| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Partnership Parks On April 1, 1998, we acquired all of the capital stock of Former SFEC for $976.0 million, paid in cash. In addition to our obligations under outstanding indebtedness and other securities issued or assumed in the Former SFEC acquisition, we also guaranteed certain contractual obligations relating to the Partnership Parks. Specifically, we guaranteed the obligations of the general partners of those partnerships to (i) make minimum annual distributions (including rent) of approximately $88.5 million in 2024 (subject to cost of living adjustments) to the limited partners of the partnership entities (the Georgia Partnership with respect to the SFOG and the Texas Partnership with respect to the SFOT) that owns the Partnership Parks (based on our ownership of units as of December 31, 2023, our share of the distribution will be approximately $39.4 million) and (ii) make minimum capital expenditures at each of the Partnership Parks during rolling five-year periods, based generally on 6% of the Partnership Parks’ revenues. Cash flow from operations at the Partnership Parks is used to satisfy these requirements, before any funds are required from us. We also guaranteed the obligation of our subsidiaries to annually purchase all outstanding limited partnership units to the extent tendered by the unit holders (the "Partnership Park Put"). The agreed price for units tendered in the Partnership Park Put is based on a valuation of each of the respective Partnership Parks (the "Partnership Put Price") that is the greater of (a) a valuation for each of the respective Partnership Parks derived by multiplying such park’s weighted average four year EBITDA (as defined in the agreements that govern the partnerships) by a specified multiple (8.0 in the case of SFOG and 8.5 in the case of SFOT) and (b) a valuation derived from the highest prices previously paid for the units of the Partnership Parks by certain entities. In light of the temporary suspension of operations of the Partnership Parks due to the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, which would cause the value of the limited partnership units of the Partnership Parks to decrease in 2021 and thereafter, we adjusted our annual offer to purchase these units. Accordingly, to preserve liquidity in 2020 and avoid uncertainty with future purchase prices for the units, we adjusted the 2020 offer price to set a minimum price floor for all future purchases. Pursuant to the valuation methodologies described in the preceding sentence, the Partnership Put Price for the Partnership Parks, if determined as of December 31, 2023 is $409.7 million in the case of SFOG and $527.4 million in the case of SFOT. As of December 31, 2023, we owned approximately 31.5% and 54.1% of the Georgia limited partner interests and Texas limited partner interests, respectively. In January 2027 with respect to the Georgia Partnership and in January 2028 with respect to the Texas Partnership, we will have the option (each the “End-of-Term Option”) to require the redemption of all the limited partnership units we do not then own in the Partnerships. To exercise the End-of-Term Option, we must give the Georgia Partnership notice of its exercise no later than December 31, 2024 and we must give the Texas Partnership notice of its exercise no later than December 31, 2025. If the End-of-Term Option is not exercised, the parties may decide to renew and extend the arrangements relating to the Partnership Parks. Alternatively, if the End-of-Term Option is not exercised, the Partnership Park entities may be sold and the proceeds applied to redeem the outstanding interests in the Georgia Partnership and Texas Partnership, as applicable. If the End-of-Term Option is exercised, the price offered, and required to be accepted by the holders' of the limited units we do not then own would, is based on the agreed-upon value of the partnerships included in the original agreements, multiplied by the change in the Consumer Price Index ("CPI") between the beginning and end of the agreement. The agreements for Georgia Partnership and the Texas Partnership began in 1997 and 1998, respectively. The agreed-upon value for the partnerships, when the agreements were executed, was $250.0 million and $374.8 million for SFOG and SFOT, respectively. As of December 31, 2023, the agreed upon value, as adjusted for CPI, would be $483.5 million and $712.7 million for SFOG and SFOT, respectively. The agreed upon values, if determined as of December 31, 2023, multiplied by the 68.5% and 45.9% of units held by the limited partner for SFOG and SFOT, respectively, represent $330.9 million and $332.6 million that would be required to be paid to the limited partner of SFOG and SFOT, respectively, if the End-of-Term Option were to be exercised. The actual agreed upon value for the End-of-Term Option will be further adjusted by CPI until the end of the each respective agreement. The decision to exercise, or not exercise, the End-of-Term Option for either of SFOT or SFOG will ultimately be made based on numerous factors, including prevailing macro-economic and industry conditions and the cost and availability of financing to fund the purchase. Pursuant to the 2023 and 2022 annual offers, we did not purchase units from the Georgia Partnership. We purchased 0.149 units from