South Coast”Coast for additional information related to the South Coast sale. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, for a period of five years following the closing of the sale of South Coast, Mr. Gaughan cannot sell South Coast to any party other than us, or an affiliate of ours, and for three additional years thereafter, we will have a right of first refusal on any potential sale of South Coast.

-92-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

North Las Vegas Land

In February 2006, we purchased a 40-acre, fully entitled casino site in North Las Vegas for approximately $35 million from a group that included the father of Michael J. Gaughan. At the time of the purchase, Michael J. Gaughan was an officerOfficer and a member of our Board of Directors.

NOTE 18.17. —SEGMENT INFORMATION

We have aggregated certain of our properties in order to present five segments:four Reportable Segments: Las Vegas Locals, Downtown Las Vegas, Midwest and South Stardust and Borgata, our 50% joint venture in Atlantic City. The table below listsEffective April 1, 2008, we reclassified the classificationreporting of each of our properties. Beginning in 2007, we renamed what we previously referred to as the Central Region segment, as the Midwest and South segment. segment to exclude the results of Dania Jai-Alai, our pari-mutuel jai alai facility, since it does not share similar economic characteristics with our other Midwest and South operations; therefore, the results of Dania Jai-Alai are included as part of the “Other” category on the accompanying table. In addition, we reclassified the reporting of corporate expense on the accompanying table in order to exclude it from our subtotal for Reportable Segment Adjusted EBITDA and include it as part of total other operating costs and expenses. Furthermore, corporate expense is now presented to include its portion of share-based compensation expense.

Due to the disposition of Barbary Coast and South Coast, the operating results from these two properties are classified as discontinued operations inon our consolidated statements of operations and are excluded from our presentation in the Las Vegas Locals segment. In addition, we ceased operations at the Stardust on November 1, 2006, which was an additional Reportable Segment during the year ended December 31, 2006. Results for Downtown Las Vegas include the results of our two travel agencies and our insurance company. Results forThe table below lists the Midwest and South include the resultsclassification of Dania Jai-Alai,each of our pari-mutuel jai alai facility located in Dania Beach, Florida.properties.

 

Las Vegas Locals

  Downtown Las Vegas 

Gold Coast Hotel and Casino

 Las Vegas, NV 

California Hotel and Casino

 Las Vegas, NV

The Orleans Hotel and Casino

 Las Vegas, NV 

Fremont Hotel and Casino

 Las Vegas, NV

Sam’s Town Hotel and Gambling Hall

 Las Vegas, NV 

Main Street Station Casino, Brewery and Hotel

 Las Vegas, NV

Suncoast Hotel and Casino

 Las Vegas, NV Midwest      and SouthHotel Las Vegas, NV

Eldorado Casino

 Henderson, NV 

Sam’s Town HotelMidwest and

South
 

Jokers Wild Casino

 Henderson, NV 

    Sam’s Town Hotel and Gambling Hall

 Tunica, MS
  

Par-A-Dice Hotel Casino

 East Peoria, IL

Stardust Resort and Casino

 Las Vegas, NV 

Treasure Chest Casino

 Kenner, LA
  

Blue Chip Casino, Hotel and Casino

& Spa
 Michigan City, IN

Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa

 Atlantic City, NJ 

Delta Downs Racetrack Casino & Hotel

 Vinton, LA
  

Sam’s Town Hotel and Casino

 Shreveport, LA

-93-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—STATEMENTS — (Continued)

The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, certain operating data for our reportable segments. All prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current year’s presentation.

 

   Year Ended December 31, 
   2007  2006  2005 
   (In thousands) 

Gross Revenues

    

Las Vegas Locals

  $943,117  $946,176  $969,165 

Downtown Las Vegas

   277,660   278,737   282,363 

Midwest and South

   1,001,242   1,074,989   967,381 

Stardust(2)

   —     135,019   183,020 
             

Total gross revenues

  $2,222,019  $2,434,921  $2,401,929 
             

Adjusted EBITDA(1)

    

Las Vegas Locals

  $275,510  $273,797  $299,913 

Downtown Las Vegas

   52,127   53,573   52,295 

Midwest and South(3)

   212,620   257,570   224,816 

Stardust(2)

   —     15,403   24,651 
             

Wholly-owned property Adjusted EBITDA

   540,257   600,343   601,675 

Corporate expense(7)

   (48,960)  (39,981)  (44,101)
             

Wholly-owned Adjusted EBITDA

   491,297   560,362   557,574 

Our share of Borgata's operating income before net amortization, preopening and other items(8)

   86,470   91,963   97,392 
             

Total Adjusted EBITDA

   577,767   652,325   654,966 
             

Other operating costs and expenses

    

Deferred rent

   4,520   4,630   4,936 

Depreciation and amortization(9)

