| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Litigation In addition to the actions noted below, the Company and its affiliates are involved in litigation arising in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, such litigation is not expected to have a material effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Determination of Unsuitability and Redemption of Aruze USA, Inc. and Affiliates On February 18, 2012, Wynn Resorts' Gaming Compliance Committee received an independent report by Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan, LLP (the "Freeh Report") detailing a pattern of misconduct by Aruze USA, Inc. ("Aruze") (at the time a stockholder of Wynn Resorts), Universal Entertainment Corporation (Aruze's parent company), and Kazuo Okada (the majority shareholder of Universal Entertainment Corporation and a former member of the Board of Directors of Wynn Resorts and Wynn Macau, Limited) (collectively, the "Okada Parties"). The factual record presented in the Freeh Report included evidence that the Okada Parties had provided valuable items to certain foreign gaming officials who were responsible for regulating gaming in a jurisdiction in which entities controlled by Mr. Okada were developing a gaming resort. Mr. Okada denied the impropriety of such conduct to members of the Board of Directors of Wynn Resorts and, while serving as one of Wynn Resorts' directors, Mr. Okada refused to acknowledge or abide by Wynn Resorts' anti-bribery policies and refused to participate in the training all other directors received concerning these policies. Based on the Freeh Report, the Board of Directors of Wynn Resorts determined that the Okada Parties are "unsuitable persons" under Article VII of Wynn Resorts' articles of incorporation. The Board of Directors was unanimous (other than Mr. Okada) in its determination. After authorizing the redemption of Aruze's shares, as discussed below, the Board of Directors took certain actions to protect Wynn Resorts and its operations from any influence of an unsuitable person, including placing limitations on the provision of certain operating information to unsuitable persons and formation of an Executive Committee of the Board to manage the business and affairs of Wynn Resorts during the period between each annual meeting. The Charter of the Executive Committee provides that "Unsuitable Persons" are not permitted to serve on the Committee. All members of the Board, other than Mr. Okada, were appointed to the Executive Committee on February 18, 2012. The Board of Directors also requested that Mr. Okada resign as a director of Wynn Resorts (under Nevada corporation law, a board of directors does not have the power to remove a director) and recommended that Mr. Okada be removed as a member of the Board of Directors of Wynn Macau, Limited. On February 18, 2012, Mr. Okada was removed from the Board of Directors of Wynn Capital. On February 24, 2012, Mr. Okada was removed from the Board of Directors of Wynn Macau, Limited and on February 22, 2013, he was removed from the Board of Directors of Wynn Resorts by a stockholder vote in which 99.6% of the over 86 million shares voted were cast in favor of removal. Mr. Okada resigned from the Board of Directors of Wynn Resorts on February 21, 2013. Although Wynn Resorts has retained the structure of the Executive Committee, the Board has resumed its past role in managing the business and affairs of Wynn Resorts. Based on the Board of Directors' finding of "unsuitability," on February 18, 2012, Wynn Resorts redeemed and canceled Aruze's 24,549,222 shares of Wynn Resorts' common stock. Following a finding of "unsuitability," Article VII of Wynn Resorts' articles of incorporation authorizes redemption at "fair value" of the shares held by unsuitable persons. Wynn Resorts engaged an independent financial advisor to assist in the fair value calculation and concluded that a discount to the then current trading price was appropriate because of, among other things, restrictions on most of the shares held by Aruze under the terms of the Stockholders Agreement (as defined below). Pursuant to its articles of incorporation, Wynn Resorts issued the Redemption Note to Aruze in redemption of the shares. The Redemption Note has a principal amount of $1.94 billion , matures on February 18, 2022 , and bears interest at the rate of 2% per annum, payable annually in arrears on each anniversary of the date of the Redemption Note. Wynn Resorts may, in its sole and absolute discretion, at any time and from time to time, and without penalty or premium, prepay the whole or any portion of the principal or interest due under the Redemption Note. In no instance shall any payment obligation under the Redemption Note be accelerated except in the sole