GTECH S.P.A. 10-Q 2011
Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C. 20549
For the Quarterly Period Ended January 1, 2011
For the transition period from ____ to ____
Commission File Number 001-10684
International Game Technology
9295 Prototype Drive, Reno, Nevada 89521
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)(Zip Code)
Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area code:(775) 448-7777
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Yes [X] No [ ]
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
Yes [X] No [ ]
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act:
Large accelerated filer [X] Accelerated filer [ ] Non-accelerated filer [ ] Smaller reporting company [ ]
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
Yes [ ] No [X]
The number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant’s classes of common stock, as of February 4, 2011:
298.8 million shares of common stock at $.00015625 par value.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (as used in this document)
PART I – FINANCIAL INFORMATION
CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS
See accompanying notes
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
See accompanying notes
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
See accompanying notes
SUPPLEMENTAL CASH FLOWS INFORMATION
“Depreciation and amortization” reflected in the cash flows statements are comprised of amounts presented separately on the income statements, plus “depreciation and amortization” included in cost of gaming operations, cost of product sales and discontinued operations.
See accompanying notes
NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
1. BASIS OF PRESENTATION AND CONSOLIDATION
Our consolidated financial statements include the accounts of International Game Technology (IGT, we, our, or the Company), including all majority-owned or controlled subsidiaries and VIEs for which we are the primary beneficiary. All appropriate inter-company accounts and transactions are eliminated.
We prepare our consolidated financial statements in accordance with SEC and US GAAP requirements and include all adjustments of a normal recurring nature that are necessary to fairly state our consolidated results of operations, financial position, and cash flows for all periods presented. Interim period results are not necessarily indicative of full year results. This quarterly report should be read in conjunction with our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2010.
Our fiscal year is reported on a 52/53-week period ending on the Saturday nearest to September 30 each year. Similarly, our quarters end on the Saturday nearest to the last day of the quarter end month. For simplicity, this report presents all fiscal periods using the calendar month end as outlined in the table below.
Use of Estimates
Our consolidated financial statements are prepared in conformity with US GAAP. Accordingly, we are required to make estimates, judgments and assumptions that we believe are reasonable based on our historical experience, contract terms, observance of known trends in our company and the industry as a whole, and information available from other outside sources. Our estimates affect reported amounts for assets, liabilities, revenues, expenses, and related disclosures. Actual results may differ from initial estimates.
2. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Allowances for Credit Losses
We maintain allowances for credit losses related to accounts receivable and customer financing where collectability is uncertain. We evaluate the adequacy of our allowances for credit losses on a quarterly basis and consider a number of factors applicable to all of our customer receivables and financing, including customers’ financial condition, historical customer collection experience, receivable aging, economic conditions, legal environment, and regulatory landscape.
Our customer financing portfolio is comprised of two classes, contracts and notes. Our contracts include extended payment terms granted to qualifying customers for periods from one to five years and are secured by the related products sold. Our notes consist of development financing loans granted to select customers to assist in the funding of new or expanding gaming facilities, generally under terms of one to seven years and are secured by the developed property and/or other assets. Interest income on contracts and notes is recognized at prevailing market rates.
We place an internally assigned risk grade on each contract and note in our customer financing portfolio. Internally assigned risk grades fall into three categories (low, medium, high), based on a number of factors, including customer size, type, financial condition, historical collection experience, account aging, and credit ratings derived from credit reporting agencies and other industry trade reports. The high risk category includes most of our development financing loans in new markets and customers in regions with a history of currency or economic instability, such as South/Central America. Many of our high risk loans are performing according to contract and do not warrant an allowance. Internally assigned risk grades on each contract and note are evaluated on a quarterly basis.
Customer financing is classified as past due when a scheduled payment is not received within 30 days of a payment notice. Initially customer financing with past due payments are collectively evaluated for impairment. Contracts and notes are evaluated individually for impairment (specific reserves) when collectability becomes uncertain due to events and circumstances, such as bankruptcy and tax or legal issues, that cause an adverse change in a customer’s cash flows or financial condition. Accounts placed on specific reserve are simultaneously evaluated for probability of collection, which is used to determine the amount of the specific reserve. All changes in the net carrying amount of our contracts and notes are recorded as adjustments to bad debt expense or impairment.
