|
|
 | | | |
- close
- close
- close
- close
| |||||||||
Pinnacle Entertainment 10-K 2008 Documents found in this filing:
Table of Contents
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 or
For the transition period from to
Commission file number 001-13641 PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
3800 Howard Hughes Parkway Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) (702) 784-7777 (Registrant’s telephone number, including area code) Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. YES x NO ¨ Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. YES ¨ NO x Indicate by check mark whether 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 if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.05 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. x Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a small reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” and “small reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). YES ¨ NO x The aggregate market value of the common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter was $1.67 billion based on a closing price of $28.15 per share of common stock. This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes. The number of outstanding shares of the registrant’s common stock as of the close of business on February 25, 2008 was 59,936,681. DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE Portions of the registrant’s definitive 2008 proxy statement, anticipated to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the registrant’s fiscal year, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K.
Table of ContentsPINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
Item 1. Business
Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. (“Pinnacle”) is a leading developer, owner and operator of casinos and related hospitality and entertainment facilities. Domestically, we currently operate six casino destinations, we have four other casino developments in various stages of planning and construction, and we are pursuing two other casino development opportunities. In addition, we have several small casino facilities in foreign markets.
Our long-term strategy is to maintain and improve each of our existing casinos; to build new resorts that produce returns above our cost of capital; and to develop the systems to tie all of our casinos together into a national gaming network. Hence, we are developing new, high-quality gaming properties in attractive gaming markets; we are maintaining and improving our existing properties with disciplined capital expenditures; we are developing a customer loyalty program designed to motivate customers to continue to patronize our casinos; and we may make strategic acquisitions at reasonable valuations, when and if available.
Highlights of 2007 and early 2008 include the following:
1
Table of ContentsCompany Overview
The following is an overview of our properties and related segments as of December 31, 2007:
2
Table of ContentsOur Principal Properties
Our largest casino resort is L’Auberge du Lac in Lake Charles, Louisiana, which opened in May 2005. Lake Charles offers the closest full-scale casino-hotel facilities to Houston (the seventh-largest metropolitan statistical area in the United States), as well as the Austin and San Antonio metropolitan areas. Lake Charles is approximately 145 miles from Houston and approximately 300 miles and 335 miles from Austin and San Antonio, respectively.
L’Auberge du Lac offers approximately 995 guestrooms and suites, inclusive of our recent expansion. The expansion project, in which we invested approximately $67 million as of the year ended December 31, 2007, includes 252 additional guestrooms (10 of which are new private garden villas), additional retail shops, an expanded pool area and other amenities. The facility also offers several restaurants, approximately 28,000 square feet of meeting space, a championship golf course designed by Tom Fazio, and a full-service spa. Unlike most other riverboat casinos, all of the public areas at L’Auberge du Lac (except the parking garage), and in particular the casino, are situated entirely on one level. The casino is surrounded on three sides by the hotel tower and other guest amenities. The hotel at L’Auberge du Lac is the largest in Louisiana outside of New Orleans.
L’Auberge du Lac competes with other full-service regional and national casinos, including those in New Orleans, Louisiana, Biloxi, Mississippi, and Las Vegas, Nevada. It also competes with another casino-hotel in Lake Charles; a land-based Native American casino, which is approximately 43 miles east of Lake Charles; a racetrack slot operation located approximately 25 miles to the west; and numerous truck stops with slot machines in many parishes of Louisiana, some of which call themselves “casinos”.
Our Boomtown New Orleans property is the only casino in the West Bank neighborhood, across the Mississippi River from downtown New Orleans. It currently features a dockside riverboat casino, two restaurants, a delicatessen, a 350-seat nightclub, 4,600 square feet of meeting space, an arcade and approximately 1,700 parking spaces. The property opened in 1994.
The West Bank generally did not flood as a result of the levee breaches that occurred in connection with the hurricanes in 2005 and has experienced substantial growth during the regional reconstruction. Responding to the growth within our community, we have been designing a 200-guestroom upscale hotel, the first guestrooms at this property, and other upgrades. We also plan to replace the three-level casino riverboat with a large single-deck casino boat, similar to the casino at L’Auberge du Lac. These projects are estimated to involve an investment of approximately $150 million.
