| Litigation, Contractual Commitments and Contingent Liabilities | Litigation, Contractual Commitments and Contingent Liabilities From time to time, CAC or CGP LLC may be subject to legal proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of business. CEOC Bondholder Litigation, or Noteholder Disputes 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 "Delaware 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"), Caesars Enterprise Services, LLC ("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, and the motion was argued in December 2014. During the pendency of its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, the action has been automatically stayed with respect to CEOC. The motion to dismiss with respect to CEC was denied on March 18, 2015. In a Verified Supplemental Complaint filed on August 3, 2015, the plaintiff stated that due to CEOC's bankruptcy filing, the continuation of all claims was stayed pursuant to the bankruptcy except for Claims II, III, and X. These are claims against CEC only, for breach of contract in respect of the release of the parent guarantee formerly applicable to the Notes, for declaratory relief in respect of the release of this guarantee, and for violations of the Trust Indenture Act in respect of the release of this guarantee. CEC has informed us that fact discovery in the case is substantially complete, and cross-motions for summary judgment have been filed by the parties. On October 5, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court granted CEOC's motion for a stay of this proceeding (and others). On January 26, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court extended the stay to remain in effect until the earlier of (a) the effective date of the plan of reorganization confirmed on January 17, 2017, (b) the termination of any restructuring support agreement with the Official Committee of Second Priority Noteholders (the "Second Lien RSA") or (c) further order of the Bankruptcy Court. 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 "Senior Unsecured Lawsuits") were assigned to the same judge. The claims against CEOC have been automatically stayed during its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The court denied a motion to dismiss both lawsuits with respect to CEC. The parties have completed fact discovery with respect to both plaintiffs' claims against CEC. On October 23, 2015, plaintiffs in the Senior Unsecured Lawsuits moved for partial summary judgment, and on December 29, 2015, those motions were denied. On December 4, 2015, plaintiff in the action brought on behalf of holders of CEOC's 6.50% Senior Unsecured Notes moved for class certification and briefing has been completed. The judge presiding over these cases thereafter retired, and a new judge was appointed to preside over these lawsuits. That judge set a new summary judgment briefing schedule, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment which remain pending. On October 5, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court granted CEOC's motion for a stay of these proceedings (and others). On January 26, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court extended the stay to remain in effect until the earlier of (a) the effective date of the plan of reorganization confirmed on January 17, 2017, (b) the termination of the Second Lien RSA or (c) further order of the Bankruptcy Court. 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 "Delaware 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 has asked the court to appoint a receiver over CEOC. In addition, the Delaware 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 (a) Fifth Amended and Restated Restructuring Support and Forbearance Agreement dated October 7, 2015, with certain holders of claims in respect of claims under CEOC's first lien notes (the "First Lien Bond RSA") and (b) Restructuring Support and Forbearance Agreement dated August 21, 2015, with certain holders of claims in respect of claims under CEOC's first lien credit agreement (the "First Lien Bank RSA" and, together with the First Lien Bond RSA, the "RSAs"), has been subject to a consensual stay for all. 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 a lawsuit (the "New York Second Lien 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 lawsuit (the "New York First Lien 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 bring 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 were 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 to the UMB complaint 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. On August 27, 2015, those motions were denied. The court, on its own motion, certified its order with respect to the interpretation of the Trust Indenture Act for interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and on December 22, 2015, the appellate court denied CEC's motion for leave to appeal. On November 20, 2015, BOKF and UMB again moved for partial summary judgment. Those motions likewise were denied. The judge presiding over these cases thereafter retired, and a new judge was appointed to preside over these lawsuits. That judge set a new summary judgment briefing schedule, and the parties submitted cross-motions for summary judgment which remain pending. On October 5, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court granted CEOC's motion for a stay of the New York First Lien Lawsuit and the New York Second Lien Lawsuit (and others). On January 26, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court