and absolute discretion of Wynn Resorts or as specifically mandated by law. The indebtedness evidenced by the Redemption Note is and shall be subordinated in right of payment, to the extent and in the manner provided in the Redemption Note, to the prior payment in full of all existing and future obligations of Wynn Resorts or any of its affiliates in respect of indebtedness for borrowed money of any kind or nature. Wynn Resorts provided the Freeh Report to appropriate regulators and law enforcement agencies and has been cooperating with related investigations that such regulators and agencies have undertaken. The conduct of the Okada Parties and any resulting regulatory investigations could have adverse consequences to Wynn Resorts and its subsidiaries. A finding by regulatory authorities that Mr. Okada violated anti-corruption statutes and/or other laws or regulations applicable to persons affiliated with a gaming licensee on Wynn Resorts property and/or otherwise involved Wynn Resorts in criminal or civil violations could result in actions by regulatory authorities against Wynn Resorts and its subsidiaries. Redemption Action and Counterclaim On February 19, 2012, Wynn Resorts filed a complaint in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada against the Okada Parties (as amended, the "Complaint"), alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and related claims (the "Redemption Action") arising from the activities addressed in the Freeh Report. Wynn Resorts is seeking compensatory and special damages as well as a declaration that it acted lawfully and in full compliance with its articles of incorporation, bylaws and other governing documents in redeeming and canceling the shares of Aruze. On March 12, 2012, the Okada Parties removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the action was subsequently remanded to Nevada state court). On that same date, the Okada Parties filed an answer denying the claims and a counterclaim (as amended, the "Counterclaim") that purports to assert claims against Wynn Resorts, each of the members of Wynn Resorts' Board of Directors (other than Mr. Okada) and Wynn Resorts' General Counsel (the "Wynn Parties"). The Counterclaim alleges, among other things: (1) that the shares of Wynn Resorts common stock owned by Aruze were exempt from the redemption-for-unsuitability provisions in the Wynn Resorts articles of incorporation (the "Articles") pursuant to certain agreements executed in 2002; (2) that the Wynn Resorts directors who authorized the redemption of Aruze's shares acted at the direction of Mr. Wynn and did not independently and objectively evaluate the Okada Parties' suitability, and by so doing, breached their fiduciary duties; (3) that the Wynn Resorts directors violated the terms of the Wynn Resorts Articles by failing to pay Aruze fair value for the redeemed shares; and (4) that the terms of the Redemption Note that Aruze received in exchange for the redeemed shares, including the Redemption Note's principal amount, duration, interest rate, and subordinated status, were unconscionable. Among other relief, the Counterclaim seeks a declaration that the redemption of Aruze's shares was void, an injunction restoring Aruze's share ownership, damages in an unspecified amount and rescission of the Amended and Restated Stockholders Agreement, dated as of January 6, 2010, by and among Aruze, Mr. Wynn, and Elaine Wynn (the "Stockholders Agreement"). On June 19, 2012, Elaine Wynn asserted a cross claim against Mr. Wynn and Aruze seeking a declaration that (1) any and all of Elaine Wynn's duties under the Stockholders Agreement shall be discharged; (2) the Stockholders Agreement is subject to rescission and is rescinded; (3) the Stockholders Agreement is an unreasonable restraint on alienation in violation of public policy; and/or (4) the restrictions on sale of shares shall be construed as inapplicable to Elaine Wynn. On March 28, 2016, Elaine Wynn filed an amended cross claim which added Wynn Resorts and Wynn Resorts' General Counsel (together with Mr. Wynn, the "Wynn Cross Defendants") as cross defendants. The amended cross claim substantially repeats its earlier allegations and further alleges that Mr. Wynn engaged in acts of misconduct that, with the Wynn Cross Defendants, resulted in Mr. Wynn allegedly breaching the Stockholders Agreement and violating alleged duties under the Stockholders Agreement by preventing Elaine Wynn from being nominated and elected to serve as one of Wynn Resorts' directors. In addition to continuing to seek the declarations asserted under the original cross claim, the amended cross claim seeks an order compelling Mr. Wynn to comply with the Stockholders Agreement by assuring the nomination and election of Elaine Wynn to