Boomtown New Orleans competes with one other riverboat casino, a racetrack with slot machines, numerous truck stop casinos and a large land-based casino and entertainment facility in downtown New Orleans.
Our southern Indiana property, Belterra Casino Resort (“Belterra”), opened in October 2000, and is located along the Ohio River near Vevay, Indiana, approximately one hour from downtown Cincinnati, Ohio and 80 minutes from Louisville, Kentucky. Belterra is approximately two hours from Indianapolis, which is the third-largest market for Belterra. Management estimates that residents of the Indianapolis metropolitan area account for approximately 10% of Belterra’s casino revenues and approximately 11% of the guests staying at Belterra’s 608-guestroom hotel. The total population within 300 miles of Belterra is approximately 48 million.
Belterra attracts customers by offering amenities that are generally superior to those at competing regional properties, several of which are closer to the population centers than Belterra. Belterra features a large casino and a 608-guestroom hotel, six restaurants, 33,000 square feet of meeting and conference space, a 1,750-seat entertainment showroom, retail shops, a swimming pool, a championship golf course designed by Tom Fazio and a full-service spa. The resort provides approximately 2,000 parking spaces, most of which are in a multi-level parking structure.
3
Table of ContentsBelterra currently competes with four dockside riverboats and a casino resort that opened in November 2006 in French Lick, Indiana, approximately 100 miles west of Belterra. In addition, two racetrack casinos plan to open in 2008 in the Indianapolis metropolitan area. Each racetrack is authorized to offer 2,000 slot machines. A major competitor in the Cincinnati area has announced plans to replace its dockside riverboat with a larger gaming facility and expand its parking facilities. There are also proposals to legalize casinos in Ohio and Kentucky.
In August 2007, we added five retail shops. In December 2007, we completed the refurbishment of 11 of the high-end suites at Belterra. In light of the approval in May 2007 of legislation allowing two large slot machine casinos at racetracks in Indianapolis, we postponed indefinitely our planned construction of a 250-guestroom addition at the property.
Our Boomtown Bossier City property in Bossier City, Louisiana, features a regional hotel built around a dockside riverboat casino. The property opened in October 1996 on a site directly adjacent to, and easily visible from, Interstate 20. The Bossier City/Shreveport region is a three-hour drive from the Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan area along Interstate 20. The property includes 188 guestrooms, including four master suites and 88 junior suites, four restaurants and approximately 1,860 parking spaces.
In 2006, we acquired a barge that we intend to convert to an arrival facility for guests of our riverboat casino. The arrival facility will adjoin our casino and offer escalators, making it easier for customers to travel among the three levels of our riverboat casino.
Boomtown Bossier City competes with four dockside riverboat casino-hotels and a racetrack slot operation. Current state regulations do not permit table games at the racetrack. Boomtown Bossier City also competes with Native American casinos in southern Oklahoma. Such facilities are approximately one hour north of Dallas and offer both slot machines and table games.
Lumière Place-St. Louis includes our new Lumière Place Casino and The Admiral Riverboat Casino. Lumière Place, which is located in downtown St. Louis, Missouri, offers a 75,000-square-foot casino, a 200-guestroom luxury Four Seasons Hotel St. Louis, the 294 all-suites HoteLumière (formerly the Embassy Suites Hotel, which we have extensively refurbished), seven restaurants, banquet facilities, retail shops and more than 22,000 square feet of convention/meeting space, including a 7,300-square-foot ballroom. The Admiral Riverboat Casino offers approximately 845 slot machines and 30 table games. We own all of the facilities and have entered into a long-term agreement with Four Seasons Hotels Limited to manage our Four Seasons Hotel St. Louis. A group led by famed chef Hubert Keller manages two of our restaurants. Lumière Place is located across from the Edward Jones domed stadium and America’s Center Convention Center and just north of the famous Gateway Arch. A pedestrian tunnel to the America’s Center convention center, the Edward Jones domed stadium and the city’s central business district is expected to open in April 2008. We are currently using approximately nine of the 18 acres that we own in downtown St. Louis for the Lumière Place Casino and Hotels.
