| Litigation | Litigation From time to time, CAC or CGP LLC may be subject to legal proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of business. Horseshoe Baltimore Multiple lawsuits have been filed against CBAC Gaming and CBAC Borrower, LLC ("CBAC Borrower"), the City of Baltimore, the Maryland Department of the Environment (“MDE”) and other parties in relation to the location and the development of Horseshoe Baltimore. These cases allege violations of various environmental laws, violations of zoning laws and public nuisance, among other claims. In November 2012, the MDE granted approval of the Maryland Joint Venture’s amended response action plan ("RAP") under MDE’s Voluntary Cleanup Program that named the Maryland Joint Venture, rather than the City of Baltimore, as the party that will implement the RAP and redevelop the location of Horseshoe Baltimore. On February 20, 2013, a group of local residents working with the non-profit Inner Harbor Stewardship Foundation (the "Foundation") filed a complaint in the Maryland Circuit Court challenging the legality of the MDE’s approval of the amended RAP. In the case, known as Ruth Sherrill, et al. v. State of Maryland Department of the Environment, et al., the plaintiffs claimed that the amended RAP was approved without complying with the public notice and participation requirements of Maryland law. The plaintiffs sought additional public notice and participation, and to obtain an injunction on, among other things, any construction activities at the site pending the resolution of the case. On March 14, 2013, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction ("TRO"). The plaintiffs’ appeal of the TRO ruling was dismissed. On April 22, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding a public nuisance claim to their original complaint. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint and a hearing was held on June 14, 2013. The amended complaint was dismissed on November 6, 2013. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on December 6, 2013 and oral argument occurred on October 3, 2014. No decision has been issued from the appellate court. The plaintiffs issued a notice of intent to file a citizen suit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 6972(a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. This notice of intent indicated an intention to sue CBAC, the City of Baltimore, Whiting-Turner, the general contractor for the construction of the Horseshoe Baltimore Casino, and the Maryland Chemical Company, the former owner and operator of the site. The citizen suit was filed on September 19, 2013, but did not name Whiting-Turner. The defendants filed motions to dismiss on October 15, 2013 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim to which plaintiffs responded on November 1, 2013. The motions to dismiss were granted on July 16, 2014. An appeal was noted on August 13, 2014. Oral argument before the 4th Circuit occurred on March 25, 2015. On July 1, 2015, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the motion to dismiss and remanded the matter back to the District Court. The decision of the Board of Municipal Zoning Appeals to grant variances for the site for Horseshoe Baltimore was appealed by separate parties on the basis of alleged procedural irregularities. The appeals were dismissed for lack of standing on October 11, 2013 and no appeal of that decision was timely filed. On August 1, 2013, ten individuals claiming to represent a class of similarly situated individuals filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Maryland against the Maryland Department of the Environment, the City of Baltimore, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, CBAC Gaming, Whiting-Turner Contracting Company and Urban Green Environmental, LLC. The 11 count complaint alleged that the RAP for the location of Horseshoe Baltimore is inadequate and approved without appropriate public participation. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and claim violations of civil rights laws and the Clean Water Act, civil conspiracy, and a variety of torts. The plaintiffs also sought a temporary restraining order, which the District Court denied on August 9, 2013. The plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 15, 2013 and again on December 26, 2013, adding 44 new plaintiffs and naming MDE, the Secretary of MDE, the City of Baltimore, the Mayor of the City of Baltimore, the Baltimore Development Corporation, and CBAC Gaming and CBAC Borrower as defendants. The defendants filed motions to dismiss on January 27, 2014 and the plaintiffs filed their oppositions on February 28, 2014. The case was dismissed on May 16, 2014 and no appeal was filed. From time to time, the City of Baltimore may be subject to legal proceedings asserting claims related to the site. CBAC and CGP LLC have not been named as parties to these proceedings. Four residents of Baltimore City and County issued a notice of intent to file a citizen suit under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b) of the Clean Water Act against the City of Baltimore as owner of the site for water pollution alleged to originate there. A lawsuit was filed on behalf of two of the residents on July 2, 2013. The City of Baltimore moved to dismiss the complaint on August 28, 2013. One of the plaintiffs withdrew from the case on October 10, 2013. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed the case without prejudice on January 7, 2014 for lack of standing. Two residents of Baltimore City filed suit on May 20, 2013 against the City of Baltimore, as owner of the site, alleging that the City of Baltimore was in violation of Maryland water pollution laws as a result of groundwater contamination alleged to be migrating from the site. The City of Baltimore was served with the complaint on June 12, 2013. An amended complaint was filed on July 19, 2013, which the City of Baltimore moved to dismiss on August 6, 2013. The plaintiffs dismissed the complaint without prejudice on September 12, 2013. CAC and CGP LLC believe that the claims and demands described above against CBAC and CBAC Gaming are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. At the present time, we believe it is not probable that a material loss will result from the outcome of these matters. We cannot provide assurance as to the outcome of these matters or of the range of reasonably possible losses should these matters ultimately be resolved against us, due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation and, in some cases, the stage of the related litigation. Although CAC and CGP LLC believe that they have adequate defenses to these claims, an adverse judgment could result in additional costs or injunctions. CAC-CEC Proposed Merger On December 30, 2014, Nicholas Koskie, on behalf of himself and, he alleges, all others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit (the “Nevada Lawsuit”) in the Clark County District Court in the State of Nevada against CAC, CEC and members of the CAC board of directors Marc Beilinson, Philip Erlanger, Dhiren Fonseca, Don Kornstein, Karl Peterson, Marc Rowan, and David Sambur (the individual defendants collectively, the “CAC Directors”). The Nevada Lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the CAC Directors and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against CAC and CEC. It seeks (1) a declaration that the claim for breach of fiduciary duty is a proper class action claim; (2) to order the CAC Directors to fulfill their fiduciary duties to CAC in connection with the Proposed Merger, specifically by announcing their intention to (a) cooperate with bona fide interested parties proposing alternative transactions, (b) ensure that no conflicts exist between the CAC Directors’ personal interests and their fiduciary duties to maximize shareholder value in the Proposed Merger, or resolve all such conflicts in favor of the latter, and (c) act independently to protect the interests of the shareholders; (3) to order the CAC Directors to account for all damages suffered or to be suffered by the plaintiff and the putative class as a result of the Proposed Merger; and (4) to award the plaintiff for his costs and attorneys’ fees. It is unclear whether the Nevada Lawsuit also seeks to enjoin the Proposed Merger. CAC and the CAC Directors believe this lawsuit is without merit and will defend themselves vigorously. The deadline to respond to the Nevada Lawsuit has been indefinitely extended by agreement of the parties. On April 20, 2015, CAC received a demand for production of CAC's books and records pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law on behalf of a purported stockholder. The alleged purpose of the demand is to investigate potential misconduct and breaches of fiduciary duties by CAC's directors and explore certain remedial measures in connection with the Proposed Merger. After exchanging correspondence with purported shareholder’s counsel, CAC began and is currently engaged in producing documents as required by Section 220. CEOC Bondholder Litigation On August 4, 2014, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, solely in its capacity as successor indenture trustee for the 10% Second-Priority Senior Secured Notes due 2018 (the "Notes"), on behalf of itself and, it alleges, derivatively on behalf of CEOC, filed a lawsuit (the "Second Lien Lawsuit") in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware against CEC, CEOC, CGP LLC, CAC, Caesars Entertainment Resort Properties, LLC (“CERP”), CES, Eric Hession, Gary Loveman, Jeffrey D. Benjamin, David Bonderman, Kelvin L. Davis, Marc C. Rowan, David B. Sambur, and Eric Press. The lawsuit alleges claims for breach of contract, intentional and constructive fraudulent transfer, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and corporate waste. The lawsuit seeks (1) an award of money damages; (2) to void certain transfers, the earliest of which dates back to 2010; (3) an injunction directing the recipients of the assets in these transactions to return them to CEOC; (4) a declaration that CEC remains liable under the parent guarantee formerly applicable to the Notes; (5) to impose a constructive trust or equitable lien on the transferred assets; and (6) an award to the plaintiffs for their attorneys’ fees and costs. The only claims against CAC and CGP LLC are for intentional and constructive fraudulent transfer. CAC and CGP LLC believe this lawsuit is without merit and will defend themselves vigorously. A motion to dismiss this action was filed by CEC and other defendants in September 2014, the motion was argued in December 2014, and was denied in March 2015. During the pendency of its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding, the action has been automatically stayed with respect to CEOC. Discovery in the action is underway, with a