   167,257   189,837   171,958 

Preopening expenses

   22,819   20,623   7,690 

Our share of Borgata’s preopening expenses

   1,558   3,260   —   

Our share of Borgata’s write-downs and other charges, net

   478   1,209   80 

Share-based compensation expense(4)

   14,802   19,278   —   

Write-downs and other charges, net

   12,101   8,838   64,615 
             

Total other operating costs and expenses

   223,535   247,675   249,279 
             

Operating income

   354,232   404,650   405,687 
             

Other non-operating costs and expenses

    

Interest expense, net(5)

   137,454   145,433   126,088 

Loss on early retirements of debt

   16,945   —     17,529 

Decrease in value of derivative instruments

   1,130   1,801   —   

Our share of Borgata’s non-operating expenses, net

   13,768   10,577   11,718 
             

Total other non-operating costs and expenses

   169,297   157,811   155,335 
             

Income from continuing operations before provision for income taxes and cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle

   184,935   246,839   250,352 

Provision for income taxes

   (64,027)  (85,491)  (85,984)
             

Income from continuing operations before cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle

  $120,908  $161,348  $164,368 
             
   Year Ended December 31,
   2008  2007  2006
      (In thousands)   

Gross Revenues

     

Las Vegas Locals

  $858,241  $943,117  $946,176

Downtown Las Vegas

   263,005   277,660   278,737

Midwest and South

 �� 857,650   993,112   1,074,989

Stardust (1)

   —     —     135,019
            

Reportable Segment Gross Revenues

   1,978,896   2,213,889   2,434,921

Other (2)

   8,659   8,130   —  
            

Gross Revenues

  $1,987,555  $2,222,019  $2,434,921
            

Reportable Segment Adjusted EBITDA (3)

     

Las Vegas Locals

  $218,591  $275,510  $273,797

Downtown Las Vegas

   40,657   52,127   53,573

Midwest and South (4)

   169,063   214,605   257,570

Stardust (1)

   —     —     15,403

Our share of Borgata’s operating income before net amortization, preopening and other items (3)

   60,520   86,470   91,963
            

Reportable Segment Adjusted EBITDA

   488,831   628,712   692,306
            

Other operating costs and expenses

     

Depreciation and amortization (5)

   170,295   167,257   189,837

Corporate expense (6)

   52,332   60,143   54,229

Preopening expenses

   20,265   22,819   20,623

Our share of Borgata’s preopening expenses

   2,785   1,558   3,260

Our share of Borgata’s write-downs and other charges, net

   81   478   1,209

Write-downs and other charges, net

   385,521   12,101   8,838

Other (7)

   10,981   10,124   9,660
            

Total other operating costs and expenses

   642,260   274,480   287,656
            

Operating income (loss)

   (153,429)  354,232   404,650
            

Other non-operating items

     

Interest expense, net (8)

   109,076   137,454   145,433

Decrease (increase) in value of derivative instruments

   (425)  1,130   1,801

Loss (gain) on early retirements of debt

   (28,553)  16,945   —  

Our share of Borgata’s non-operating expenses, net

   16,009   13,768   10,577
            

Total other non-operating costs and expenses, net

   96,107   169,297   157,811
            

Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes

  $(249,536) $184,935  $246,839
            

   December 31,
   2008  2007
   (In thousands)

Property and Equipment, Intangible Assets and Goodwill

  

Las Vegas Locals

  $1,288,488  $1,471,728

Downtown Las Vegas

   118,929   132,022

Midwest and South

   1,139,509   1,194,489

Other

   37,169   81,647
        

Total properties’ assets

   2,584,095   2,879,886

Corporate entities

   1,300,898   778,451
        

Total assets (9)

  $3,884,993  $3,658,337
        

-94-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

   December 31,
   2007  2006
   (In thousands)

Property and Equipment, Intangible Assets and Goodwill

  

Las Vegas Locals

  $1,471,728  $1,474,955

Downtown Las Vegas

   132,022   134,124

Midwest and South

   1,276,136   1,194,812

Stardust

   —     45,859
        

Total properties’ assets

   2,879,886   2,849,750

Corporate entities

   778,451   190,651
        

Total assets(6)

  $3,658,337  $3,040,401
        

  Year Ended December 31,   Year Ended December 31,
  2007 2006  2005   2008 2007 2006
  (In thousands)     (In thousands)  

Additions to Property and Equipment and Other Assets

            

Las Vegas Locals

  $69,765  $48,716  $39,677   $56,117  $69,765  $48,716

Downtown Las Vegas

   14,081   22,877   15,297    3,266   14,081   22,877

Midwest and South

   73,631   82,059   173,650    122,965   72,566   82,059

Stardust

   —     222   6,928    —     —     222

Other

   43   1,065   —  

Discontinued operations

   36   59,778   423,845    —     36   59,778
                   

Total properties’ additions

   157,513   213,652   659,397    182,391   157,513   213,652

Corporate entities

   190,866   113,614   35,216    527,508   190,866   113,614
                   

Total additions to property and equipment and other assets

   348,379   327,266   694,613    709,899   348,379   327,266

Change in accrued property additions

   (51,485)  109,198   (76,169)   (42,499)  (51,485)  109,198
                   

Cash-based property additions

  $296,894  $436,464  $618,444   $667,400  $296,894  $436,464
                   

 