In 2005, our affiliate entered into a joint venture agreement with local developers to develop a 10-story luxury condominium project in Laclede’s Landing, near Lumière Place. The joint venture then designed the building, arranged a $19.0 million financing commitment and solicited bids for the building’s construction. The estimated costs of construction turned out to be higher than was originally estimated, while the overall market for residential housing has deteriorated in the interim. As a result, the partners determined that the project would not achieve sufficient returns and our affiliate has terminated the project. Through our affiliate, we have contributed approximately $1.3 million in expenses and our partner has contributed a portion of the project real property. Our affiliate is discussing with the partner and a construction lender regarding dissolving the partnership and the potential transfer of the property to our affiliate’s partner, for reimbursement of $500,000 of the expenses plus the entire purchase price paid by the partnership for the remaining portion of the project real property.
The Lumière Place casinos compete with four other casinos in the St. Louis metropolitan area.
4
Table of ContentsBoomtown Reno is a land-based casino-hotel located approximately 11 miles west of downtown Reno, Nevada, near the California border along Interstate 80. This interstate is the primary east-west interstate highway serving northern California. Boomtown Reno has been operating for more than 40 years.
The property offers 318 guestrooms, which we are planning to refurbish. In addition, the property has three restaurants, a 30,000-square-foot amusement center and approximately 1,300 parking spaces. In addition to the main casino-hotel, the property has a gas station and mini-mart and a 197-space recreational vehicle park.
In the second quarter of 2007, we closed Boomtown Reno’s truck stop to accommodate the construction of a Cabela’s Inc. branded outdoor sporting goods store, which opened in November 2007. We sold approximately 28 acres of land to Cabela’s Inc. in 2006. In the future, we have entitlements to construct a new satellite casino and travel plaza to be built on approximately 23 acres at a different location on the property’s 490 acres of available land. We continue to evaluate other opportunities to develop, sell or otherwise monetize our remaining excess available land.
Historically, Reno has been a drive-in gaming market that attracted visitors from northern California. Our facility also caters to travelers along Interstate 80 and local customers. Since mid-2003, new and expanded Native American casino facilities have opened in California that compete for business with Reno gaming properties. These California casino facilities are significantly closer to several primary customer markets than Boomtown Reno and have had an adverse effect on Boomtown Reno’s performance. Although such competition is likely to continue to expand, we believe that Northern California is now a less important market for Boomtown Reno than it was previously.
Casino Magic Argentina consists of one large and several small casinos in the Patagonia region of Argentina. The principal Casino Magic Argentina property, in the city of Neuquén, opened in July 2005 and replaced a leased facility that had operated for over 20 years. Casino Magic Neuquén includes a large, first-class casino, a restaurant, several bars and an entertainment venue on approximately 20 acres of land. We are constructing a 32-guestroom hotel, consisting of 15 large guestrooms and 17 suites, adjoining our casino. We anticipate investing approximately US$13 million in the hotel project, which is being funded through the property’s existing cash balances and operating cash flows.
We have certain exclusive rights to operate casinos in the principal cities of the Province of Neuquén. Our exclusivity rights in Neuquén should be extended from 2016 to 2021 upon the opening of our new hotel and inspection and approval of the hotel by the local gaming commission. In the Province of Río Negro, there is a casino approximately 10 miles from our principal Neuquén operations.
The Casino at Emerald Bay is a boutique casino adjoining the Four Seasons Resort at Emerald Bay on the picturesque island of Great Exuma in The Bahamas. Our casino opened in May 2006 and is the first and only casino on the island.