the Board of Directors and seeks unspecified monetary damages from Mr. Wynn and the Wynn Cross Defendants. The Wynn Cross Defendants filed motions to dismiss and a motion to sever in April 2016 and will vigorously defend against the claims asserted against them. On May 5, 2016, the court granted Wynn Resorts' and Wynn Resorts' General Counsel's motions to dismiss and denied Mr. Wynn's motion to dismiss. On May 26, 2016, the court denied the Wynn Cross Defendants' motion to sever. Mr. Wynn is continuing to oppose Elaine Wynn's cross claim. The indenture for Wynn Las Vegas, LLC's 4 1/4% Senior Notes due 2023 (the "2023 Indenture") provides that if Mr. Wynn, together with certain related parties, in the aggregate beneficially owns a lesser percentage of the voting power of the outstanding common stock of Wynn Resorts than is beneficially owned by any other person, a change of control will have occurred. The indenture for Wynn Las Vegas, LLC's 5 1/2% Senior Notes due 2025 (the "2025 Indenture") provides that if any event constitutes a "change of control" under the 2023 Indenture, it will constitute a change of control under the 2025 Indenture. If the Stockholders Agreement is determined not to be enforceable pursuant to Elaine Wynn's cross claim, Mr. Wynn would not beneficially own or control Elaine Wynn's shares, which could increase the likelihood that a change in control may occur under the Wynn Las Vegas debt documents. Under the 2023 Indenture and the 2025 Indenture, if (1) a change of control occurs and (2) at any time within 60 days after that occurrence, the 4 1/4% Senior Notes due 2023 or the 5 1/2% Senior Notes due 2025, as applicable, are rated below investment grade by both rating agencies that rate such notes, Wynn Resorts is required to make an offer to each applicable holder to repurchase all or any part of such holder's notes at a purchase price equal to 101% of the aggregate principal amount thereof plus accrued and unpaid interest on the notes purchased, if any, to the date of repurchase (unless the notes have been previously called for redemption). Wynn Resorts' Complaint and the Okada Parties' Counterclaim have been, and continue to be, challenged through motion practice. At a hearing held on November 13, 2012, the Nevada state court granted the Wynn Parties' motion to dismiss the Counterclaim with respect to the Okada Parties' claim under the Nevada Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act with respect to certain Wynn Resorts executives but otherwise denied the motion. At a hearing held on January 15, 2013, the court denied the Okada Parties' motion to dismiss Wynn Resorts' Complaint. On April 22, 2013, Wynn Resorts filed a second amended complaint. On August 30, 2013, the Okada Parties filed their third amended Counterclaim. On September 18, 2013, Wynn Resorts filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss related to a claim in the third amended Counterclaim alleging civil extortion by Mr. Wynn and Wynn Resorts' General Counsel. On October 29, 2013, the court granted the motion and dismissed the claim. On November 26, 2013, the Okada Parties filed their fourth amended Counterclaim, and Wynn Resorts filed an answer to that pleading on December 16, 2013. On September 16, 2014, Aruze filed a motion for partial summary judgment related to its counterclaim alleging Wynn Resorts' directors violated the terms of the Articles by failing to pay Aruze fair value for the redeemed shares. At a hearing held on October 21, 2014, the court denied Aruze's motion. On October 10, 2014, the Okada Parties filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings principally to seek dismissal of certain breach of fiduciary claims against Mr. Okada included in Wynn Resorts' Complaint. On November 13, 2014, the court denied the motion. On each of February 14, 2013 and February 13, 2014, Wynn Resorts issued a check to Aruze in the amount of $38.7 million , representing the interest payments due on the Redemption Note at those times. However, those checks were not cashed. In February 2014, the Okada Parties advised of their intent to deposit any checks for interest and principal, past and future, due under the terms of the Redemption Note to the clerk of the court for deposit into the clerk's trust account. On March 17, 2014, the parties stipulated that the checks be returned to Wynn Resorts for reissue in the same amounts, payable to the clerk of the court for deposit into the clerk's trust account. Pursuant to the stipulation, on March 20, 2014, Wynn Resorts delivered to the clerk of the court the reissued checks that were deposited into the clerk's trust account and filed a notice with the court with respect to the same. On each of February 13, 2015 and February 12, 2016, Wynn Resorts