When collection is deemed unlikely (typically reserved at 50% or greater) during our quarterly review as discussed above, the contract or note is placed on nonaccrual status and interest income is recognized on a cash basis. Uncollectible contracts or notes are written off when it is determined that there is minimal chance of any kind of recovery, such as a customer property closure, bankruptcy restructuring or finalization, or other conditions that severely impact a customer’s ability to repay amounts owed.
Recently Adopted Accounting Standards or Updates
Credit Quality of Financing Receivables and Allowances for Credit Losses
At the beginning of fiscal 2011, we adopted accounting standards issued in July 2010 to address the FASB concerns about the sufficiency, transparency, and robustness of credit risk disclosures for financing receivables and the related allowances for credit losses. The required information is designed to enable a better understanding of:
These ASU disclosures are effective for our first quarter of fiscal 2011, except for the allowance roll-forward disclosures effective with our second quarter of fiscal 2011 and certain disclosures temporarily deferred pending the issuance of revised criteria for the identification of troubled debt restructuring. The adoption of this ASU did not and will not have a material impact on our results of operations, financial position, or cash flow. See Note 7 and Note 2 above.
Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities
At the beginning of fiscal 2011, we adopted accounting standards issued in June 2009, which require reassessment of our primary beneficiary position in VIE arrangements on an on-going basis and adds further disclosures about our involvement in VIEs. The revised standard also replaces the quantitative-based risks and rewards approach with a qualitative approach focused on determining which enterprise has the power to direct VIE activities that most significantly impact its economic performance and is obligated to absorb losses or has the rights to receive the most significant benefit from the VIE. The adoption of this ASU did not have a material impact on our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.
Recently Issued Accounting Standards or Updates—Not Yet Adopted
Fair Value Measurement Disclosures
In January 2010, the FASB issued an ASU which will require supplemental disclosures related to purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements of fair value instruments within the Level 3 reconciliation. This ASU will be effective for our first quarter of fiscal 2012 and is not expected to have a material impact on our financial statements.
Accruals for Casino Jackpot Liabilities
In April 2010, the FASB issued an ASU clarifying that jackpot liabilities should not be accrued before they are won if the payout can be avoided. The ASU will be applied prospectively with a cumulative-effect adjustment in retained earnings at the beginning of our first quarter of fiscal 2012. We continue to evaluate the extent to which this guidance will impact our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.
3. VARIABLE INTEREST ENTITIES AND AFFILIATES
Variable Interest Entities
New Jersey regulation requires that annuitized WAP jackpot payments to winners be administered through an individual trust set up for each WAP system. These trusts are VIEs. We determined that IGT was the primary consolidating beneficiary, because these VIE trusts are designed for the sole purpose of administering jackpot payments for IGT WAP winners and IGT guarantees all liabilities of the trusts. The assets of these consolidated VIEs can only be used to settle trust obligations and have been segregated on our balance sheet.
The consolidation of these VIEs primarily increases jackpot liabilities and related assets, as well as interest income and equivalent offsetting interest expense. Consolidated VIE trust assets and equivalent liabilities totaled $78.1 million at December 31, 2010 and $79.7 million at September 30, 2010.
Investments in Unconsolidated Affiliates
China LotSynergy Holdings, Ltd.
During the quarter ended December 31, 2010, we sold our CLS stock investment for net proceeds of $16.5 million and recognized a gain of $4.3 million.
At December 31, 2010, our CLS convertible note and default put derivative had an adjusted cost and fair value of $21.3 million. We determined that the conversion option did not qualify as a freestanding derivative requiring bifurcation at December 31, 2010. See Note 15 and Note 16 for additional information about CLS derivatives and fair value assumptions.