the Texas partnership for approximately $0.3 million in May 2023. We purchased 0.25358 units from the Texas partnership for approximately $0.6 million in May 2022. The $400.0 million accordion feature on the Term Loan B (as defined in Note 8 - Long- Term Indebtedness ) is available for borrowing for future "put" obligations, if necessary. In connection with our acquisition of the Former SFEC, we entered into the Subordinated Indemnity Agreement with certain of the Company’s entities, Time Warner and an affiliate of Time Warner, pursuant to which, among other things, we transferred to Time Warner (which has guaranteed all of our obligations under the Partnership Park arrangements) record title to the corporations which own the entities that have purchased and will purchase limited partnership units of the Partnership Parks, and we received an assignment from Time Warner of all cash flow received on such limited partnership units, and we otherwise control such entities. In addition, we issued preferred stock of the managing partner of the partnerships to Time Warner. In the event of a default by us under the Subordinated Indemnity Agreement or of our obligations to our partners in the Partnership Parks, these arrangements would permit Time Warner to take full control of both the entities that own limited partnership units and the managing partner. If we satisfy all such obligations, Time Warner is required to transfer to us the entire equity interests of these entities. The 2022 sale of Time Warner to Discovery did not affect the Time Warner guarantee of our obligations under the Subordinated Indemnity Agreement. We incu rred $26.0 million of capital expenditures at these parks during the 2023 season and intend to incur capital expenditures at these parks for the 2024 season in excess of the minimum required expenditure. Cash flows from operations at the Partnership Parks will be used to satisfy the annual distribution and capital expenditure requirements, before any funds are required from us. The Partnership Parks generated approximately $16.3 million of cash in 2023 from operating activities after deduction of capital expenditures and excluding the impact of short-term intercompa ny advances from or payments to Holdings. License Agreements We are party to a license agreement pursuant to which we have the exclusive right on a long-term basis to theme park use in the United States and Canada (excluding the Las Vegas, Nevada metropolitan area) of all animated, cartoon and comic book characters that Warner Bros. and DC Comics have the right to license for such use. The term of the agreement expires in 2053. The license fee is payable on a per-theme park basis, and is subject to CPI increases and scheduled adjustments, including periodic market resets. In November 1999, we entered into license agreements pursuant to which we have the exclusive right on a long-term basis to theme park use in Europe, Central and South America of all animated, cartoon and comic book characters that Warner Bros. and DC Comics have the right to license for such use. Under such agreements, the license fee is based on specified percentages of the gross revenues of the applicable parks. Insurance We maintain insurance of the types and in amounts that we believe are commercially reasonable and that are available to businesses in our industry. We maintain multi-layered general liability policies that provide for excess liability coverage of up to $100.0 million per occurrence. For incidents arising on or after December 31, 2008, our self-insured retention is $2.0 million, followed by a $0.5 million deductible per occurrence applicable to all claims in the policy year for our domestic parks and our park in Canada and a nominal amount per occurrence for our parks in Mexico. Defense costs are in addition to these retentions. Our general liability policies cover the cost of punitive damages only in certain jurisdictions. Based upon reported claims and an estimate for incurred, but not reported claims, we accrue a liability for our retention contingencies. For workers’ compensation claims arising after November 15, 2003, our deductible is $0.75 million. We also maintain fire and extended coverage, business interruption, terrorism and other forms of insurance typical to businesses in this industry. The all peril property coverage policies insure our real and personal properties (other than land) against physical damage resulting from a variety of hazards. Additionally, we maintain information security and privacy liability insurance in the amount of $10.0 million with a $0.25 million retention per event. We generally renegotiate our insurance policies on an annual basis. The majority of our current insurance policies expire on December 31, 2024. We cannot predict the level of the premiums that we may be required to pay for subsequent insurance coverage, the level of any retention applicable thereto, the level of aggregate coverage available or the availability of coverage for specific risks. Self-Insurance Reserves Self-insurance reserves are recorded for the estimated amounts of guest and employee claims and expenses incurred each period that are not covered by insurance. Reserves are established for both identified claims and incurred but not reported (“IBNR”) claims. Such amounts are accrued for when claim amounts become probable and