(1)

Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, or EBITDA, is a commonly used measure of performance in our industry which we believe, when considered with measures calculated in accordance with United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), gives investors a more complete understanding of operating results before the impact of investing and financing transactions and income taxes and facilitates comparisons between us and our competitors. Management has historically adjusted EBITDA when evaluating operating performance because we believe that the inclusion or exclusion of certain recurring and non-recurring items is necessary to provide the most accurate measure of our core operating results and as a means to evaluate period-to-period results. We have chosen to provide this information to investors to enable them to perform more meaningful comparisons of past, present and future operating results and as a means to evaluate the results of core on-going operations. We do not reflect such items when calculating EBITDA; however, we adjust for these items and refer to this measure as Adjusted EBITDA. We have historically reported this measure to our investors and believe that the continued inclusion of Adjusted EBITDA provides consistency in our financial reporting. We use Adjusted EBITDA because we believe it is useful to investors in allowing greater transparency related to a significant measure used by management in its financial and operational decision-making. Adjusted EBITDA is among the more significant factors in management’s internal evaluation of total company and individual property performance and in the evaluation of incentive compensation related to property management. Management also uses Adjusted EBITDA as a measure in determining the value of acquisitions and dispositions. Adjusted EBITDA is also widely used by management in the annual budget process. Externally, we believe these measures continue to be used by investors in their assessment of our operating performance and the

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

valuation of our company. Adjusted EBITDA reflects EBITDA adjusted for deferred rent, preopening expenses, share-based compensation expense, change in value of derivative instruments, loss on early retirements of debt, write-downs and other charges, net and our share of Borgata’s non-operating expenses, preopening expenses and write-downs and other charges, net.

(2)We closed the Stardust on November 1, 2006 to make way for Echelon, our multibillion dollar Las Vegas Strip development project.

(2)Other gross revenues are generated from Dania Jai-Alai.

(3)We determine each of our wholly-owned properties’ profitability based upon Property EBITDA, which represents each property’s earnings before interest expense, income taxes, depreciation and amortization, preopening expenses, write-downs and other charges, share-based compensation expense, deferred rent, change in value of derivative instruments, and gain/loss on early retirements of debt, as applicable. Reportable Segment Adjusted EBITDA is the aggregate sum of the Property EBITDA for each of the properties included in our Las Vegas Locals, Downtown Las Vegas, Midwest and South and Stardust segments, and also includes our share of Borgata’s operating income before net amortization, preopening and other items. We calculate our segment profitability for Borgata, our 50% joint venture, as follows:

   Year Ended December 31,
   2008  2007  2006
      (In thousands)   

Operating income from Borgata, as reported on our consolidated statements of operations

  $56,356  $83,136  $86,196

Add back:

      

Net amortization expense related to our investment in Borgata

   1,298   1,298   1,298

Our share of Borgata’s preopening expenses

   2,785   1,558   3,260

Our share of Borgata’s write-downs and other charges, net

   81   478   1,209
            

Our share of Borgata’s operating income before net amortization, preopening and other items as reported on the accompanying table

  $60,520  $86,470  $91,963
            

(4)Reportable Segment Adjusted EBITDA for the year ended December 31, 2007 includes a $3.2 million retroactive property tax assessment at Blue Chip. Reportable Segment Adjusted EBITDA for the year ended December 31, 2006 includes a $6.7 million retroactive gaming tax assessment at Par-A-Dice.
(4)We adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123R (“SFAS 123R”), “Share Based Payment,” on January 1, 2006 and therefore, we did not record any share-based compensation costs during the year ended December 31, 2005 (see Note 9).
(5)Net of interest income and amounts capitalized.
(6)Total assets represent total property and equipment, intangible assets and goodwill, net of accumulated depreciation and amortization.
(7)The following table reconciles the presentation of corporate expense on our consolidated statements of operations to the presentation on the accompanying table:

   Year Ended December 31,
   2007  2006  2005
   (In thousands)

Corporate expense as reported on our consolidated statements of operations

  $60,143  $54,229  $44,101

Corporate share-based compensation expense

   (11,183)  (14,248)  —  
            

Corporate expense as reported on accompanying table

  $48,960  $39,981  $44,101
            

 

(8)The following table reconciles the presentation of our share of Borgata’s operating income on our consolidated statements of operations to the presentation of our share of Borgata’s results on the accompanying table:

   Year Ended December 31,
   2007  2006  2005
   (In thousands)

Operating income from Borgata, as reported on our consolidated statements of operations

  $83,136  $86,196  $96,014

Add back:

      

Net amortization expense related to our investment in Borgata

   1,298   1,298   1,298

Our share of Borgata’s preopening expenses

   1,558   3,260   —  

Our share of Borgata's write-downs and other charges, net

   478   1,209   80
            

Our share of Borgata's operating income before net amortization, preopening and other items as reported on the accompanying table

  $86,470  $91,963  $97,392
            

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

(9)(5)The following table reconciles the presentation of depreciation and amortization on our consolidated statements of operations to the presentation on the accompanying table:table.