current deadline of September 30, 2015. On August 5, 2014, CEC, along with CEOC, filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against certain institutional first and second lien note holders. The complaint states that such institutional first and second lien note holders have acted against the best interests of CEOC and other creditors, including for the purpose of inflating the value of their credit default swap positions or improving other unique securities positions. The complaint asserts claims for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, declaratory judgment and breach of contract and seeks, among other things, (1) money damages; (2) a declaration that no default or event of default has occurred or is occurring and CEC and CEOC have not breached their fiduciary duties or engaged in fraudulent transfers or other violation of law; and (3) a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from taking further actions to damage CEC or CEOC. Defendants filed motions to dismiss this action in October 2014. On January 16, 2015, the claims against the first lien note holder defendants were voluntarily dismissed and on June 29, 2015, the declaratory judgment claim against the second lien note holder defendants was also voluntarily dismissed. On July 6, 2015, the claim for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage brought by CEOC against the second lien note holders was voluntarily dismissed, as well, leaving in the action only the tortious interference with prospective economic advantage claim brought by CEC against the second lien note holder defendants. On July 20, 2015, the Court granted the second lien note holder defendants’ motion to dismiss that claim and ordered that the action be marked disposed. CAC and CGP LLC are not parties to this lawsuit. On September 3, 2014, holders of approximately $21 million of CEOC Senior Unsecured Notes due 2016 and 2017 filed suit in federal district court in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against CEC and CEOC, claiming broadly that an August 12, 2014 Note Purchase and Support Agreement between CEC and CEOC (on the one hand) and certain other holders of the CEOC Senior Unsecured Notes (on the other hand) impaired their own rights under the Senior Unsecured Notes. The lawsuit seeks both declaratory and monetary relief. On October 2, 2014, other holders of CEOC Senior Unsecured Notes due 2016 purporting to represent a class of all holders of these Notes from August 11, 2014 to the present filed a substantially similar suit in the same court, against the same defendants, relating to the same transactions. Both lawsuits (the "Parent Guarantee Lawsuits") have been assigned to the same judge. Although the claims against CEOC have been automatically stayed during its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding, the court denied a motion to dismiss both lawsuits with respect to CEC and discovery is ongoing with respect to the plaintiffs' claims against CEC. CAC and CGP LLC are not parties to these lawsuits. On November 25, 2014, UMB Bank ("UMB"), as successor indenture trustee for CEOC's 8.5% senior secured notes due 2020, filed a verified complaint ("the "First Lien Lawsuit") in Delaware Chancery Court against CEC, CEOC, CERP, CAC, CGP LLC, CES, and against an individual, and past and present members of the CEC and CEOC Boards of Directors, Gary Loveman, Jeffrey Benjamin, David Bonderman, Kelvin Davis, Eric Press, Marc Rowan, David Sambur, Eric Hession, Donald Colvin, Fred Kleisner, Lynn Swann, Chris Williams, Jeffrey Housenbold, Michael Cohen, Ronen Stauber, and Steven Winograd, alleging generally that defendants have improperly stripped CEOC of prized assets, have wrongfully affected a release of a CEC parental guarantee of CEOC debt and have committed other wrongs. Among other things, UMB Bank has asked the court to appoint a receiver over CEOC. In addition, the First Lien Lawsuit pleads claims for fraudulent conveyances/transfers, insider preferences, illegal dividends, declaratory judgment (for breach of contract as regards to the parent guarantee and also as to certain covenants in the bond indenture), tortious interference with contract, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, usurpation of corporate opportunities, and unjust enrichment, and seeks monetary and equitable as well as declaratory relief. CAC and CGP LLC believe this lawsuit is without merit and will defend themselves vigorously. All of the defendants have moved to dismiss the lawsuit, and that motion has been fully briefed. In addition, this lawsuit has been automatically stayed with respect to CEOC during the Chapter 11 process and, pursuant to the Fourth Amended and Restated Restructuring Support and Forbearance Agreement, dated as of July 31, 2015 (the “RSA”), has been subject to a consensual stay for all. The consensual stay will expire upon the termination of the RSA. On February 13, 2015, Caesars Entertainment received a Demand For Payment of Guaranteed Obligations (the “February 13 Notice”) from Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, in its capacity as successor Trustee for CEOC’s 10.00% Second-Priority Notes. The February 13 Notice alleges that CEOC’s commencement of its voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy case constituted an event of default under the indenture governing the 10.00% Second-Priority Notes; that all amounts due and owing on the 