| Litigation, Contractual Commitments and Contingent Liabilities | Litigation, Contractual Commitments and Contingent Liabilities 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 between CAC and CEC announced on December 22, 2014 (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. 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 the stage of the related litigation. 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, 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, 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. No trial date has been set. 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") have been 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 under the schedule imposed by the court for this motion, briefing has been completed. These lawsuits are currently scheduled for trial in May 2016. 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 "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 Bank 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. The consensual stay will expire upon the termination of the First Lien Bond RSAs. 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 10.0% 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 10.0% Second-Priority Notes; that all amounts due and owing on the 10.0% Second-Priority Notes therefore immediately became payable; and that Caesars Entertainment is responsible for paying CEOC's obligations on the 10.0% 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 have both been assigned to the same judge presiding over the other Parent Guarantee Lawsuits, as defined below. 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. 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 and on October 6, 2015, this denial was affirmed by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On December 23, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated the denial of CEOC's request to enjoin the Parent Guarantee Lawsuits and remanded the case for further proceedings. On February 26, 2016, the bankruptcy court granted CEOC’s motion for a temporary stay with respect to the New York Second Lien Lawsuit and the New York First Lien Lawsuit that had been scheduled to begin on March 14. The stay will remain in effect until 60 days after the filing of the Examiner’s interim report (expected between March 7 and March 14), or May 9, 2016, whichever comes first. Certain defendants in these adversary proceedings have sought rehearing en banc by the court of appeals. None of the rulings on CEOC's request to enjoin the Parent Guarantee Lawsuits addresses the merits of those actions. 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 and the parties have begun fact discovery. CAC and CGP LLC are not parties to these 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, except as described above, 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 Delaware First Lien Lawsuit and Delaware Second Lien Lawsuit are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. For the Delaware First Lien Lawsuit and Delaware 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 Delaware First Lien Lawsuit or the Delaware 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. The Bankruptcy Court denied CEOC's motion that NRF's action violated the automatic stay but CEOC's motion to extend the stay to encompass NRF's collection lawsuit against CEC is still pending. The Standstill Agreement remains in effect. Also, the federal district court has granted NRF's motion to dismiss CEC's declaratory judgment action agreeing with NRF that the governing statute requires that the issue must first be arbitrated. CEC has filed its Notice of Appeal challenging the district court's ruling. 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, CEC 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. 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. Harrah's New Orleans Operating Agreement Harrah's New Orleans operates under a casino operating contract with the Rivergate Development Corporation, as amended and restated on various occasions. The term of the amended casino operating contract expired in July 2014 and automatically renewed for 10 years . As amended, the contract requires Harrah's New Orleans to make minimum annual payments to the Louisiana Gaming Control Board equal to the greater of 21.5% of gross gaming revenues from Harrah's New Orleans in the applicable casino operating contract fiscal year or $60.0 million for each annual period beginning after April 1, 2002. In addition, Harrah's New Orleans is required to pay an override on gross gaming revenues equal to (i) 1.5% of gross gaming revenues between $500.0 million and $700.0 million ; (ii) 3.5% for gross gaming revenues between $700.0 million and $800.0 million ; (iii) 5.5% for gross gaming revenues between $800.0 million and $900.0 million ; and (iv) 7.5% for gross gaming revenues in excess of $900.0 million . For the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 , Harrah's New Orleans paid $71.4 million , $72.6 million and $72.6 million , respectively, to the Louisiana Gaming Control Board. Planet Hollywood Energy Services Agreement Planet Hollywood's predecessor entered into an Energy Services Agreement ("ESA") with Northwind Aladdin, LLC ("Northwind") on September 24, 1998, subject to five subsequent amendments. Under the terms of the amended ESA, Northwind is required to provide chilled water, hot water and emergency power to Planet Hollywood from a central utility plant for a term that expires February 29, 2020. Planet Hollywood recorded expenses of $3.0 million , $3.0 million and $3.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 , respectively. These expenses were included in Property, general, administrative and other expenses in the accompanying Combined and Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income/(Loss) . As of December 31, 2015 and 2014 , Planet Hollywood had future minimum commitments and contingencies of $5.4 million and $8.4 million , respectively, related to the amended ESA. Insurance Accruals CGPH's properties are insured for workers' compensation, property, general liability and other insurance coverage through Caesars Entertainment. See Note 15 — Related Party Transactions for additional information. Entertainment Commitments In July 2013, Planet Hollywood terminated its lease with a third-party in order to retake possession of the larger performance theater space in Planet Hollywood, recently rebranded as The AXIS at Planet Hollywood Resort & Casino. In connection with that transaction, Planet Hollywood refurbished the theater and entered into a performance agreement with Britney Spears pursuant to which Ms. Spears agreed to perform at The AXIS starting in December 2013. The original performance agreement ran through the end of 2015. In September 2015, Planet Hollywood and Ms. Spears entered into a new performance agreement pursuant to which Ms. Spears agreed to continue to perform at The AXIS through December 2017. In November 2015, Planet Hollywood finalized its performance agreement with Jennifer Lopez pursuant to which Ms. Lopez agreed to perform at The AXIS starting in January 2016. The performance agreements with Ms. Spears and Ms. Lopez contain customary representations, warranties, covenants and agreements and exclusivity and non-compete provisions for similar transactions. As of December 31, 2015 , CGPH's future commitments aggregate to approximately $78.5 million . Management Fees to Related Party See Note 15 — Related Party Transactions for discussion of management fees to related party. Uncertainties Since 2009, Harrah's New Orleans has undergone audits by state and local departments of revenue related to sales taxes on hotel rooms, parking and entertainment complimentaries. The periods that have been or are currently being audited are 2004 through 2013. In connection with these audits, certain periods have been paid under protest or are currently in various stages of litigation. As a result of these audits, Harrah's New Orleans had accrued $3.6 million and $6.7 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014 , respectively. |