 

   Year Ended December 31,
   2007  2006  2005
   (In thousands)

Depreciation and amortization as reported on our consolidated statements of operations

  $165,959  $188,539  $170,660

Net amortization expense related to our investment in Borgata

   1,298   1,298   1,298
            

Depreciation and amortization as reported on accompanying table

  $167,257  $189,837  $171,958
            

-95-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—STATEMENTS — (Continued)

   Year Ended December 31,
   2008  2007  2006
      (In thousands)   

Depreciation and amortization as reported on our consolidated statements of operations

  $168,997  $165,959  $188,539

Net amortization expense related to our investment in Borgata

   1,298   1,298   1,298
            

Depreciation and amortization as reported on accompanying table

  $170,295  $167,257  $189,837
            

 

(6)Corporate expense represents unallocated payroll, professional fees, aircraft expenses and various other expenses not directly related to our casino and hotel operations, in addition to the corporate portion of share-based compensation expense.

(7)Other operating costs and expenses include Property EBITDA from Dania Jai-Alai, deferred rent, and share-based compensation expense charged to our Reportable Segments.

(8)Interest expense is net of interest income and amounts capitalized.

(9)Total assets represent total property and equipment, intangible assets and goodwill, presented net of accumulated depreciation and amortization. Corporate entities include all entities related to our Echelon development project.

-96-


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

NOTE 19.18. —SELECTED QUARTERLY FINANCIAL INFORMATION (UNAUDITED)

 

  Year Ended December 31, 2007 
  First  Second  Third  Fourth Total 
  (In thousands, except per share data) 

Net revenues

 $517,030  $511,391  $490,055  $478,643 $1,997,119 

Operating income

  95,276   87,168   91,051   80,737  354,232 

Income from continuing operations before cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle

  35,105   22,941   31,885   30,977  120,908 

Net income (loss) from discontinued operations

  182,761   (829)  (57)  252  182,127 

Net income

  217,866   22,112   31,828   31,229  303,035 

Basic and diluted net income per common share:

     

Income from continuing operations before cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle—basic

 $0.40  $0.26  $0.36  $0.35 $1.38 

Income from continuing operations before cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle—diluted

  0.40   0.26   0.36   0.35  1.36 

Income (loss) from discontinued operations—basic

  2.10   (0.01)  —     0.01  2.08 

Income (loss) from discontinued operations—diluted

  2.06   (0.01)  —     —    2.06 

Net Income—basic

  2.50   0.25   0.36   0.36  3.46 

Net Income—diluted

  2.46   0.25   0.36   0.35  3.42 
  Year Ended December 31, 2006 
  First  Second  Third  Fourth Total 
  (In thousands, except per share data) 

Net revenues

 $589,622  $551,490  $530,686  $520,836 $2,192,634 

Operating income

  138,382   57,476   85,692   123,100  404,650 

Income from continuing operations before cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle

  65,269   12,366   28,076   55,637  161,348 

Net income (loss) from discontinued operations

  (2,029)  (2,206)  (41,006)  671  (44,570)

Net income (loss)

  63,240   10,160   (12,930)  56,308  116,778 

Basic and diluted net income per common share:

     

Income from continuing operations before cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle—basic

 $0.73  $0.14  $0.32  $0.64 $1.83 

Income from continuing operations before cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle—diluted

  0.72   0.14   0.32   0.63  1.80 

Income (loss) from discontinued operations—basic

  (0.02)  (0.03)  (0.47)  0.01  (0.51)

Income (loss) from discontinued operations—diluted

  (0.02)  (0.03)  (0.47)  0.01  (0.50)

Net income (loss)—basic

  0.71   0.11   (0.15)  0.65  1.32 

Net income (loss)—diluted

  0.70   0.11   (0.15)  0.64  1.30 
   Year Ended December 31, 2008 
   First  Second  Third  Fourth  Total 
      (In thousands, except per share data)    

Net revenues

  $471,118  $460,764  $426,455  $422,630  $1,780,967 

Operating income (loss)

   (16,285)  64,094   45,750   (246,988)  (153,429)

Net income (loss)

   (32,587)  21,658   8,698   (220,774)  (223,005)

Basic and diluted net income (loss) per common share:

      

Net income (loss) - basic

   (0.37)  0.25   0.10   (2.51)  (2.54)