Financial information about segments and geographic areas is incorporated by reference from Note 12 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
New Properties Under Development and/or Construction
We are building a casino-hotel called River City in south St. Louis County, Missouri, which we expect to open in mid-2009. River City is located just south of the confluence of the Mississippi River and the River des Peres in the community of Lemay, one of the most densely populated areas in the St. Louis region. The first phase of the River City project is planned to include a gaming and multi-use facility and several restaurants at an estimated cost of $375 million. The second phase for the River City project is expected to include a hotel with a minimum of 100 guestrooms, as well as other amenities to be determined at a later time, at an estimated cost of $75 million. The River City casino-hotel is located on approximately 56 acres of land we control under a long-term lease from St. Louis County. The opening of River City is subject to approval of the MGC.
5
Table of ContentsIn June 2007, the Louisiana Gaming Control Board (the “LGCB”) approved the architectural plans for our proposed Sugarcane Bay casino resort to be built adjacent to our L’Auberge du Lac facility, which site was approved by voters of Lake Charles, Louisiana in November 2006. The project will utilize one of the two gaming entities we acquired from Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (“Harrah’s”) in 2006. One of the conditions to our license requires a minimum project investment of $350 million. Our plans for Sugarcane Bay include a floating, single-level dockside casino similar to that of L’Auberge du Lac and a 400-guestroom hotel, to be built on approximately 234 acres of land being leased from the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District. Included in the 234 acres of land we leased in January 2008 are 50 acres that we purchased for $5.0 million, though we have not selected the particular location of the acreage purchased. We will designate the location of those 50 acres in connection with the opening of Sugarcane Bay. Our Sugarcane Bay project is subject to various zoning and permitting requirements and approval of the LGCB.
In addition, we have acquired approximately 56 acres of land adjacent to our Sugarcane Bay and L’Auberge du Lac properties for possible future development.
On September 18, 2007, the LGCB approved our architectural plans for our planned $250 million casino-hotel resort named Rivière in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Rivière will use the other gaming entity acquired from Harrah’s. We own approximately 517 acres of land and we are a majority co-owner of an additional 58 acres of land, approximately 10 miles south of downtown Baton Rouge, Louisiana. We are actively seeking the partition of such co-owned acreage with the third-party minority owner. On February 9, 2008, the voters of East Baton Rouge Parish approved this location for a casino as required under state law. The project is subject to certain conditions and various other approvals. Baton Rouge is currently believed to rival New Orleans as the largest city in Louisiana and has experienced significant growth in recent years, both before and particularly after the effects of the 2005 Hurricane Katrina on the nearby New Orleans region. We are currently in the design phase of this project.
In November 2006, we purchased entities that owned a former casino site and an adjoining parcel in Atlantic City, New Jersey, which included the former Sands Casino Hotel. The aggregate purchase price paid at closing for the former casino site and additional property, other assets, tax benefits and working capital items of the entities was approximately $275 million. We paid an additional $10.1 million in the first quarter of 2007, following settlement of a property tax matter that resulted in a like amount of property tax credits being available to us in future years. In early 2008, we acquired or agreed to purchase an additional four acres. In the aggregate, the Atlantic City site comprises approximately 22 contiguous acres at the heart of Atlantic City, with extensive frontage along The Boardwalk, Pacific Avenue and Brighton Park.
We began site preparation work in 2007, including the implosion of the former Sands Casino Hotel and other structures on the site. We continue to plan and design our Atlantic City project, which for a resort of this size is expected to take at least two to three years from the date of our acquisition of the site in November 2006. The construction will then require approximately three to four additional years to complete with an anticipated opening date no earlier than 2012, subject to various regulatory approvals. This casino project is intended to be among the largest and most spectacular resorts in the region. While we have not yet determined the final scope or overall design of the new project, we estimate that its size and our investment will be substantially larger than those at any of our other facilities.