issued a check for the interest payment due at those times to the clerk of the court for deposit into the clerk's trust account. On April 8, 2013, the United States Attorney's Office and the U.S. Department of Justice filed a Motion to Intervene and for Temporary and Partial Stay of Discovery in the Redemption Action. The parties had been engaged in discovery at the time of the filing. The motion stated that the federal government has been conducting a criminal investigation of the Okada Parties involving the "same underlying allegations of misconduct—that is, potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practice Act and related fraudulent conduct—that form the basis of" Wynn Resorts' complaint, as amended, in the Redemption Action. The motion sought to stay all discovery in the Redemption Action related to the Okada Parties' allegedly unlawful activities in connection with their casino project in the Philippines until the conclusion of the criminal investigation and any resulting criminal prosecution, with an interim status update to the court in six months . At a hearing on May 2, 2013, the court granted the motion and ordered that all discovery in the Redemption Action be stayed for a period of six months (the "Stay"). On May 30, 2013, Elaine Wynn filed a motion for partial relief from the Stay, to allow her to conduct limited discovery related to her cross and counterclaims. The Wynn Parties opposed the motion so as to not interfere with the United States government's investigation. At a hearing on August 1, 2013, the court denied the motion. On October 29, 2013, the United States Attorney's Office and the U.S. Department of Justice filed a Motion to Extend the Stay for a further period of six months . At a hearing on October 31, 2013, the court granted the requested extension based upon an affidavit provided under seal that outlined, among other things, concerns for witness safety. The court did, however, order the parties to exchange written discovery propounded prior to May 2, 2013, including discovery related to the Elaine Wynn cross and counterclaims referred to above. The extended Stay expired on May 5, 2014. On April 29, 2014, the United States Attorney's Office and the U.S. Department of Justice filed a Motion for a Second Extension of Temporary Stay of Discovery for a further six months . At a hearing on May 1, 2014, the court denied the motion. In May 2016, Wynn Resorts filed a motion to disqualify one of Ms. Wynn's law firms and sought an injunction related to Ms. Wynn providing her attorneys with confidential and privileged information that belongs to Wynn Resorts. On June 23, 2016, the court stayed discovery as to both Ms. Wynn and the Okada Parties, pending an evidentiary hearing to be set by the court. New discovery deadlines and trial-related dates will be set after the stay is lifted. Wynn Resorts will continue to vigorously pursue its claims against the Okada Parties, and Wynn Resorts and the Wynn Parties will continue to vigorously defend against the counterclaims asserted against them. Management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. An adverse judgment or settlement involving payment of a material amount could cause a material adverse effect on Wynn Resorts' financial condition. Litigation Commenced by Kazuo Okada Japan Action: On August 28, 2012, Mr. Okada, Universal Entertainment Corporation and Okada Holdings ("Okada Japan Parties") filed a complaint in Tokyo District Court against the Wynn Parties, alleging that the press release issued by Wynn Resorts with respect to the redemption has damaged plaintiffs' social evaluation and credibility. The Okada Japan Parties seek damages and legal fees from the Wynn Parties. After asking the Okada Japan Parties to clarify the allegations in their complaint, the Wynn Parties objected to the jurisdiction of the Japanese court. On April 30, 2013, the Wynn Parties filed a memorandum in support of their jurisdictional position. On October 21, 2013, the court dismissed the action on jurisdictional grounds. On November 1, 2013, the Okada Japan Parties filed an appeal moving the matter to the Tokyo High Court. On June 11, 2014, the Tokyo High Court ruled in favor of the Wynn Parties and upheld the motion for dismissal. On June 25, 2014, the Okada Japan Parties filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Japan. The Supreme Court of Japan dismissed the appeal as to all of the individuals (including Wynn Resorts directors) in February 2016 and as to Wynn Resorts in March 2016, thus upholding the motion for dismissal of the Okada Japan Parties' defamation action against the Wynn Parties. Indemnification Action: On March 20, 2013, Mr. Okada filed a complaint against Wynn Resorts in Nevada state court for indemnification