Net income (loss) - diluted

   (0.37)  0.25   0.10   (2.51)  (2.54)
   Year Ended December 31, 2007 
   First  Second  Third  Fourth  Total 
      (In thousands, except per share data)    

Net revenues

  $517,030  $511,391  $490,055  $478,643  $1,997,119 

Operating income

   95,276   87,168   91,051   80,737   354,232 

Income from continuing operations

   35,105   22,941   31,885   30,977   120,908 

Net income (loss) from discontinued operations

   182,761   (829)  (57)  252   182,127 

Net income

   217,866   22,112   31,828   31,229   303,035 

Basic and diluted net income per common share:

      

Income from continuing operations - basic

  $0.40  $0.26  $0.36  $0.35  $1.38 

Income from continuing operations - diluted

   0.40   0.26   0.36   0.35   1.36 

Income (loss) from discontinued operations - basic

   2.10   (0.01)  —     0.01   2.08 

Income (loss) from discontinued operations - diluted

   2.06   (0.01)  —     —     2.06 

Net Income - basic

   2.50   0.25   0.36   0.36   3.46 

Net Income - diluted

   2.46   0.25   0.36   0.35   3.42 

(c)Exhibits.
-97-


(c) Exhibits.

 

Exhibit

Number

  

Document

2.1

  Purchase Agreement, entered into as of June 5, 2006, by and among the Registrant, FGB Development, Inc., Boyd Florida, LLC, The Aragon Group, Inc., Summersport Enterprises, LLLP, the Shareholders of The Aragon Group, Inc., The Limited Partners of Summersport Enterprises, LLLP, and Stephen F. Snyder, individually and as Shareholder Representative With Respect to Dania Jai Alai (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 of the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006).

2.2

  Unit Purchase Agreement, dated as of July 25, 2006, as amended, by and among the Registrant, Coast Hotels and Casinos, Inc., Silverado South Strip, LLC, and Michael J. Gaughan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 of the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on October 31, 2006).

2.3

  Agreement for Exchange of Assets and Joint Escrow Instructions, dated as of September 29, 2006, entered into by and between Coast Hotels and Casinos, Inc. and Harrah’s Operating Company, Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 of the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006).

2.4

  Letter Agreement entered into as of February 26, 2007, by and between Coast Hotels and Casinos, Inc. and Harrah’s Operating Company, Inc. amending that certain Agreement for Exchange of Assets and Joint Escrow Instructions previously entered into by and between the parties as of September 29, 2006 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.2 of the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007).

2.5

  Letter Agreement entered into as of August 11, 2006, by and among the Registrant, FGB Development, Inc., Boyd Florida, LLC, The Aragon Group, Inc., Summersport Enterprises, LLLP, and Stephen F. Snyder, individually and as Shareholder Representative, amending certain provisions of that certain Purchase Agreement previously entered into among the parties as of June 5, 2006 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.3 of the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006).
2.6*

2.6

**  Second Amendment to the Purchase Agreement entered into as of February 16, 2007, by and among Boyd Gaming Corporation, the Aragon Group and the other parties thereto (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 of the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007).

2.7

Third Amendment to the Purchase Agreement and Promissory Note related thereto entered into as of January 15, 2009, by and among Boyd Gaming Corporation, the Aragon Group and the other parties thereto.

3.1

  Amended and Restated Bylaws (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 of the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 10-K8-K filed with the SEC on December 11, 2007)July 14, 2008).

3.2

  Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of the Registrant (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 of the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on May 24, 2006).

4.1

  Form of Indenture relating to $250,000,000 aggregate principal amount of 8.75% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2012, dated as of April 8, 2002, by and between the Registrant, as Issuer, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee, including the Form of Note (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.8 of the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-4, File No. 333-89774, which was declared effective on June 19, 2002).

4.2

  Form of Indenture relating to $300,000,000 aggregate principal amount of 7.75% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2012, dated as of December 30, 2002, by and between the Registrant, as Issuer, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee, including Form of Note (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.10 of the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-4, File No. 333-103023, which was declared effective on May 15, 2003).

Exhibit
Number
4.3

 

Document

4.3  Form of Indenture relating to $350,000,000 aggregate principal amount of 6.75% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2014, dated as of April 15, 2004, by and between the Registrant, as Issuer, and the Initial Purchasers, named therein (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.8 of the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-4, File No. 333-116373, which was declared effective on June 25, 2004).

4.4

  Form of Indenture relating to senior debt securities (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.4 of the Registrant’s Automatic Shelf Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated December 16, 2005).

4.5

  Form of Indenture relating to subordinated debt securities (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.5 of the Registrant’s Automatic Shelf Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated December 16, 2005).

4.6

  Form of Specimen Common Stock Certificate (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.6 of the Registrant’s Automatic Shelf Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated December 16, 2005).

