Native American Development | Native American Development North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians Tribe The Company has development and management agreements with the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians (the “Mono”), a federally recognized Native American tribe located near Fresno, California, which were originally entered into in 2003. In August 2014, the Mono and the Company entered into the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (the “Development Agreement”) and the Second Amended and Restated Management Agreement. Pursuant to those agreements, the Company will assist the Mono in developing and operating a gaming and entertainment facility (the “North Fork Project”) to be located in Madera County, California. The Company purchased a 305 -acre parcel of land adjacent to Highway 99 north of the city of Madera (the “North Fork Site”), which was taken into trust for the benefit of the Mono by the Department of the Interior (“DOI”) in February 2013. As currently contemplated, the North Fork Project is expected to include approximately 2,000 slot machines, approximately 40 table games and several restaurants, and the cost of the project is expected to be between $250 million and $300 million . Development of the North Fork Project is subject to certain governmental and regulatory approvals, including, but not limited to, approval of the Management Agreement by the Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission (“NIGC”). Under the terms of the Development Agreement, the Company has agreed to arrange the financing for the ongoing development costs and construction of the facility. The Company will contribute significant financial support to the North Fork Project. Through March 31, 2019 , the Company has paid approximately $33.4 million of reimbursable advances to the Mono, primarily to complete the environmental impact study, purchase the North Fork Site and pay the costs of litigation. The advances are expected to be repaid from the proceeds of third-party financing or from the Mono’s gaming revenues; however, there can be no assurance that the advances will be repaid. The carrying amount of the advances was reduced to fair value upon the Company’s adoption of fresh-start reporting in 2011. At March 31, 2019 , the carrying amount of the advances was $18.3 million . In accordance with the Company’s accounting policy, accrued interest on the advances will not be recognized in income until the carrying amount of the advances has been recovered. The Company will receive a development fee of 4% of the costs of construction (as defined in the Development Agreement) for its development services, which will be paid upon the commencement of gaming operations at the facility. In March 2018, the Mono submitted a proposed Third Amended and Restated Management Agreement (the “Management Agreement”) to the NIGC. The Management Agreement allows the Company to receive a management fee of 30% of the North Fork Project’s net income. The Management Agreement and the Development Agreement have a term of seven years from the opening of the North Fork Project. The Management Agreement includes termination provisions whereby either party may terminate the agreement for cause, and the Management Agreement may also be terminated at any time upon agreement of the parties. There is no provision in the Management Agreement allowing the tribe to buy-out the agreement prior to its expiration. The Management Agreement provides that the Company will train the Mono tribal members such that they may assume responsibility for managing the North Fork Project upon the expiration of the agreement. Upon termination or expiration of the Management Agreement and Development Agreement, the Mono will continue to be obligated to repay any unpaid principal and interest on the advances from the Company, as well as certain other amounts that may be due, such as management fees. Amounts due to the Company under the Development Agreement and Management Agreement are secured by substantially all of the assets of the North Fork Project except the North Fork Site. In addition, the Development Agreement and Management Agreement contain waivers of the Mono’s sovereign immunity from suit for the purpose of enforcing the agreements or permitting or compelling arbitration and other remedies. The timing of this type of project is difficult to predict and is dependent upon the receipt of the necessary governmental and regulatory approvals. There can be no assurance as to when, or if, these approvals will be obtained. The Company currently estimates that construction of the North Fork Project may begin in the next 18 to 30 months and estimates that the North Fork Project would be completed and opened for business approximately 18 months after construction begins. There can be no assurance, however, that the North Fork Project will be completed and opened within this time frame or at all. The Company expects to assist the Mono in obtaining third-party financing for the North Fork Project once all necessary regulatory approvals have been received and prior to commencement of construction; however, there can be no assurance that the Company will be able to obtain such financing for the North Fork Project on acceptable terms or at all. The Company has evaluated the likelihood that the North Fork Project will be successfully completed and opened, and has concluded that the likelihood of successful completion is in the range of 65% to 75% at March 31, 2019 . The Company’s evaluation is based on its consideration of all available positive and negative evidence about the status of the North Fork Project, including, but not limited to, the status of required regulatory approvals, as well as the progress being made toward the achievement of all milestones and the successful resolution of all litigation and contingencies. There can be no assurance that the North Fork Project will be successfully completed or that future events and circumstances will not change the Company’s estimates of the timing, scope, and potential for successful completion or that any such changes will not be material. In addition, there can be no assurance that the Company will recover all of its investment in the North Fork Project even if it is successfully completed and opened for business. The following table summarizes the Company’s evaluation at March 31, 2019 of each of the critical milestones necessary to complete the North Fork Project. As of March 31, 2019 Federally recognized as an Indian tribe by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) Yes Date of recognition Federal recognition was terminated in 1966 and restored in 1983. Tribe has possession of or access to usable land upon which the project is to be built The DOI accepted approximately 305 acres of land for the project into trust for the benefit of the Mono in February 2013. Status of obtaining regulatory and governmental approvals: Tribal-state compact A compact was negotiated and signed by the Governor of California and the Mono in August 2012. The California State Assembly and Senate passed Assembly Bill 277 (“AB 277”) which ratified the Compact in May 2013 and June 2013, respectively. Opponents of the North Fork Project qualified a referendum, “Proposition 48,” for a state-wide ballot challenging the legislature’s ratification of the Compact. In November 2014, Proposition 48 failed. The State took the position that the failure of Proposition 48 nullified the ratification of the Compact