10.00% Second-Priority Notes therefore immediately became payable; and that Caesars Entertainment is responsible for paying CEOC’s obligations on the 10.00% Second-Priority Notes, including CEOC’s obligation to timely pay all principal, interest, and any premium due on these notes, as a result of a parent guarantee provision contained in the indenture governing the notes that the February 13 Notice alleges is still binding. The February 13 Notice accordingly demands that Caesars Entertainment immediately pay Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, cash in an amount of not less than $3.7 billion , plus accrued and unpaid interest (including without limitation the $184 million interest payment due December 15, 2014 that CEOC elected not to pay) and accrued and unpaid attorneys’ fees and other expenses. The February 13 Notice also alleges that the interest, fees and expenses continue to accrue. CAC and CGP LLC are not parties to this demand. On February 18, 2015, Caesars Entertainment received a Demand For Payment of Guaranteed Obligations (the “February 18 Notice”) from BOKF, N.A. ("BOKF"), in its capacity as successor Trustee for CEOC’s 12.75% Second-Priority Senior Secured Notes due 2018 (the “ 12.75% Second-Priority Notes”). The February 18 Notice alleges that CEOC's commencement of its voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy case constituted an event of default under the indenture governing the 12.75% Second-Priority Notes; that all amounts due and owing on the 12.75% Second-Priority Notes therefore immediately became payable; and that CEC is responsible for paying CEOC’s obligations on the 12.75% Second-Priority Notes, including CEOC’s obligation to timely pay all principal, interest and any premium due on these notes, as a result of a parent guarantee provision contained in the indenture governing the notes that the February 18 Notice alleges is still binding. The February 18 Notice therefore demands that CEC immediately pay BOKF cash in an amount of not less than $750 million , plus accrued and unpaid interest, accrued and unpaid attorneys’ fees, and other expenses. The February 18 Notice also alleges that the interest, fees and expenses continue to accrue. CAC and CGP LLC are not parties to this demand. On March 3, 2015, BOKF filed an additional Parent Guarantee Lawsuit against CEC in federal district court in Manhattan, in its capacity as successor trustee for CEOC’s 12.75% Second-Priority Notes. On June 15, 2015, UMB filed a Parent Guarantee Lawsuit against CEC, also in federal district court in Manhattan, in its capacity as successor trustee for CEOC’s 11.25% Senior Secured Notes due 2017, 8.50% Senior Secured Notes due 2020, and 9.00% Senior Secured Notes due 2020. Plaintiffs in these actions allege that CEOC’s filing of its voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy case constitutes an event of default under the indenture governing these notes, causing all principal and interest to become immediately due and payable, and that CEC is obligated to make those payments pursuant to a parent guarantee provision in the indentures governing these notes that plaintiffs allege are still binding. Both plaintiffs brings claims for violation of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and for declaratory relief and BOKF brings an additional claim for intentional interference with contractual relations. The cases have both been assigned to the same judge presiding over the other Parent Guarantee Lawsuits. CEC filed its answer to the BOKF complaint on March 25, 2015, and its answer to the UMB complaint is due on August 10, 2015. On June 25, 2015, and June 26, 2015, BOKF and UMB, respectively, moved for partial summary judgment, specifically on their claims alleging a violation of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, seeking both declaratory relief and damages. CEC filed its opposition to those motions on July 24, 2015, and the motions are expected to be fully briefed by August 7, 2015. The parties are separately also engaged in discovery in both actions. CAC and CGP LLC are not parties to these lawsuits. On March 11, 2015, CEOC filed an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court requesting that the Parent Guarantee Lawsuits be enjoined against all defendants through plan confirmation; in subsequent submissions, CEOC stated that it sought a temporary stay of those lawsuits until 60 days after the issuance of a final report by the Bankruptcy Examiner. CEOC argued that contemporaneous prosecution of related claims against CEC would impair the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over the Debtors’ reorganization by threatening the Debtors’ ability to recover estate property for the benefit of all creditors, diminishing the prospects of a successful reorganization, and depleting property of the estate. On July 22, 2015, the bankruptcy court denied CEOC’s request. The bankruptcy court’s ruling does not address the merits of the Parent Guarantee Lawsuits. In accordance with the terms of the applicable indentures and as previously disclosed, Caesars Entertainment believes that it is not subject to the above-described guarantees. As a result, Caesars Entertainment believes the demands for payment are meritless. The claims against CEOC have been stayed due to the Chapter 11 process and, in some instances, the actions against CEC have been allowed to continue. We believe that the claims