-98-


Exhibit

Number

Document

4.7

  Form of Indenture relating to subordinated debt securities, dated as of January 25, 2006, by and between the Registrant, as Issuer, and the Initial Purchasers, named therein (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.9 of the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated January 25, 2006).

4.8

4.8  First Supplemental Indenture with respect to the 7.125% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2016, dated as of January 30, 2006, by and between the Registrant, as Issuer, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.10 of the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated January 31, 2006).

10.1

  Ninety-Nine Year Lease dated June 30, 1954, by and among Fremont Hotel, Inc., and Charles L. Ronnow and J.L. Ronnow, and Alice Elizabeth Ronnow (incorporated by reference to the Registration Statement on Form S-1, File No. 33-51672, of California Hotel and Casino and California Hotel Finance Corporation, which was declared effective on November 18, 1992).

10.2

  Lease Agreement dated October 31, 1963, by and between Fremont Hotel, Inc. and Cora Edit Garehime (incorporated by reference to the Registration Statement on Form S-1, File No. 33-51672, of California Hotel and Casino and California Hotel Finance Corporation, which was declared effective on November 18, 1992).

10.3

  Lease Agreement dated December 31, 1963, by and among Fremont Hotel, Inc., Bank of Nevada and Leon H. Rockwell, Jr. (incorporated by reference to the Registration Statement on Form S-1, File No. 33-51672, of California Hotel and Casino and California Hotel Finance Corporation, which was declared effective on November 18, 1992).

10.4

  Lease Agreement dated June 7, 1971, by and among Anthony Antonacci, Margaret Fay Simon and Bank of Nevada, as Co-Trustees under Peter Albert Simon’s Last Will and Testament, and related Assignment of Lease dated February 25, 1985 to Sam-Will, Inc. and Fremont Hotel, Inc. (incorporated by reference to the Registration Statement on Form S-1, File No. 33-51672, of California Hotel and Casino and California Hotel Finance Corporation, which was declared effective on November 18, 1992).

10.5

  Lease Agreement dated July 25, 1973, by and between CH&C and William Peccole, as Trustee of the Peter Peccole 1970 Trust (incorporated by reference to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 1995).

10.6

  Lease Agreement dated July 1, 1974, by and among Fremont Hotel, Inc. and Bank of Nevada, Leon H. Rockwell, Jr. and Margorie Rockwell Riley (incorporated by reference to the Registration Statement on Form S-1, File No. 33-51672, of California Hotel and Casino and California Hotel Finance Corporation, which was declared effective on November 18, 1992).

Exhibit
Number
10.7

  

Document

10.7  Ninety-Nine Year Lease, dated December 1, 1978, by and between Matthew Paratore, and George W. Morgan and LaRue Morgan, and related Lease Assignment dated November 10, 1987, to Sam-Will, Inc., d.b.a. Fremont Hotel and Casino (incorporated by reference to the Registration Statement on Form S-1, File No. 33-51672, of California Hotel and Casino and California Hotel Finance Corporation, which was declared effective on November 18, 1992).

10.8

  Form of Indemnification Agreement (incorporated by reference to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-1, File No. 33-64006, which was declared effective on October 15, 1993).
10.9*

10.9

*  1993 Flexible Stock Incentive Plan and related agreements (incorporated by reference to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-1, File No. 33-64006, which was declared effective on October 15, 1993).
10.10*

10.10

*  1993 Directors Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan and related agreements (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.4 of the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-8, File No. 333-79895, dated June 3, 1999).
10.11*

10.11

*  1993 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and related agreement (incorporated by reference to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-1, File No. 33-64006, which was declared effective on October 15, 1993).

10.12

  401(k) Profit Sharing Plan and Trust (incorporated by reference to the Registration Statement on Form S-1, File No. 33-51672, of California Hotel and Casino and California Hotel Finance Corporation, which was declared effective on November 18, 1992).
10.13*

10.13

*  2000 Executive Management Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to Appendix A of the Registrant’s Definitive Proxy Statement filed with the Commission on April 21, 2000).
10.14*

10.14

*  1996 Stock Incentive Plan (as amended on May 25, 2000) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.35 of the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2000).

10.15

  Second Amended and Restated Joint Venture Agreement with Marina District Development Company, dated as of August 31, 2000 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.36 of the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2000).

10.16

  Contribution and Adoption Agreement by and among Marina District Development Holding Co., LLC, MAC, Corp. and Boyd Atlantic City, Inc., effective as of December 13, 2000 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.30 of the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000).

-99-


10.17*

Exhibit

Number

Document

10.17

*  Annual Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.29 of the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002).
10.18*

10.18

*  Form of Stock Option Award Agreement under the 1996 Stock Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.37 of the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004)March 31, 2008).
10.19*

10.19

*  Form of Stock Option Award Agreement underpursuant to the 2002 Stock Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3810.2 of the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004)March 31, 2008).
10.20*

10.20

*Form of Restricted Stock Unit Agreement and Notice of Award pursuant to the 2002 Stock Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008).