and, therefore, the Compact did not take effect under California law. In March 2015, the Mono filed suit against the State (see North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians v. State of California) to obtain a compact with the State or procedures from the Secretary of the Interior under which Class III gaming may be conducted on the North Fork Site. In July 2016, the DOI issued Secretarial procedures (the “Secretarial Procedures”) pursuant to which the Mono may conduct Class III gaming on the North Fork Site. Approval of gaming compact by DOI The Compact was submitted to the DOI in July 2013. In October 2013, notice of the Compact taking effect was published in the Federal Register. The Secretarial Procedures supersede and replace the Compact. Record of decision regarding environmental impact published by BIA In November 2012, the record of decision for the Environmental Impact Statement for the North Fork Project was issued by the BIA. In December 2012, the Notice of Intent to take land into trust was published in the Federal Register. BIA accepting usable land into trust on behalf of the tribe The North Fork Site was accepted into trust in February 2013. Approval of management agreement by NIGC In December 2015, the Mono submitted a Second Amended and Restated Management Agreement, and certain related documents, to the NIGC. In July 2016, the Mono received a deficiency letter from the NIGC seeking additional information concerning the Second Amended and Restated Management Agreement. In March 2018, the Mono submitted the Management Agreement and certain related documents to the NIGC. In June 2018, the Mono received a deficiency letter from the NIGC seeking additional information concerning the Management Agreement. Approval of the Management Agreement by the NIGC is expected to occur following the Mono’s response to the deficiency letter. The Company believes the Management Agreement will be approved because the terms and conditions thereof are consistent with the provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”). Gaming licenses: Type The North Fork Project will include the operation of Class II and Class III gaming, which are allowed pursuant to the terms of the Secretarial Procedures and IGRA, following approval of the Management Agreement by the NIGC. Number of gaming devices allowed The Secretarial Procedures allow for the operation of a maximum of 2,000 Class III slot machines at the facility during the first two years of operation and thereafter up to 2,500 Class III slot machines. There is no limit on the number of Class II gaming devices that the Mono can offer. Agreements with local authorities The Mono has entered into memoranda of understanding with the City of Madera, the County of Madera and the Madera Irrigation District under which the Mono agreed to pay one-time and recurring mitigation contributions, subject to certain contingencies. The memoranda of understanding with the City and County were amended in December 2016 to restructure the timing of certain payments due to delays in the development of the North Fork Project. Following is a discussion of certain unresolved legal matters related to the North Fork Project. Stand Up For California! v. Brown. In March 2013, Stand Up for California! and Barbara Leach, a local resident (collectively, the “Stand Up” plaintiffs), filed a complaint for declaratory relief and petition for writ of mandate in California Superior Court for the County of Madera against California Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., alleging that Governor Brown violated the California constitutional separation-of-powers doctrine when he concurred in the North Fork Determination. The complaint sought to vacate and set aside the Governor’s concurrence. Plaintiffs’ complaint was subsequently amended to include a challenge to the constitutionality of AB 277. The Mono intervened as a defendant in the lawsuit. In March 2014, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ amended complaint, which dismissal was appealed by plaintiffs. In December 2016, an appellate court ruled in favor of the Stand Up plaintiffs concluding that Governor Brown exceeded his authority in concurring in the Secretary’s determination that gaming on the North Fork Site would be in the best interest of the tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The appellate court’s decision reversed the trial court’s previous ruling in favor of the Mono. The Mono and the State filed petitions in the Supreme Court of California seeking review of the appellate court’s decision. In March 2017, the Supreme Court of California granted the Mono and State’s petitions for review and deferred additional briefing or other action in this matter pending consideration and disposition of a similar issue in United Auburn Indian Community of Auburn Rancheria v. Brown. The United Auburn case was fully briefed in December 2017. Oral argument has not yet been scheduled. Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. Brown . In March 2016, Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians (“Picayune”) filed a complaint for declaratory relief and petition for writ of mandate in California Superior Court for the County of Madera against Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., alleging that the referendum that invalidated the Compact also invalidated Governor Brown’s concurrence with the North Fork Determination. The complaint seeks to vacate and set aside the Governor’s concurrence. In July 2016, the court granted the Mono’s application to intervene and the Mono filed a demurrer seeking to dismiss the case. In November 2016, the district court dismissed Picayune’s complaint, but the court subsequently vacated its ruling based on the December 2016 decision by the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Stand Up for California! v. Brown . In May 2017, the court stayed the case for six months by agreement of the parties and scheduled a status conference on November 13, 2017 to address how the case should proceed in light of the California Supreme Court’s granting of the Mono and State’s petitions for review in Stand Up for California! v. Brown . The case remains stayed. Stand Up for California! et. al. v. United States Department of the Interior. In November 2016, Stand Up for California! and other plaintiffs filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California alleging that the DOI’s issuance of Secretarial Procedures for the Mono was subject to the National Environmental Policies Act and the Clean Air Act, and violate the Johnson Act. The complaint further alleges violations of the Freedom of Information Act and the Administrative Procedures Act. The DOI filed its answer to the complaint in February 2017 denying plaintiffs’ claims and asserting certain affirmative defenses. A motion to intervene filed by the Mono was granted in March 2017. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to stay the proceedings in May 2017. Briefing on the contested stay request concluded in July 2017 and briefing on cross-motions for summary judgment was concluded in September 2017. On July 18, 2018, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion to stay the proceedings and granted the summary judgment motions of the Mono and the federal defendants. On September 11, 2018, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the District Court decision and a briefing schedule has been established with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. |