under Wynn Resorts' Articles, bylaws and agreements with its directors. The complaint sought advancement of Mr. Okada's costs and expenses (including attorney's fees) incurred pursuant to the various legal proceedings and related regulatory investigations described above. Wynn Resorts' answer and counterclaim was filed on April 15, 2013. The counterclaim named each of the Okada Parties as defendants and sought indemnification under Wynn Resorts' Articles for costs and expenses (including attorney's fees) incurred pursuant to the various legal proceedings and related regulatory investigations described above. On April 30, 2013, Mr. Okada filed his reply to the counterclaim. On February 4, 2014, the court entered an order on the parties' stipulation that: (1) dismissed all claims Mr. Okada asserted against Wynn Resorts; (2) reserved Mr. Okada's right to assert, in the future, any claims for indemnity following the resolution of the Redemption Action; and (3) stayed the claims asserted by Wynn Resorts against Mr. Okada pending the resolution of the Redemption Action. Macau Action: On July 3, 2015, Wynn Macau, Limited announced that the Okada Parties filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Macau ("Macau Court") against Wynn Macau SA and certain individuals who are or were directors of Wynn Macau SA and or Wynn Macau, Limited (collectively, the "Wynn Macau Parties"). The principal allegations in the lawsuit are that the redemption of the Okada Parties' shares in Wynn Resorts was improper and undervalued, that the previously disclosed payment by Wynn Macau SA to an unrelated third party in consideration of relinquishment by that party of certain rights in and to any future development on the land in Cotai where Wynn Palace is located was unlawful and that the previously disclosed donation by Wynn Resorts to the University of Macau Development Foundation was unlawful. The plaintiffs seek dissolution of Wynn Macau SA and compensatory damages. The Okada Parties recently released one of the defendants from the lawsuit. The Macau Court has served the complaint on all of the remaining defendants and the Wynn Macau Parties filed their response on May 17, 2016. Wynn Resorts believes these actions commenced by Okada Parties discussed above are without merit and will vigorously defend the Wynn Macau Parties against them. Management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of these actions or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. Related Investigations and Derivative Litigation Investigations: In the U.S. Department of Justice's Motion to Intervene and for Temporary and Partial Stay of Discovery in the Redemption Action, the Department of Justice states in a footnote that the government also has been conducting a criminal investigation into Wynn Resorts' previously disclosed donation to the University of Macau Development Foundation. Wynn Resorts has not received any target letter or subpoena in connection with such an investigation. Wynn Resorts intends to cooperate fully with the government in response to any inquiry related to the donation to the University of Macau Development Foundation. Other regulators may pursue separate investigations into Wynn Resorts' compliance with applicable laws arising from the allegations in the matters described above and in response to the Counterclaim and other litigation filed by Mr. Okada suggesting improprieties in connection with Wynn Resorts' donation to the University of Macau Development Foundation. While Wynn Resorts believes that it is in full compliance with all applicable laws, any such investigations could result in actions by regulators against Wynn Resorts. Prior investigations by the Nevada Gaming Control Board and SEC were closed with no actions taken. Derivative Claims: Six derivative actions were commenced against Wynn Resorts and all members of its Board of Directors: four in the United States District Court, District of Nevada, and two in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada. The four federal actions brought by the following plaintiffs have been consolidated: (1) The Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, (2) Maryanne Solak, (3) Excavators Union Local 731 Welfare Fund, and (4) Boilermakers Lodge No. 154 Retirement Fund (collectively, the "Federal Plaintiffs"). The Federal Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on August 6, 2012, asserting claims for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) waste of corporate assets; (3) injunctive relief; and (4) unjust enrichment. The claims were against Wynn Resorts and all of Wynn Resorts' directors, including Mr. Okada; however, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Mr. Okada as a defendant in this consolidated action