10.21

*  The Boyd Gaming Corporation Amended and Restated Deferred Compensation Plan for the Board of Directors and Key Employees (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.39 of the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004).
10.21*

10.22

*  Amendment Number 1 to the Amended and Restated Deferred Compensation Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.40 of the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004).

Exhibit
Number
10.23

  

Document

10.22**  Amendment Number 2 to the Amended and Restated Deferred Compensation Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.41 of the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004).
10.23*

10.24

*  Amendment Number 3 to the Amended and Restated Deferred Compensation Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.42 of the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004).
10.24*

10.25

*  Amendment Number 4 to the Amended and Restated Deferred Compensation Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.43 of the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004).
10.25

10.26

  Ground Lease dated as of October 1, 1995, between the Tiberti Company and Coast Hotels and Casinos, Inc. (as successor to Gold Coast Hotel and Casino) (incorporated by reference to an exhibit to Coast Resorts, Inc.’s Amendment No. 2 to General Form for Registration of Securities on Form 10 (Commission File No. 000-26922) filed with the Commission on January 12, 1996).
10.26*

10.27

*  Form of Stock Option Award Agreement Under the Registrant’s Directors’ Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.48 of the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005).
10.27*

10.28

*  Boyd Gaming Corporation’s 2002 Stock Incentive Plan (as amended and restated on May 12, 2005)15, 2008) (incorporated by reference to Appendix BA of the Registrant’s Definitive Proxy Statement filed with the Commission on April 12, 2005)2, 2008).
10.28

10.29

  Joint Venture Agreement dated January 3, 2006, between Morgans/LV Investment LLC and Echelon Resorts Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.51 of the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated January 3, 2006).
10.29*

10.30

*  Summary of Compensation Arrangements.
10.30*

10.31

*  Amendment Number 5 to the Amended and Restated Deferred Compensation Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.35 of the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005).
10.31*

10.32

*  Amended and Restated 2000 Executive Management Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on May 24, 2006).
10.32*

10.33

*  Amended and Restated 2002 Stock Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on May 24, 2006).
10.33*

10.34

*  Form of Award Agreement for Restricted Stock Units under the 2002 Stock Incentive Plan for Non-Employee Directors (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 of the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006).
10.34

10.35

  First Amendment to Morgans Las Vegas, LLC Limited Liability Company Agreement, by and between Morgans Las Vegas LLC and Echelon Resorts Corporation, Dated May 15, 2006 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 of the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006).
10.35

10.36

Second Amendment to Morgans Las Vegas, LLC Limited Liability Company Agreement, by and between Morgans Las Vegas LLC and Echelon Resorts Corporation, Dated June 30, 2008 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on July 1, 2008).

-100-


Exhibit

Number

Document

10.37

Third Amendment to Morgans Las Vegas, LLC Limited Liability Company Agreement, by and between Morgans Las Vegas LLC and Echelon Resorts Corporation, Dated September 23, 2008 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on September 25, 2008).

10.38

  Letter Agreement to the Morgans Las Vegas, LLC Limited Liability Company Agreement, dated May 15, 2006 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5 of the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006).

Exhibit
Number
10.39

  

Document

10.36  First Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of May 24, 2007, among the Registrant, as Borrower, certain commercial lending institutions as the Lenders, and Bank of America, N.A., as the Administrative Agent and L/C Issuer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as the Syndication Agent and Swing Line Lender, and Citibank, N.A., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Merrill Lynch Bank USA and Wachovia Bank, National Association, as Co-Documentation Agents (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007).

10.40

10.37  Stock Purchase Agreement, entered into as of August 1, 2006, by and between Michael J. Gaughan and the Registrant (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006).

10.41

10.38  Form of Term Note issued by the Registrant to Michael J. Gaughan on August 1, 2006 in connection with the Stock Purchase Agreement entered into between the parties on the same date (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 of the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006).

10.42

10.39**  Form of Award Agreement for Restricted Stock Units under the 2002 Stock Incentive Plans (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 of the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated May 24, 2006).

10.43

10.40**  Form of Career Restricted Stock Unit Award Unit Agreement under the 2002 Stock Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated December 13, 2006).

10.44

10.41**  Form of Restricted Stock Unit Agreement and Notice of Award Pursuant to the 2002 Stock Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 8-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007).

10.45

10.42**  Change in Control Severance Plan for Tier I, II and III Executives I incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.46 of the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006).

21.1

  Subsidiaries of the Registrant.

23.1

  Consent of Deloitte & Touche LLP.

23.2

  Consent of Deloitte & Touche LLP.

24

  Power of Attorney (included in Part IV to this Form 10-K).

31.1

  Certification of the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a).

31.2

  Certification of the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a).

32.1

  Certification of the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b)13a – 14(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 1350.

32.2

  Certification of the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b)13a – 14(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 1350.