We recorded IGT Synergy JV losses of $0.1 million for the three months ended December 31, 2010 and 2009. $0.1
5. PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT
6. SHARE-BASED COMPENSATION
The amount, frequency, and terms of share-based awards may vary based on competitive practices, operating results, and government regulations. SIP grants generally vest over three to five years, either in ratable annual increments or 100% at the end of the vesting period. New shares of IGT common stock are issued upon exercises of stock options, vesting of restricted share units, or restricted share grants. Our current practice is generally to grant restricted share awards in the form of units without dividends. Forfeitures occur primarily when employment is terminated prior to vesting.
At December 31, 2010, 3.7 million shares were available for grant under the IGT SIP. Each restricted share or unit counts as four shares against this allowance. Unrecognized costs related to share-based awards outstanding at December 31, 2010 totaled $112.5 million and are expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 2.0 years.
SIP Activity As Of And For The Three Months Ended December 31, 2010
See Note 2 regarding our accounting policies for accounts receivable, customer financing and allowances for credit losses.
Allowances for Credit Losses
Customer Financing (Contracts and Notes) at December 31, 2010
Alabama Development Financing
Our impaired contracts and notes include $83.9 million related to Alabama charitable bingo markets with related allowances of $51.9 million at December 31, 2010. The legality of electronic charitable bingo in Alabama was challenged during fiscal 2010 and the properties where IGT placed electronic bingo machines closed their operations. At December 31, 2010, these properties remain closed. Any revenues and interest income related to these assets were recorded on the cash basis subsequent to the first quarter of fiscal 2010 as collectability was not reasonably assured.
8. CONCENTRATIONS OF CREDIT RISK
Financial instruments that potentially subject us to concentrations of credit risk consist principally of cash and equivalents, investments, and receivables. We place short-term investments in high credit quality financial institutions and in short-duration high-quality securities. With the exception of US Government and Agency securities, our short-term investment policy limits the amount of credit exposure in any one financial institution, industry group, or type of investment. Cash on deposit may be in excess of Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation limits.
Our receivables were concentrated in the following legalized gaming regions at December 31, 2010:
9. GOODWILL AND OTHER INTANGIBLES
During the quarter ended December 31, 2010, we capitalized $0.2 million of patent legal costs with a weighted average life of 5 years.
Aggregate amortization expense totaled $12.3 million in the current quarter versus $12.7 million in the prior year quarter.
10. CREDIT FACILITIES AND INDEBTEDNESS
IGT was in compliance with all applicable debt covenants at December 31, 2010. Embedded features of all debt agreements were evaluated and did not require bifurcation at December 31, 2010.
Domestic Credit Facility
At December 31, 2010, $20.0 million was drawn on our domestic revolving credit facility, $1.21 billion was available, and $15.9 million was reserved for letters of credit and performance bonds. As of December 31, 2010, the facility interest rate was LIBOR plus 260 bps with a facility fee of 65 bps. The amount drawn carried a 2.86% weighted average interest rate.
Concurrent with the maturity of the non-extended portion on December 19, 2010, the size of our domestic credit facility was reduced by $238.0 million. The size of the credit facility was further reduced on December 30, 2010, when we paid in full the term loan in the amount of $42.0 million issued upon the conversion of half of all amounts outstanding at December 19, 2010. At December 31, 2010, the size of our domestic credit facility was $1.24 billion.
Foreign Credit Facilities
At December 31, 2010, $10.2 million was available and nothing was drawn under our revolving credit facility in Australia, which generally renews annually with maturity in March and is guaranteed by the parent company, International Game Technology.
Interest rate swaps executed in conjunction with our Bonds are described in Note 15.
IGT has been named in and has brought lawsuits in the normal course of business. We do not expect the outcome of these suits, including the lawsuits described below, to have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.