extended the stay to remain in effect until the earlier of (a) the effective date of the plan of reorganization confirmed on January 17, 2017, (b) the termination of the Second Lien RSA or (c) further order of the Bankruptcy Court. On October 20, 2015, Wilmington Trust, National Association ("Wilmington Trust"), filed a lawsuit (the "New York Senior Notes Lawsuit" and, together with the Delaware Second Lien Lawsuit, the Delaware First Lien Lawsuit, the Senior Unsecured Lawsuits, the New York Second Lien Lawsuit, and the New York First Lien Lawsuit, the "Parent Guarantee Lawsuits") against CEC in federal district court in Manhattan in its capacity as successor indenture trustee for CEOC's 10.75% Senior Notes due 2016 (the " 10.75% Senior Notes"). Plaintiff alleges that CEC is obligated to make payment of amounts due on the 10.75% Senior Notes pursuant to a parent guarantee provision in the indenture governing those notes that plaintiff alleges is still in effect. Plaintiff raises claims for violations of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and for declaratory judgment, and seeks monetary and declaratory relief. CEC filed its answer to the complaint on November 23, 2015. As with the other parent guarantee lawsuits taking place in Manhattan, the judge presiding over these cases retired and a new judge was appointed to preside over these lawsuits. That judge set a new summary judgment briefing schedule and the parties submitted cross-motions for summary judgment which remain pending. On October 5, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court granted CEOC's motion for a stay of this proceeding (and others). On January 26, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court extended the stay to remain in effect until the earlier of (a) the effective date of the plan of reorganization confirmed on January 17, 2017, (b) the termination of the Second Lien RSA or (c) further order of the Bankruptcy Court. In accordance with the terms of the applicable indentures and as previously disclosed, it is our understanding that CEC believes that it is not subject to the above-described guarantees. As a result, it is our understanding that CEC believes the demands for payment are without merit. The claims against CEOC have been stayed due to the Chapter 11 process and, except as described above, the actions against CEC have been allowed to continue. CAC and CGP LLC believe that the claims and demands described above against CAC and CGP LLC in the Delaware First Lien Lawsuit and Delaware Second Lien Lawsuit are without merit and intend to defend themselves vigorously. For the Delaware First Lien Lawsuit and Delaware Second Lien Lawsuit, at the present time, CAC and CGP LLC believe it is not probable that a material loss will result from the outcome of these matters. However, given the uncertainty of litigation, CAC and CGP LLC 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 them. Should these matters ultimately be resolved through litigation outside of the financial restructuring of CEOC, which such matters CAC and CGP LLC believe would likely be long and protracted, and were a court to find in favor of the claimants in the Delaware First Lien Lawsuit or the Delaware Second Lien Lawsuit, such determination could have a material adverse effect on CAC and CGP LLC's business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. Report of Bankruptcy Examiner The Bankruptcy Court previously engaged an independent examiner to investigate possible claims CEOC might have against CEC, CAC, CGP LLC, other entities and certain individuals. On March 15, 2016, the examiner released his report in redacted form (to the public) and in unredacted form (to certain entities and individuals). On May 16, 2016, the examiner issued a substantially unredacted version of his report. CAC, CGP LLC and CIE do not have access to the unredacted report, and accordingly the description below is based on the substantially unredacted publicly-available report. The examiner's report identifies a variety of potential claims against CAC, CGP LLC, CIE, other entities and certain individuals related to a number of transactions dating back to 2009. Most of the examiner's findings are based on his view that CEOC was "insolvent" at the time of the applicable transactions. The examiner's report includes his conclusions on the relative strength of these possible claims, many of which are described above. The examiner calculates an estimated range of potential damages for these potential claims as against all parties from $3.6 billion to $5.1 billion . The examiner calculates an estimated range of potential damages for potential claims against CAC, CGP LLC and CIE from $1.7 billion to $2.3 billion , ignoring potential duplication of recovery from other defendants. Neither calculation takes into account probability of success, likelihood of collection, or the time or cost of litigation. Although this report was prepared at the request of the Bankruptcy Court, none of the findings are legally binding on the Bankruptcy Court or any party. CAC, CGP LLC and CIE contest many of the examiner's findings, including his finding that CEOC did not receive fair value for assets transferred, any suggestion that certain of the potential claims against CAC, CGP LLC and CIE have merit, and his calculation of potential damages. CAC, CGP LLC and its subsidiaries believe that each of the disputed transactions involving them provided substantial value to CEOC that was reasonably equivalent to the value of the asset (s) transferred, and that they at all times acted in good faith. 