estimable. Reserves for identified claims are based upon the Company’s historical claims experience and third-party estimates of settlement costs. Reserves for IBNR claims are based upon our claims data history, actuarially determined loss development factors and certain other qualitative considerations. We maintain self-insurance reserves for healthcare, auto, general liability, and workers’ compensation claims. Our self-insurance reserves are periodically reviewed for changes in facts and circumstances and adjustments are made as necessary. During the second quarter of 2023, an actuarial analysis of our general liability and worker’s compensation self-insurance reserves resulted in a change in estimate that increased our ultimate loss indications on both identified claims and IBNR claims. The determination to undertake such an actuarial analysis resulted from greater than previously estimated reserve adjustments on identified claims during the quarter as well as an observed pattern of increasing litigation and settlement costs. As a result of this actuarial analysis, we revised certain key actuarial assumptions utilized in determining estimated ultimate losses, including loss development factors. The change in estimate resulted in an increase to selling, general and administrative expense on our consolidated statements of operation of $37.6 million during the year ended December 31, 2023 . Total accrued self-insurance reserves were $64.6 million and $34.1 million as of December 31, 2023 and January 1, 2023 . Legal Proceedings While certain legal proceedings and related indemnification obligations to which we are a party specify the amounts claimed, these claims may not represent reasonably possible losses. Except as noted below, given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be predicted at this time, nor can the amount of possible loss or range of loss, if any, be reasonably estimated, except in circumstances where an aggregate litigation accrual has been recorded for probable and reasonably estimable loss contingencies. A determination of the amount of accrual required, if any, for these contingencies is made after careful analysis of each matter. The required accrual may change in the future due to new information or developments in each matter or changes in approach such as a change in settlement strategy in dealing with these matters. Legal Proceedings Related to Proposed Mergers On February 16, 2024, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a complaint captioned Garfield vs. Baldanza, et al. , No. 42-350320-24, against the Company, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), Cedar Fair, and CopperSteel (collectively, the "Defendants") in the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas. The compliant alleges, among other things, that the Company made materially false and misleading statements in connection with its proposed combination with Cedar Fair, and that the Board breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders in approving the merger and in disseminating the challenged disclosures. The complaint, among other things, seeks a declaration that the Company and the Board breached their fiduciary duties, requests attorneys' fees and costs, and asks the court to compel the Defendants to make certain supplemental disclosures or enjoin or unwind the proposed transaction absent such disclosures. The Company has received additional letters and draft complaints demanding additional supplemental disclosures. Putative Securities Class Action Lawsuit In February 2020, two putative securities class action complaints were filed against Holdings and certain of its former executive officers (collectively, the “defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On March 2, 2020, the two cases were consolidated in an action captioned Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W. v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., et al. , Case No. 4:20-cv-00201-P (N.D. Tex.) (the “Electrical Workers litigation”), and an amended complaint was filed on March 20, 2020. On May 8, 2020, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System and Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W. were appointed as lead plaintiffs, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP was appointed as lead counsel, and McKool Smith PC was appointed as liaison counsel. On July 2, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made materially false or misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company’s business, operations and growth prospects, specifically with respect to the development of its Six Flags branded parks in China and the financial health of its former partner, Riverside Investment Group Co. Ltd., in violation of the federal securities laws. The consolidated complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Holdings’ publicly traded common stock during the period between April 24, 2018 and February 19, 2020. On August 3, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On March 3, 2021, the district court granted defendants’ motion, dismissing the complaint in its entirety and with prejudice. On August 25, 2021, Co-Lead Plaintiff Oklahoma Firefighters filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (“the Fifth Circuit”) from the district court’s decisions granting defendants’ motion to dismiss, denying