Potential Future Development Sites
In December 2007, the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas (the “Unified Government”) endorsed our plan as one of three proposals sent on to state officials for consideration for selection to build and operate the one free-standing casino to be permitted in the county under legislation passed in 2004. Besides these three, there are other competing proposals under consideration for the same license. On December 31, 2007, our subsidiary signed a development agreement with the Unified Government outlining our obligations if we are selected by the State. We believe that the other two proposals endorsed by the Unified Government signed similar development agreements. If we are chosen as the licensee, we intend to invest $650 million in the project, which, at a minimum, will include the construction of (a) a gaming and multi-use facility;
6
Table of Contents(b) a 500-guestroom hotel; (c) a combination retail, commercial and/or entertainment facility; (d) a convention center; and (e) a central water feature connecting the gaming facility with the Schlitterbahn Vacation Village resort and water park now under construction. The project is anticipated to be substantially completed approximately 36 months after the occurrence of the latter of (i) the Lottery Gaming Facility Management Contract becoming effective or (ii) the resolution of the pending lawsuit relating to the constitutionality of the Kansas Expanded Lottery Act. The State of Kansas is expected to choose the licensee during 2008.
In August 2006, we purchased approximately one and one-half acres of gaming-zoned land in Central City, Colorado, which is approximately 40 miles from Denver, Colorado. We have an option to purchase an additional six acres of adjoining, non-gaming zoned land. We believe our Central City land is the most conveniently located gaming-zoned site for Denver customers.
Asset Sales and Other
Casino Magic Biloxi and Related Insurance Matters: In November 2006, we completed the sale of our Casino Magic Biloxi site and certain related assets for approximately $45.0 million in cash to Harrah’s concurrent with our purchase, for $70.0 million in cash, of the entities that owned and operated Harrah’s Lake Charles. The physical property we sold was severely damaged by Hurricane Katrina in August 2005 and the facility had not reopened. We have filed an insurance claim and a lawsuit related to such claim for our losses associated with the casino-hotel previously operated at the site, which claim was retained by us in the sale and is the subject of pending litigation with several excess carriers. We have received $105 million from our insurers through December 31, 2007 and expect to receive an additional approximately $36.8 million in March 2008 pursuant to a settlement agreement with one of the three remaining carriers. Our suit against the two other carriers seeks recovery of substantial additional amounts under our claim.
Card Club Sales: In July 2006, we completed the sale of our leasehold interest and related receivables in the Hollywood Park Casino card club for net cash proceeds of approximately $24.2 million plus the cancellation of our lease obligation. In April 2006, we completed the sale of our Crystal Park Casino card club for net cash proceeds of approximately $16.5 million.
Merger Termination Proceeds: In March 2006, we entered into an agreement to acquire Aztar Corporation (“Aztar”) for $38.00 per share, subject to approval by Aztar’s shareholders. Pursuant to the agreement, Aztar’s board of directors was permitted to evaluate and recommend to its shareholders any unsolicited, superior proposals from qualified entities in accordance with its fiduciary duties. During April and May 2006, Aztar received several proposals that its board of directors deemed to be superior to ours. We matched or exceeded several of these proposals. Ultimately, we chose not to match a proposal to acquire Aztar for $54.00 per share. Aztar’s board of directors then terminated its merger agreement with us and made a merger termination fee payment of $78 million, of which we retained $44.7 million net of fees and expenses.
Financing Overview
In January 2007, we completed the public offering of 11.5 million newly issued shares of common stock (including over-allotment shares) at $32.00 per share, resulting in net proceeds to us of approximately $353 million after underwriters’ fees and expenses.
In June 2007, we issued $385 million aggregate principal amount of new 7.50% senior subordinated notes due 2015 (the “7.50% Notes”). The 7.50% Notes were issued in a private offering conducted pursuant to Rule 144A and Regulation S under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, at 98.525% of par to yield 7.75% to maturity, with interest payable on June 15 and December 15, beginning December 2007. Net of the original issue discount, initial purchasers’ fees and various costs and expenses, net proceeds from the offering were approximately $379 million. In connection with the sale of the 7.50% Notes, we entered into a registration rights agreement with the initial purchasers of the 7.50% Notes. Under the registration rights agreement, we have
7
Table of Contentsagreed to file a registration statement with respect to an offer to exchange the 7.50% Notes for a new issue of substantially identical notes registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, no later than March 31, 2008. In addition to retiring our then-outstanding term loan, we used a portion of the proceeds of the 7.50% Note issuance to purchase $25.0 million in principal amount of our 8.25% senior subordinated notes due 2012.