2004 Federal District Court of Nevada
On December 7, 2004, IGT filed a complaint in US District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging that defendants Alliance Gaming Corp., Bally Gaming Int'l, Inc., and Bally Gaming, Inc. infringed six US patents held by IGT: US Patent Nos. 6,827,646; 5,848,932; 5,788,573; 5,722,891; 6,712,698; and 6,722,985. On January 21, 2005, defendants filed an answer denying the allegations in the complaint and raising various affirmative defenses to IGT's asserted claims. Defendants also asserted fourteen counterclaims against IGT, including counterclaims for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the asserted patents, and for antitrust violations and intentional interference with prospective business advantage. IGT has successfully moved for partial summary judgment on defendants’ counterclaims for intentional interference with prospective business advantage and defendants’ antitrust allegations related to the gaming machine market. IGT denies the remaining allegations. On May 9, 2007, the Court issued an order construing disputed terms of the asserted patent claims. On October 16, 2008, the Court issued summary judgment rulings finding certain of IGT’s patents, including patents that IGT believes cover bonus wheel gaming machines, invalid as obvious. The rulings also found that Bally was not infringing certain patents asserted by IGT. Bally’s antitrust and unfair competition counterclaims remain pending. On November 7, 2008, the Court issued an order staying the proceedings and certifying the summary judgment and claim construction rulings for immediate appeal. On December 1, 2008, IGT appealed the rulings to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On January 8, 2009, Bally moved to dismiss the appeal on jurisdictional grounds. On February 2, 2009, the Federal Circuit denied the Bally motion without prejudice to the parties raising jurisdictional issues in their merits briefs. On October 22, 2009, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s summary judgment rulings. On December 7, 2009, Bally filed a motion to lift the stay and schedule a trial on the remaining issues. A hearing on the motion was held on February 1, 2010, at which the Court indicated that it would revisit earlier motions for summary judgment on the issues not addressed on appeal, including IGT’s motions for summary judgment on Bally’s antitrust and unfair competition counterclaims. On November 29, 2010, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of IGT on all antitrust and unfair competition counterclaims by Bally and dismissed all other remaining claims. Bally has appealed the grant of summary judgment.
2006 Federal District Court of Delaware
On April 28, 2006, IGT filed a complaint in US District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that defendants Bally Technologies, Inc., Bally Gaming Int'l, Inc., and Bally Gaming, Inc. infringed nine US patents held by IGT: US Patent Nos. RE 38,812; RE 37,885; 6,832,958; 6,319,125; 6,244,958; 6,431,983; 6,607,441; 6,565,434; and 6,620,046. The complaint alleges that the “BALLY POWER BONUSING™” technology infringes one or more of the claims of the asserted IGT patents. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages and an injunction. On June 30, 2006, defendants filed an answer denying the allegations in the complaint and raising various affirmative defenses to IGT’s asserted claims. Defendants also asserted twelve counterclaims against IGT, including counterclaims for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the asserted patents, antitrust violations, unfair competition, and intentional interference with prospective business advantage. IGT denies these allegations. Pursuant to stipulation of the parties, all claims and counterclaims except those relating to US Patent Nos. RE 37,885 ("the '885 patent"), RE 38,812 ("the '812 patent"), and 6,431,983 have been dismissed. All proceedings relating to Bally’s antitrust, unfair competition, and intentional interference counterclaims have been stayed. On April 28, 2009, the court issued a summary judgment ruling finding the '885 and '812 patents valid. The court also ruled that Bally's "Power Rewards" and "ACSC Power Winners" products infringe certain claims of the '885 and '812 patents. The court granted Bally's motion for summary judgment that Bally's "SDS Power Winners" does not infringe the '885 patent and "Power Bank" and "Power Promotions" do not infringe the '983 patent. The court denied Bally's motion for summary judgment that the '983 patent is invalid. The parties have agreed that Bally's counterclaim for a declaratory judgment on invalidity of the '983 patent will be dismissed without prejudice. IGT’s motion for a permanent injunction against Bally’s infringing products was denied. On April 28, 2010, the court entered an order dismissing without prejudice Bally’s remaining counterclaims (antitrust, unfair competition and intentional interference with business relationships) and entered final judgment in favor of IGT and against the Bally defendants. An appeal from the liability judgment is proceeding. A trial to determine the amount of damages incurred by IGT, and related matters, as a result of Bally's infringement has not yet been scheduled.