99.1

  Governmental Gaming Regulations.Regulations

99.2

  Audited Consolidated Financial Statements of Marina District Development Company, LLC, d.b.a. Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa, as of and for the three years in the period ended December 31, 2007.2008.

*

*       Management contracts or compensatory plans or arrangements.

**

Certain confidential portions of this exhibit have been omitted pursuant to a request forgranted confidential treatment.treatment by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Omitted portions have been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

-101-


SIGNATURESSignatures

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, on February 29, 2008.March 2, 2009.

 

BOYD GAMING CORPORATION
By: 

/S/    JEFFREYS/ JEFFREY G. SANTOROSANTORO

 

Jeffrey G. Santoro

Senior Vice President and Controller

(Principal Accounting Officer)

-102-


POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints Keith E. Smith, Josh Hirsberg and Jeffrey G. Santoro, and each of them, his of her attorneys-in-fact, each with the power of substitution, for him or her in any and all capacities, to sign any amendments to this Report on Form 10-K and to file the same, with exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of said attorneys-in-fact, or his substitute or substitutes, may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the date indicated.

 

Signature

  

Title

 

Date

/S/    WILLIAMS/ WILLIAM S. BOYD        BOYD

William S. Boyd

  Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors, February 29, 2008March 2, 2009

/S/    MARIANNE BOYD JOHNSON        S/ MARIANNE BOYD JOHNSON

Marianne Boyd Johnson

  

Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors,

Executive Vice President and Director

 February 29, 2008March 2, 2009

/S/    KEITHS/ KEITH E. SMITH        SMITH

Keith E. Smith

  

President, Chief Executive Officer and Director (Principal

(Principal Executive Officer)

 February 29, 2008March 2, 2009

/S/    JOSH HIRSBERG        S/ JOSH HIRSBERG

Josh Hirsberg

  

Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

(Principal (Principal Financial Officer)

 February 29, 2008March 2, 2009

/S/    JEFFREYS/ JEFFREY G. SANTORO        SANTORO

Jeffrey G. Santoro

  

Senior Vice President and Controller (Principal

(Principal Accounting Officer)

 February 29, 2008March 2, 2009

/S/    WILLIAMS/ WIILIAM R. BOYD        BOYD

William R. Boyd

  Vice President and Director February 29, 2008March 2, 2009

/S/    ROBERTS/ ROBERT L. BOUGHNER        BOUGHNER

Robert L. Boughner

  President and Chief Executive Officer of Echelon Resorts LLC and Director February 29, 2008March 2, 2009

Signature/S/ THOMAS V. GIRARDI

Thomas V. Girardi

  DirectorMarch 2, 2009

Title/S/ MICHAEL O. MAFFIE

Michael O. Maffie

  

Date

Director
March 2, 2009

/S/ MAJ. GEN. BILLY G. MSC/    THOMAS V. GIRARDI        COY, RET. USAF

Thomas V. GirardiMaj. Gen. Billy G. McCoy, Ret. USAF

  Director February 29, 2008March 2, 2009

/S/    LUTHER W. MACK, JR.        S/ FREDERICK J. SCHWAB

Luther W. Mack, Jr.Frederick J. Schwab

  Director February 29, 2008March 2, 2009

/S/    MICHAEL O. MAFFIE        S/ PETER M. THOMAS

Michael O. MaffiePeter M. Thomas

  Director February 29, 2008March 2, 2009

/S/    MAJ. GEN. BILLY G. MCCOY        S/ VERONICA J. WILSON

Maj. Gen. Billy G. McCoy, Ret. USAFVeronica J. Wilson

  Director February 29, 2008

/S/    FREDERICK J. SCHWAB        

Frederick J. Schwab

DirectorFebruary 29, 2008

/S/    PETER M. THOMAS        

Peter M. Thomas

DirectorFebruary 29, 2008

/S/    VERONICA J. WILSON        

Veronica J. Wilson

DirectorFebruary 29, 2008March 2, 2009

-103-


EXHIBIT INDEX

 

10.29*2.7Third Amendment to the Purchase Agreement and Promissory Note related thereto entered into as of January 15, 2009, by and among Boyd Gaming Corporation, the Aragon Group and the other parties thereto.
10.30*  Summary of Compensation Arrangements.
21.1  Subsidiaries of Registrant.
23.1  Consent of Deloitte & Touche LLP.
23.2  Consent of Deloitte & Touche LLP.
24  Power of Attorney (included in Part IV to this Form 10-K).
31.1  Certification of the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a).
31.2  Certification of the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a).
32.1  Certification of the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b)13a – 14(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 1350.
32.2  Certification of the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b)13a – 14(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 1350.
99.1  Governmental Gaming Regulations
99.2  Audited Consolidated Financial Statements of Marina District Development Company, LLC, d.b.a. Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa, as of and for the three years in the period ended December 31, 2007.2008.

*

*  Management contracts or compensatory plans or arrangements.

 

107-104-