on September 27, 2012. The Federal Plaintiffs claimed that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and wasted assets by: (a) failing to ensure Wynn Resorts' officers and directors complied with federal and state laws and Wynn Resorts' Code of Conduct; (b) voting to allow Wynn Resorts' subsidiary to make the donation to the University of Macau Development Foundation; and (c) redeeming Aruze's stock such that Wynn Resorts incurs the debt associated with the redemption. The Federal Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, restitution in the form of disgorgement, reformation of corporate governance procedures, an injunction against all future payments related to the donation/pledge, and all fees (attorneys, accountants, and experts) and costs. The directors responded to the consolidated complaint by filing a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012. On February 1, 2013, the federal court dismissed the complaint for failure to plead adequately the futility of a pre-suit demand on the Board. The dismissal was without prejudice to the Federal Plaintiffs' ability to file a motion within 30 days seeking leave to file an amended complaint. On April 9, 2013, the Federal Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. Wynn Resorts and the directors filed their motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May 23, 2013. On March 13, 2014, the federal court granted the motion to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of Wynn Resorts and directors and against the Federal Plaintiffs without prejudice. On April 10, 2014, the Federal Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On July 18, 2016, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the federal court's dismissal. The two state court actions brought by the following plaintiffs also have been consolidated: (1) IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund and (2) Danny Hinson (collectively, the "State Plaintiffs"). Through a coordination of efforts by all parties, the directors and Wynn Resorts (a nominal defendant) have been served in all of the actions. The State Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on July 20, 2012 asserting claims for (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) abuse of control; (3) gross mismanagement; and (4) unjust enrichment. The claims are against Wynn Resorts and all of Wynn Resorts' directors during the applicable period, including Mr. Okada, as well as Wynn Resorts' Chief Financial Officer who signed financial disclosures filed with the SEC during the applicable periods. The State Plaintiffs claim that the individual defendants failed to disclose to Wynn Resorts' stockholders the investigation into, and the dispute with director Okada as well as the alleged potential violations of the FCPA related to, the University of Macau Development Foundation donation. The State Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages (compensatory and punitive), disgorgement, reformation of corporate governance procedures, an order directing Wynn Resorts to internally investigate the donation, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. On October 13, 2012, the court entered the parties' stipulation providing for a stay of the state derivative action for 90 days subject to the parties' obligation to monitor the progress of the pending litigation, discussed above, between Wynn Resorts (among others) and Mr. Okada (among others). Per the stipulation, Wynn Resorts and the individual defendants were not required to respond to the consolidated complaint while the stay remained in effect. Following the expiration of the stay, the State Plaintiffs advised Wynn Resorts and the individual defendants that they intended to resume the action by filing an amended complaint, which they did, on April 26, 2013. Wynn Resorts and directors filed their motion to dismiss on June 10, 2013. However, on July 31, 2013, the parties agreed to a stipulation that was submitted to, and approved by the court. The stipulation contemplates a stay of the consolidated state court derivative action of equal duration as the Stay entered by the court in the Redemption Action. On June 18, 2014, the court entered a new stipulation between the parties that provides for further stay of the state derivative action and directs the parties, within 45 days of the conclusion of the latter of the Redemption Action or the federal derivative action, to discuss how the state derivative action should proceed and to file a joint report with the court. The individual defendants are vigorously defending against the claims pleaded against them. Management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of these actions or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. |