2006 Northern Federal District Court of California
On June 12, 2006, Aristocrat Technologies Australia PTY Ltd. and Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against IGT. Aristocrat alleged that IGT willfully infringed US Patent No. 7,056,215, which issued on June 6, 2006. On December 15, 2006, Aristocrat filed an amended complaint, adding allegations that IGT willfully infringed US Patent No. 7,108,603, which issued on September 19, 2006. The IGT products named in the original and amended complaints were the Fort Knox® mystery progressive slot machines. On June 13, 2007, the US District Court for the Northern District of California entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of IGT declaring both patents invalid. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed this decision on September 22, 2008. IGT’s request for a rehearing was denied on November 17, 2008. This case has recommenced in the District Court. On May 13, 2010, the District Court entered an Order granting IGT’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. Aristocrat is appealing this judgment. Proceedings on IGT’s claim that Aristocrat committed inequitable conduct in reviving a related patent application are continuing in the District Court. A trial is set on this issue for April 4, 2011.
2010 Central Federal District Court of California
On November 15, 2010, IGT filed a complaint in the US District Court for the Central District of California against Aristocrat Leisure Limited of Australia and its US affiliate Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. (collectively “Aristocrat”) seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction and damages for the infringement of US Patent No. 6,620,047 (the “’047 patent”) and US Patent No. RE 39,370 (the “’370 patent”) in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. We assert that Aristocrat infringes on the ‘047 and the ‘370 patents in connection with the sale and distribution of gaming devices, including the Viridian WS slot machine, without authorization or license from IGT.
Rice (formerly Piercey) v Atlantic Lotteries
In May 2010, Atlantic Lotteries commenced an action against International Game Technology, VLC, Inc. and IGT-Canada, wholly-owned subsidiaries of International Game Technology, and other manufacturers of video lottery machines in the Supreme Court of New Foundland and Labrador seeking indemnification for any damages that may be awarded against Atlantic Lotteries in a class action suit also filed in the Supreme Court of New Foundland and Labrador. A motion for class certification has been filed by plaintiff but has not yet scheduled for argument. In the interim, plaintiff has filed a motion to preclude the third party defendants from participating on the motion to certify; plaintiff’s motion to preclude is scheduled to be heard on February 23, 2011.
Securities Class Action
On July 30, 2009, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 697 filed a putative securities fraud class action in the US District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against IGT and certain of its officers, one of whom is a director. The complaint alleges that between November 1, 2007 and October 30, 2008, the defendants inflated IGT's stock price through a series of materially false and misleading statements or omissions regarding IGT's business, operations, and prospects. The Court has appointed a lead plaintiff. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 26, 2010 and the defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on June 17, 2010.
Between August 20, 2009 and September 17, 2009, the Company was nominally sued in a series of derivative lawsuits filed in the US District Court for the District of Nevada, captioned Fosbre v. Matthews et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00467; Calamore v. Matthews et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00489-ECR-VPC; Israni v. Bittman, et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00536; and Aronson v. Matthews et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00542-RCJ-VPC. Plaintiffs purportedly brought their respective actions on behalf of the Company. The complaints asserted claims against various current and former officers and directors of the Company, for breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and contribution and indemnification. The complaints sought an unspecified amount of damages and allege similar facts as the securities class action lawsuit. The complaints additionally alleged that certain individual defendants engaged in insider trading and that the director defendants improperly handled Thomas J. Matthews’ resignation as Chief Executive Officer of the Company. The actions were consolidated and subsequently a consolidated derivative complaint was filed in December 2009. Defendants moved to dismiss that complaint. On July 6, 2010, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. The plaintiff in Israni v. Bittman, et al. has appealed the order of dismissal.
On September 30, 2009, the Company was nominally sued in a derivative lawsuit filed in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, County of Washoe. Plaintiff purportedly filed the action on behalf of the Company. The lawsuit, captioned Kurz et al. v. Hart et al., Case No. cv-0-9-02982, asserted claims against various current and former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment. The complaint generally made the same allegations as the federal derivative complaints and seeks an unspecified amount of damages. The action has been dismissed by stipulation of the parties.