We currently have a $625 million revolving credit facility that matures in December 2010, $350 million of which is currently available under our most restrictive bond indenture. The revolving credit facility is part of the second amended and restated credit facility that we entered into in December 2005 and later amended (the “Credit Facility”). Of the amount currently available under our revolving credit facility, $161 million is currently utilized, including $140 million borrowed in late 2007 and early 2008 and $21.2 million of letters of credit issued. Interest on the borrowings currently accrues at a LIBOR rate plus a margin of 1.50%. The 30-day LIBOR rate as of December 31, 2007 was 5.21%.
The capital markets have deteriorated significantly over the past year. Well-publicized issues in the subprime residential loan and other debt markets, as well as fears of a possible recession have caused interest rates for most corporate borrowers to escalate sharply. This is despite the fact that the Federal Reserve Bank has reduced the discount rate for government funds available to commercial banks and yields on long term government securities have fallen to below the current pace of inflation.
These issues were exacerbated in the gaming industry by a number of leveraged buyouts of gaming companies, resulting in the issuance of substantial amounts of gaming loans and high-yield debt at a time when the demand for such paper was declining.
This has affected the trading prices of most gaming securities. The bonds issued by us in June 2007 have a 7.50% coupon and were priced to yield 7.75% to maturity. These bonds were recently believed to be trading at a price of approximately 75% of par, which implies a yield to maturity of approximately 13%. Management believes that such increases in yield are consistent with those of the debt securities of most casino companies. This has also had an impact on the equities of most casino companies, as high yielding debt securities make an attractive alternative to equity investments and the higher yields, if they persist long term, could result in higher borrowing costs and therefore lower equity returns.
The cost of new capital for us would be much more expensive today than it was a year ago. We, however, believe we have significant resources to fund a portion of our planned growth before turning to the currently unfavorable capital markets. These include internally generated cash flow, excess cash-on-hand, anticipated proceeds from the hurricane insurance claims and potential sales of assets. We also have the revolving credit facility mentioned above.
Our ability to borrow under the Credit Facility is currently limited by our indentures governing our 8.75% senior subordinated notes due 2013 (the “8.75% Notes”), and our 8.25% senior subordinated notes due 2012 (the “8.25% Notes”). Our 8.75% Notes become callable in October 2008 and currently restrict usage of our Credit Facility to $350 million. Our 8.25% Notes become callable in March 2008 and currently restrict usage under the Credit Facility to $475 million. Our indenture governing the 7.50% Notes permits borrowing of senior indebtedness of up to $1.5 billion.
We believe that we could probably refinance our 8.75% Notes and 8.25% Notes currently, but the cost to do so would be much higher in the current capital markets than the cost to leave such bonds outstanding. This could be partially offset by the ability to access the relatively lower-cost bank facility. We are carefully monitoring our cash needs and the capital markets to determine whether it is necessary, feasible, and economically advantageous to refinance our more restrictive debt instruments.
8
Table of ContentsWe have a diverse portfolio of growth and expansion projects. It requires several years to design, build and open a major casino hotel project. Capital expenditures in the early years are relatively small, as the development activities involve principally land acquisition, entitlements (including gaming entitlements), and fees for architecture and design. Management estimates that approximately 75% of a project’s total cost is invested in the final 25% of a project’s development timeline. Typically, this involves the major construction of the building itself and the acquisition and installation of the expensive finishes and equipment that are necessary for a high-quality casino hotel.
Our portfolio of projects currently includes one project, River City, which is in the early stage of construction. Management is fairly confident that such project can be completed with our existing resources. We also are planning to commence construction within the next few months of Sugarcane Bay and are evaluating our financial resources prior to such commencement.
Voters in East Baton Rouge Parish recently approved our planned project for Baton Rouge and we are now proceeding to prepare architectural drawings and are seeking zoning and similar approvals. We do not expect to be prepared to begin construction until sometime in 2009. Management’s expectations for returns in this market are high enough that it would make sense to proceed with this project, even if the funds had to be obtained in unfavorable market conditions. The same is true for our proposed casino in Kansas City, Kansas. There is a substantial period of time and significant entitlement issues (particularly in Kansas, where our proposal is one of several proposals for the license) that must be resolved before these projects can begin construction. Management is cautiously optimistic of improvement in the credit markets before funding of such projects is necessary, although there is no certainty that this will be the case.