and demands described above against CAC and CGP LLC in the First Lien Lawsuit and Second Lien Lawsuit are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. For the First Lien Lawsuit and Second Lien Lawsuit, at the present time, we believe it is not probable that a material loss will result from the outcome of these matters. However, given the uncertainty of litigation, we cannot provide assurance as to the outcome of these matters or of the range of reasonably possible losses should the matters ultimately be resolved against us. Should these matters ultimately be resolved through litigation outside of the financial restructuring of CEOC, which we believe these matters would likely be long and protracted, and were a court to find in favor of the claimants in the First Lien Lawsuit or the Second Lien Lawsuit, such determination could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. National Retirement Fund In January 2015, a majority of the Trustees of the National Retirement Fund (“NRF”), a multi-employer defined benefit pension plan, voted to expel CEC and its participating subsidiaries (“CEC Group”) from the plan. NRF claims that CEOC’s bankruptcy presents an “actuarial risk” to the plan because, depending on the outcome of the bankruptcy proceeding, CEC might no longer be liable to the plan for any partial or complete withdrawal liability. NRF has advised the CEC Group that its expulsion has triggered withdrawal liability with a present value of approximately $360 million , payable in 80 quarterly payments of about $6 million . Prior to NRF’s vote, the CEC Group reiterated its commitment to remain in the plan and not seek rejection of any collective bargaining agreements in which the obligation to contribute to NRF exists. It is completely current with respect to pension contributions. The CEC Group opposed the NRF actions in the appropriate legal forums including seeking a declaratory judgment in federal district court challenging NRF's authority to expel the CEC Group and also seeking relief in the CEOC bankruptcy proceeding. The parties entered into a Standstill Agreement in March 2015 staying the CEC Group's obligation to commence quarterly payments and instead continue making its monthly contributions, and also setting a briefing schedule in the bankruptcy proceeding for both CEOC’s motion that NRF’s action violated the automatic stay and the CEC Group's motion to extend the stay to encompass NRF’s collection lawsuit against CEC. Both matters have been fully briefed, but the Bankruptcy Court has yet to rule. NRF has filed a motion to dismiss the federal district court action asserting that the governing statute requires that the issue must first be arbitrated. All briefs have been submitted. Absent a resolution, CEC has informed us that it expects the Bankruptcy Court to set an argument schedule at another hearing set for August 19, 2015. CEC believes that its legal arguments against the actions undertaken by NRF are strong and will pursue them vigorously. Because legal proceedings with respect to this matter are at the preliminary stages, we cannot currently provide assurance as to the ultimate outcome of the matters at issue. Other Matters In recent years, governmental authorities have been increasingly focused on anti-money laundering ("AML") policies and procedures, with a particular focus on the gaming industry. As an example, a major gaming company recently settled a U.S. Attorney investigation into its AML practices. On October 11, 2013, a subsidiary of CEC received a letter from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the United States Department of the Treasury ("FinCEN"), stating that FinCEN is investigating CEOC’s subsidiary, Desert Palace, Inc. (the owner of Caesars Palace), for alleged violations of the Bank Secrecy Act to determine whether it is appropriate to assess a civil penalty and/or take additional enforcement action against Caesars Palace. CEC responded to FinCEN's letter on January 13, 2014. Additionally, CEC has been informed that a federal grand jury investigation regarding CEC's anti-money laundering practices and procedures is ongoing. CEC and Caesars palace have been fully cooperating with both the FinCEN and grand jury investigations since October 2013. On April 29, 2015, representatives of Caesars Palace met with representatives of the various governmental entities involved. At that meeting, the governmental parties reviewed with the representatives of Caesars Palace in general terms the results of their investigations and proposed a range of potential settlement outcomes, including fines in the range of $12 million to $20 million . Representatives of Caesars Palace have held meetings with the governmental parties during June and July 2015 to further discuss the resolution of these matters. Caesars Palace is a subsidiary of CEOC and, because of CEOC’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing on January 15, 2015, has been, together with CEOC’s other subsidiaries, deconsolidated from CEC’s financial results. Casino properties owned by subsidiaries of CGP LLC are managed by subsidiaries of CEC. The Company is party to ordinary and routine litigation incidental to our business. We do not expect the outcome of any such litigation to have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, as we do not believe it is reasonably possible that we will incur material losses as a result of such litigation. |