plaintiffs’ motion to amend or set aside judgment, and denying plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a supplemental brief. The appeal was fully briefed as of December 15, 2021, and oral argument was held on March 7, 2022. On January 18, 2023, the Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. On February 9, 2023, the Fifth Circuit mandate issued to the district court. On March 7, 2023, the district court entered a scheduling order governing pre-trial proceedings. On April 18, 2023, Oklahoma Firefighters filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint that would add a new named plaintiff, remove former Co-Lead Plaintiff Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W., and modify the case caption. On May 2, 2023, defendants filed an opposition to that motion and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On June 2, 2023, the district court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the case with prejudice, and denied Oklahoma Firefighters’ motions. On June 30, 2023, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Fifth Circuit from the district court’s decisions. The appeal was fully briefed as of December 4, 2023. Oral argument is scheduled for March 4, 2024.We believe this lawsuit is without merit; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome. Regardless of the merit of plaintiffs’ claims, litigation may be expensive, time-consuming, disruptive to the Company’s operations and distracting to management. The outcome of this litigation is inherently uncertain, and we cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise from this matter. Stockholder Derivative Lawsuits On March 20, 2020, a putative stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed on behalf of nominal defendant Holdings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against certain of its then-current and former executive officers and directors (the “individual defendants”) in an action captioned Schwartz v. Reid-Anderson, et al. , Case No. 4:20-cv-00262-P (N.D. Tex.). In April 2020, two additional stockholder derivative lawsuits, making substantially identical allegations as the Schwartz complaint, were filed by Trustees of the St. Clair County Employees’ Retirement System and Mr. Mehmet Ali Albayrak in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in actions captioned Martin, et al. v. Reid-Anderson, et al. , Case No. 4:20-cv-00311-P (N.D. Tex.) and Albayrak v. Reid-Anderson, et al. , Case No. 4:20-cv-00312-P (N.D. Tex.), respectively. On April 8, 2020, plaintiffs in all three of these putative derivative actions moved to consolidate the actions and appoint lead counsel. On May 8, 2020, the district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate. The consolidated action is captioned In re Six Flags Entertainment Corp. Derivative Litigation , Case No. 4:20-cv-00262-P (N.D. Tex.). On August 10, 2020, plaintiffs filed a consolidated derivative complaint. The consolidated derivative complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty, insider selling, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and contribution for violations of federal securities laws. The consolidated derivative complaint references, and makes many of the same allegations as are set forth in, the Electrical Workers litigation, alleging, among other things, that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties, committed waste, are liable for contribution for, or were unjustly enriched by making, failing to correct, or failing to implement adequate internal controls relating to alleged materially false or misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company’s business, operations and growth prospects, specifically with respect to the prospects of the development of Six Flags branded parks in China and the financial health of its former partner, Riverside Investment Group Co. Ltd. The consolidated derivative complaint also alleges that a former officer and director sold shares of the Company while allegedly in possession of material non-public information concerning the same. On September 9, 2020, Holdings and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On April 28, 2021, the district court granted defendants’ motion, dismissing the consolidated complaint in its entirety and with prejudice and denying leave to amend. Plaintiffs’ time to appeal the judgment dismissing this action in its entirety and with prejudice and denying leave to amend lapsed in May 2021. On May 5, 2020, a putative stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed on behalf of nominal defendant Holdings, by Richard Francisco in Texas state court against certain of its then-current and former executive officers and directors (the “individual defendants”) in an action captioned Francisco v. Reid-Anderson, et al. , Case No. DC-20-06425 (160 th Dist. Ct., Dallas Cty., Tex.) (the “Francisco action”). The petition in the Francisco action alleges breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. The petition in the Francisco action references, and makes many of the same allegations, as are set forth in the Electrical Workers litigation, alleging, among other things, that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties, were unjustly enriched by, abused their control, committed gross mismanagement, and committed waste by making, failing