We also have several other projects in various stages of design and development. In management’s judgment, several of these projects do not have anticipated returns that would justify construction if the long term cost of capital for us were to remain where it appears to be today.
Accordingly, construction of these projects may not occur if capital markets do not improve, or at a minimum, may be delayed until capital markets do improve.
Projects are being developed under development agreements and conditions with government agencies. There are financial penalties related to the River City development agreement, if it is not completed in a timely fashion. Likewise, we have a development agreement in Kansas City, which becomes effective if we are selected by the State of Kansas to develop a casino. Failure to complete the Sugarcane Bay and Baton Rouge casinos, in accordance with the conditions established by the LGCB, could result in forfeiture of the valuable gaming licenses.
Some of these projects, notably Atlantic City, are still early in the design phase. If the current credit cycle follows recent financial market history, then management would expect market conditions to improve by the time we would be prepared to begin construction. Hence, we have continued the design and planning process for such projects. We cannot give any assurance that market conditions will improve in that time frame.
Competition
We face significant competition in each of the jurisdictions in which we operate. Such competition may intensify in some of these jurisdictions if new gaming operations open in these markets or existing competitors expand their operations. Our properties compete directly with other gaming properties in each state in which we operate, as well as in states adjacent to such states. We also compete for customers with other casino operators in other markets, including casinos located on Native American reservations, and other forms of gaming, such as lotteries and internet gaming. Many of our competitors are larger and have substantially greater name recognition and marketing and financial resources. In some instances, particularly with Native American casinos, our
9
Table of Contentscompetitors pay substantially lower taxes or no taxes at all. We believe that increased legalized gaming in other states, particularly in areas close to our existing gaming properties such as Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Oklahoma, California, Pennsylvania or New York, and the development or expansion of Native American gaming in or near the states in which we operate, could create additional competition for us and could adversely affect our operations.
Government Regulation and Gaming Issues
The ownership and operation of gaming facilities are subject to extensive state and local regulation. The states and localities in which we and our subsidiaries conduct gaming operations require us to hold various licenses, findings of suitability, registrations, permits and approvals. The various gaming regulatory authorities, including the Indiana Gaming Commission, the Louisiana Gaming Control Board, the Missouri Gaming Commission, the Nevada State Gaming Control Board, the Nevada Gaming Commission, the New Jersey Casino Control Commission, the Government of the Province of Neuquén, Argentina and The Gaming Board of The Bahamas, may, among other things, limit, condition, suspend, revoke or fail to renew a license or approval to own any of the gaming subsidiaries for any cause deemed reasonable by such licensing authorities. Substantial fines or forfeitures of assets for violations of gaming laws or regulations may be levied against us, our subsidiaries and the persons involved. Holders of our securities are also subject to additional requirements regarding the ownership and disposition of their securities.
To date, we and our subsidiaries have obtained all governmental licenses, findings of suitability, registrations, permits and approvals necessary for the operation of our gaming facilities. However, there can be no assurance that we and our subsidiaries will be able to obtain any new licenses, findings of suitability, registrations, permits and approvals that may be required in the future or that existing ones will be renewed or will not be suspended or revoked. Any expansion of gaming operations in the existing jurisdictions or into new jurisdictions may require various additional licenses, findings of suitability, registrations, permits and approvals of the gaming authorities. The approval process can be time-consuming and costly and offers no assurance of success.
For a more detailed description of gaming regulations to which we are subject and the licenses pursuant to which we operate our facilities, see Exhibit 99.1 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K, “Government Regulation and Gaming Issues”, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Employees
The following is a summary of our work force by segment at December 31, 2007, some of which are part-time employees:
10
Table of ContentsAs of December 31, 2007, we are continuing to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement with approximately 149 of our employees at The Admiral Riverboat Casino. The prior agreement expired on September 30, 2007.