In a letter dated October 7, 2009 to the Company’s Board of Directors, a shareholder made factual allegations similar to those set forth in the above derivative and securities class actions and demanded that the Board investigate, address and remedy the harm allegedly inflicted on IGT. In particular, the letter alleges that certain officers and directors grossly mismanaged the Company by overspending in the area of R&D of server-based game technology despite a looming recession to which the Company was particularly vulnerable; by making or allowing false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s growth prospects and earnings guidance; and by wasting corporate assets by causing the Company to repurchase Company stock at inflated prices. The letter asserts that this alleged conduct resulted in breaches of fiduciary duties and violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. On July 9, 2010, the Company was nominally sued in a derivative lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the District of Nevada, captioned Sprando v. Hart, et al., Case No. 3:10-cv-00415-RCJ-VPC and asserting claims similar to those described above. Motions to dismiss have filed.
On October 2, 2009, two putative class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of participants in the Company’s employee pension plans, naming as defendants the Company, the IGT Profit Sharing Plan Committee, and several current and former officers and directors. The complaints (which seek unspecified damages) allege breaches of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C §§ 1109 and 1132. The complaints allege similar facts as the securities class action lawsuit. The complaints further allege that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to Plan Participants by failing to disclose material facts to Plan Participants, failing to exercise their fiduciary duties solely in the interest of the Participants, failing to properly manage Plan assets, failing to diversify Plan assets, and permitting Participants to elect to invest in Company stock. The actions, filed in the US District Court for the District of Nevada, are captioned Carr et al. v. International Game Technology et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00584, and Jordan et al. v. International Game Technology et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00585. In October 2009, plaintiffs moved for consolidation of the two actions which motion was granted. On April 9, 2010, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint.
CCSC, a casino operation sold by IGT in April 2003, is located in an area that has been designated by the EPA as an active Superfund site because of contamination from historic mining activity in the area. In order for Anchor Coin, an entity IGT acquired in December 2001, to develop the CCSC site, it voluntarily entered into an administrative order of consent with the EPA to conduct soil removal and analysis (a requirement imposed on similarly situated property developers within the region) in conjunction with re-routing mine drainage. The work and obligations contemplated by the agreement were completed by Anchor in June 1998, and the EPA subsequently issued a termination of the order.
The EPA, together with other property developers excluding CCSC, continues remediation activities at the site. While we believe our remediation obligations are complete, it is possible that additional contamination may be identified and we could be obligated to participate in remediation efforts. Under accounting guidance for environmental remediation liabilities, we determined the incurrence of additional remediation costs is neither probable nor reasonably estimable and no liability has been recorded.
OSHA / Wrongful Termination Matter
On July 8, 2004, two former employees filed a complaint with the US Department of Labor, OSHA alleging retaliatory termination in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The former employees allege that they were terminated in retaliation for questioning whether Anchor and its executives failed to properly disclose information allegedly affecting the value of Anchor's patents in connection with IGT's acquisition of Anchor in December 2001. The former employees also allege that the acquired patents were overvalued on the financial statements of IGT. Outside counsel, retained by an independent committee of our Board of Directors, reviewed the allegations and found them to be entirely without merit.
On November 10, 2004, the employees withdrew their complaint filed with OSHA and filed a notice of intent to file a complaint in federal court. On December 1, 2004, a complaint was filed under seal in the US District Court for the District of Nevada, based on the same facts set forth above regarding their OSHA complaint. IGT filed a motion for summary judgment as to all claims in plaintiffs’ complaint. On June 14, 2007, the US District Court for the District of Nevada entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of IGT as to plaintiffs’ Sarbanes-Oxley whistle-blower claims and dismissed their state law claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the District Court’s decision was denied. Plaintiffs appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument was heard on March 12, 2009, and on August 3, 2009, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision. IGT’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ state law claims was argued on October 22, 2009 and granted in IGT’s favor on December 8, 2009. On April 13, 2010, the District Court granted IGT’s motion to strike the plaintiffs’ jury demand and granted IGT’s motion to retax costs and fees. It denied plaintiffs’ motion for certification and/or reconsideration. On February 8, 2011, a jury verdict was entered in favor of the plaintiffs as to their Sarbanes-Oxley claims and awarded damages in an amount equal to approximately $2.2 million. IGT is evaluating its options in response to this jury verdict.