to correct, or failing to implement adequate internal controls relating to alleged materially false or misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company’s business, operations and growth prospects, specifically with respect to the prospects of the development of Six Flags branded parks in China and the financial health of its former partner, Riverside Investment Group Co. Ltd. The petition also alleges that a former officer and director engaged in insider trading. On May 28, 2020, the parties in the Francisco action filed a joint motion to stay proceedings through the resolution of the forthcoming motion to dismiss the Electrical Workers litigation. On June 3, 2020, the district court granted the joint motion to stay proceedings. On June 12, 2020, an additional stockholder derivative lawsuit, making substantially identical allegations as the Francisco petition, was filed on behalf of nominal defendant Holdings in Texas state court by putative stockholder Cliff Bragdon in an action captioned Bragdon v. Reid-Anderson, et al. , Case No. DC-20-08180 (298 th Dist. Ct., Dallas Cty., Tex.) (the “Bragdon action”). On July 10, 2020, the district court granted an agreed motion filed by the parties in the Francisco and Bragdon actions to consolidate cases, to accept service and an unopposed motion to appoint co-lead and liaison counsel, and to stay both the Francisco and Bragdon actions through final resolution of the motion to dismiss the Electrical Workers litigation. The consolidated state derivative action was captioned In re Six Flags Entertainment Corp. Derivative Litigation , Case No. DC-20-06425 (160th Dist. Ct., Dallas Cty., Tex.). On September 8, 2020, the parties to the consolidated state derivative action filed an agreed motion to transfer the case from Dallas County to Tarrant County, which motion was so ordered on September 27, 2020. The consolidated action is now captioned In re Six Flags Ent. Corp. Derivative Litigation, No. 096-320958-20 (96 th Dist. Ct., Tarrant Cty., Tex.). On February 9, 2023, the stay was lifted in the consolidated action when the Fifth Circuit issued the mandate in the Electrical Workers litigation. On April 27, 2023 and May 30, 2023, the parties informed the court that they were conferring, that they would provide a further update within 30 days, and that, in the meantime, the defendants had no obligation to respond to the Francisco or Bragdon complaints or the consolidated action. On June 29, 2023, plaintiffs filed a notice of non-suit without prejudice. On February 16, 2023, a putative stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed on behalf of nominal defendant Holdings by John Hancock in Texas state court against certain of its former executive officers and directors (the “individual defendants”) in an action captioned Hancock v. Roedel, et al. , Case No. 348-340304-23 (348 th Dist. Ct., Tarrant Cty., Tex.). Plaintiff refers to and makes many of the same allegations as are set forth in the Electrical Workers litigation, claiming that, among other things, the individual defendants caused Six Flags to make false and misleading statements and omissions about the status of construction of Six Flags branded parks in China and the financial health of its former partner, Riverside Investment Group Co. Ltd. Plaintiff asserts breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims. Plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages and equitable relief including, but not limited to, disgorgement. On May 5, 2023, the individual defendants and the Company agreed to accept service of the petition, and plaintiff agreed that the individual defendants and the Company had no obligation to respond to the petition and that defendant's answer dates are tolled until plaintiff files an amended petition. Plaintiff stated Plaintiff would file an amended petition by June 30, 2023. On August 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended petition. On September 7, 2023, the individual defendants and the Company filed a motion to stay pending resolution of a duplicative federal derivative action, captioned Dela Cruz v. Reid-Anderson, et al, Case No. 3:23-CV-0396-D (N.D. Tex), and described below. On September 15, 2023, the court granted the motion to stay and ordered the action stayed until 30 days after a ruling by the federal court on the motions to dismiss pending in Dela Cruz v. Reid-Anderson. On February 22, 2023, a putative stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed on behalf of nominal defendant Holdings by Antonio Dela Cruz in in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against certain of its current and former executive officers and directors (the “individual defendants”) in an action captioned Cruz v. Reid-Anderson, et al. , Case No. 3:23-CV-0396-D (N.D. Tex.). Plaintiff refers to and makes many of the same allegations as are set forth in the Electrical Workers litigation, claiming that, among other things, the individual defendants caused Six Flags to make false and misleading statements and omissions about the status of construction of Six Flags branded parks in China and the financial health of its former partner, Riverside Investment Group Co. Ltd. Plaintiff asserts contribution, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment claims. Plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages and equitable relief including, but not limited to, disgorgement. On September 12, 2023, Six Flags and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 12, 2024, the district court granted defendants' motions, dismissing the complaint in its entirety and with prejudice. On February 7, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the district court's decision. Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuits Holdings and/or certain of its consolidated subsidiaries are named defendants in various lawsuits generally alleging violations of federal and/or state laws regulating wage and hour pay. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek monetary damages, including unpaid wages, statutory penalties, and/or attorneys’ fees and costs. Regardless of the merits of particular suits, litigation may be expensive, time-consuming, disruptive to the Company’s operations and distract management from the operation of our business. In recognition of these impacts on the business, the Company may enter into settlement agreements or other arrangements to settle litigation and resolve such disputes. No assurance can be given that such agreements can be obtained on acceptable terms or at all, or that litigation will not occur. These agreements may also significantly increase the Company’s operating expenses. The outcomes of these lawsuits are inherently uncertain, and we cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise from these matters in excess of the amounts that we have recognized for these lawsuits, which amounts are not material to our consolidated financial statements. Personal Injury Lawsuit On November 18, 2021, the Texas Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated numerous lawsuits filed against Six Flags Splashtown, LLC d/b/a Six Flags Hurricane Harbor Splashtown asserting claims arising from an alleged chemical vapor release on July 17, 2021 at Six Flags Splashtown. Certain plaintiffs have also named unaffiliated third parties as additional defendants. The consolidated multidistrict litigation is captioned In re Six Flags Splashtown Litigation (Master File No. 2021-77214), and is pending in the 295th Judicial District Court in Harris County, Texas. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages. On April 14, 2023, Six Flags Splashtown settled with 421 plaintiffs, including all bellwether plaintiffs set for trial on April 17, 2023, for an immaterial amount. On September 22, 2023, the Park settled with 55 additional plaintiffs, including the bellwether plaintiffs set for trial on January 15, 2024, for an immaterial amount. These settlements resolved claims brought by these plaintiffs only and do not resolve all claims arising from the alleged chemical vapor release. There are 19 remaining plaintiffs represented by different firms. All pro se plaintiffs have been dismissed. The parties are working to document these settlements and the Court has appointed special masters to determine the amounts each settling plaintiff will receive. Regardless of the merit of particular claims, litigation may be expensive, time-consuming, disruptive to the Company's operations and distracting to management. In recognition of these considerations, the Company may enter into further settlement agreements or other arrangements to settle litigation and resolve such disputes and particularly the 19 remaining plaintiffs. No assurance can be given that such agreements can be obtained on acceptable terms or that litigation will not occur. These agreements may also significantly increase the Company's operating expenses. The outcome of this litigation is inherently uncertain, and we cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise from the remaining matters in excess of the amount of that we have recorded for this litigation, which amount is not material to our consolidated financial statements. Litigation Relating to Routine Proceedings We are also engaged from time to time in other routine legal and tax proceedings incidental to our business. We do not believe that any of these routine proceedings will have a material impact on the business or our financial condition. Securities and Exchange Commission Investigation The Securities and Exchange Commission is conducting an investigation into the Company’s disclosures and reporting made in 2018 through February 2020 related to its business, operations and growth prospects of its Six Flags branded parks in China and the financial health of its former business partner, Riverside Investment Group Co. Ltd. The Company received a document subpoena in February 2020 and subsequently certain current and former executives received subpoenas in connection with this matter and they continue to provide responsive information. The Company is fully cooperating and is committed to continuing to cooperate fully with the SEC in this matter. We cannot predict the length, scope or results of the investigation, or the impact, of the investigation on our results of operations, business or financial condition. Tax and other contingencies As of December 31, 2023, and January 1, 2023, we had a nominal amount of accrued liabilities for tax and other indemnification contingencies related to certain parks sold in previous years that could be recognized as recovery losses from discontinued operations in the future if such liabilities are not requested to be paid. |