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, the CEC Group, from the plan. Neither CAC, CGP LLC nor any of their subsidiaries are part of the CEC Group. 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. The CEC Group was current with respect to pension contributions at the time of their expulsion. On December 5, 2016, an interlocutory judgment was entered against CEC and CERP comprising the first quarterly payment of withdrawal liability referred to above, interest and liquidated damages under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. On December 19, 2016, CEC and CERP filed a motion to certify a final judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for immediate appeal and to stay the plaintiffs' motions to amend and for summary judgment, as described below. On January 11, 2017, the District Court granted the motion to certify a final judgment under Rule 54(b) in the amount of $9 million , but denied the motion for a stay, and a judgment in that amount was entered the next day. CEC has appealed this decision to the Second Circuit, and has bonded the judgment pending appeal. On December 23, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint to add claims for the second through eighth quarterly payments of withdrawal liability, which the plaintiffs contended were past due, as well as for injunctive relief requiring the defendants to pay all further quarterly payments as they purportedly became due. Also on December 23, 2016, the plaintiffs simultaneously filed a motion for summary judgment against CEC and CERP for payment of the second through eighth quarterly payments of withdrawal liability, for interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and for injunctive relief requiring the defendants to pay all further quarterly payments as they purportedly became due. The magistrate judge has not yet ruled on these motions. On March 13, 2017, CEC, CERP, CEOC (on behalf of itself and each of the Debtors and its other direct and indirect subsidiaries), the NRF, the NRF's Legacy Plan, the NRF's Trustees, and others entered into a Settlement Agreement (the "NRF Settlement Agreement"). Under the NRF Settlement Agreement, on the effective date of CEOC's plan of reorganization, CEC would pay $45 million to the NRF (the "NRF Payments") in three different baskets: (1) a settlement basket consisting of $10 million as litigation settlement and $5 million for legal fee reimbursement; (2) a contribution basket consisting of $15 million , which sum will grow at 3.1% per year and which, beginning 17.5 years after the plan effective date, will be applied to offset the first $8 million of contributions to the Legacy Plan annually until completely utilized; and (3) a withdrawal liability basket of $15 million , which does not grow, to be applied if there is a partial or complete withdrawal at any time after the plan effective date. Upon the NRF Payments being made, mutual releases will be exchanged between the CEC-affiliated parties and the NRF-affiliated parties to the NRF Settlement Agreement. On March 20, 2017, the Debtors moved for the NRF Settlement Agreement to be approved by the Bankruptcy Court. Litigation among the parties would be stayed upon Bankruptcy Court approval of the NRF Settlement Agreement, and would be dismissed with prejudice once the Debtors' reorganization plan takes effect and the NRF Payments are made. On April 19, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court approved the NRF Settlement Agreement, and all actions and appeals have been stayed pending the settlement becoming final. 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. In October 2013, CEOC's subsidiary, Desert Palace, Inc. (the owner of and referred to herein as Caesars Palace), received a letter from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the United States Department of the Treasury ("FinCEN"), stating that FinCEN was investigating 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. Caesars Palace responded to FinCEN's letter in January 2014. Additionally, CEC was informed in October 2013 that a federal grand jury investigation regarding anti-money laundering practices of CEC and its subsidiaries had been initiated. CEC and Caesars Palace have been cooperating with FinCEN, the Department of Justice and the Nevada Gaming Control Board (the "GCB") on this matter. On September 8, 2015, FinCEN announced a settlement pursuant to which Caesars Palace agreed to an $8 million civil penalty for its violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, which penalty shall be treated as a general unsecured claim in Caesars Palace's bankruptcy proceedings. In addition, Caesars Palace agreed to conduct periodic external audits and independent testing of its AML compliance program, report to FinCEN on mandated improvements, adopt a rigorous training regime, and engage in a "look-back" for suspicious transactions. The terms of the FinCEN settlement were approved by the bankruptcy court on October 19, 2015. CEOC and the GCB reached a settlement on the same facts as above, wherein CEC agreed to pay $1.5 million and provide to the GCB the same information that is reported to FinCEN and to resubmit its updated AML policies. On September 17, 2015, the settlement agreement was approved by the Nevada Gaming Commission. CEOC continues to cooperate with the Department of Justice in its investigation of this matter. 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. |