In conjunction with the Anchor acquisition purchase price allocation as of December 31, 2001, IGT used the relief of royalty valuation methodology to estimate the fair value of the patents at $164.4 million. The carrying value of the patents at December 31, 2010 totaled $37.4 million.
Arrangements with Off-Balance Sheet Risks
In the normal course of business, we are party to financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk, such as performance bonds not reflected in our balance sheet. We do not expect any material losses to result from these arrangements and are not dependent on off-balance sheet financing arrangements to fund our operations.
Performance bonds outstanding related to certain gaming operations equipment totaled $6.8 million at December 31, 2010. We are liable to reimburse the bond issuer in the event of exercise due to nonperformance.
Letters of Credit
Outstanding letters of credit issued under our domestic credit facility to ensure payment to certain vendors and governmental agencies totaled $9.1 million at December 31, 2010.
IGT Licensor Arrangements
Our sales agreements that include software and IP licensing arrangements may require IGT to indemnify the third-party licensee against liability and damages (including legal defense costs) arising from any claims of patent, copyright, trademark infringement, or trade secret misappropriation. Should such a claim occur, we could be required to make payments to the licensee for any liabilities or damages incurred. Historically, we have not incurred any significant settlement costs due to infringement claims. As we consider the likelihood of incurring future costs to be remote, no liability has been recorded.
The majority of our products are generally covered by a warranty for periods ranging from 90 days to one year. We estimate accrued warranty costs in the table below based on historical trends in product failure rates and expected costs to provide warranty services.
We are self-insured for various levels of workers’ compensation, directors’ and officers’ liability, and electronic errors and omissions liability, as well as employee medical, dental, prescription drug, and disability coverage. We purchase stop loss coverage to protect against unexpected claims. Accrued insurance claims and reserves include estimated settlements for known claims, and actuarial estimates for claims incurred but not reported.
State and Federal Taxes
We are subject to sales, use, income, gaming and other tax audits and administrative proceedings in various US federal, state, local, and foreign jurisdictions. While we believe we have properly reported our tax liabilities in each jurisdiction, we can give no assurance that taxing authorities will not propose adjustments that increase our tax liabilities.
12. INCOME TAXES
Our provision for income taxes is based on estimated effective annual income tax rates as well as the impact of discrete items, if any, occurring during the quarter. The provision differs from income taxes currently payable because certain items of income and expense are recognized in different periods for financial statement purposes than for tax return purposes. We reduce deferred tax assets by a valuation allowance when it is more likely than not that some or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized.
Our effective tax rate for the three months ended December 31, 2010 decreased to 29.0% from 34.5% for the same prior year period as a result of the realization of benefits from an increase in the manufacturing deduction and the retroactive reinstatement of the R&D tax credit.
As of December 31, 2010, we had $99.5 million of gross UTBs excluding related accrued interest and penalties of $24.6 million. As of December 31, 2010, $65.9 million of our UTBs, including related accrued interest and penalties, would affect our effective tax rate, if recognized. During the three months ended December 31, 2010, our UTBs increased $15.7 million comprised of $7.7 million related to positions taken during a prior year and $8.0 million related to positions taken during the current year. Also during the three months ended December 31, 2010, related interest and penalties increased $1.9 million.
We are also subject to examination in state and foreign jurisdictions. We believe we have recorded all appropriate provisions for outstanding issues for all jurisdictions and open years. However, we can give no assurance that taxing authorities will not propose adjustments that increase our tax liabilities.
13. EARNINGS PER SHARE