Other Information
Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. is the successor to the Hollywood Park Turf Club, which was organized in 1938. It was incorporated in 1981 under the name Hollywood Park Realty Enterprises, Inc. In 1992, we changed our name to Hollywood Park, Inc. and in February 2000, we became Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc.
Compliance with federal, state and local provisions which have been enacted or adopted regulating the discharge of materials into the environment or otherwise relating to the protection of the environment have not had a material effect upon our capital expenditures, earnings or the competitive positions of our properties. From time to time, certain of our development projects may require substantial costs for environmental remediation due to prior uses of our development sites. Our River City project site, for example, was heavily used for industrial purposes and we have remediated the site as part of the project. Our Atlantic City site has buildings that we are demolishing, some of which may contain asbestos that we are removing. Our Central City site was once used to dump tailings from gold-mining operations and is believed to have subterranean mining tunnels. In Reno, we have remediated the site where our former truck stop was located. Our project budgets typically include amounts expected to cover the remediation work required.
We experience significant fluctuations in our quarterly operating results due to seasonality and other factors. Historically, the summer months are our strongest period and the winter months are our slowest period.
We pay significant taxes in the communities in which we operate. In 2007, we paid or accrued $228 million in gaming taxes, $19.4 million in payroll taxes, $10.6 million in property taxes, and $4.0 million in sales taxes during the year. Setting aside income taxes, we paid or accrued $262 million for taxes paid to state and local authorities in 2007.
Executive Officers of the Registrant
The persons serving as our executive officers as of February 29, 2008, and their positions with us are as follows:
11
Table of ContentsDirectors of the Registrant
The following table lists our directors, their principal occupations and principal employers, as of February 29, 2008:
Available Information
Our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports are available free of charge as soon as reasonably practicable after they are filed or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), through our internet website, www.pnkinc.com. Our filings are also available through a database maintained by the SEC at www.sec.gov.
Item 1A. Risk Factors
An investment in our securities is subject to risks inherent to our business. We have described below what we currently believe to be the material risks and uncertainties in our business.
Before making an investment decision, you should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below, together with all of the other information included or incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also face other risks and uncertainties beyond what is described below. This Annual Report on Form 10-K is qualified in its entirety by these risk factors. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. If this were to happen, the value of securities, including our common stock, could decline significantly. You could lose all or part of your investment.
Our substantial funding needs in connection with our development projects, our current expansion projects and other capital-intensive projects, to the extent such projects are undertaken, will require us to raise substantial amounts of money from outside sources. In the near term, the availability of financing may be constrained by current disruptions in the credit markets.
We are currently engaged in and have planned expansions and development projects that would require substantial amounts of capital. We are currently constructing River City, are planning to begin construction of Sugarcane Bay in 2008, construction of Rivière in 2009, and have expansion and improvement projects at several of our existing facilities, including Boomtown New Orleans, Boomtown Reno and Boomtown Bossier City. These projects have an expected aggregate investment of more than $1.2 billion, of which we have invested approximately $56.4 million through December 31, 2007. In addition, our proposed Atlantic City project is expected to require a very substantial additional investment. We have been endorsed for a new casino resort in Kansas City, Kansas by that area’s Unified Government. If we are chosen as a licensee by the Kansas Racing and Gaming Commission, we expect to invest approximately $650 million in our Kansas City project. We may also consider additional small-scale and large-scale projects as such opportunities arise. Accordingly, we expect that the total cost of our development and expansion projects over the next several years will be several billion
12
Table of Contentsdollars. While we will endeavor to stage development and construction of these projects over several years, our proposed projects could strain our financial resources.
In order to fund most of these projects, we will need to access the capital markets since the capital required for these projects exceeds our available financial resources. As a result of the turmoil in the credit markets, the availability of debt financing is constrained, expensive and potentially unavailable. We cannot accurately predict when or if the credit markets will return to more normalized conditions. If the current debt market environment does not improve, we may not be able to raise additional funds in a timely manner, or on acceptable terms, or at all. Inability to access the capital markets, or the necessity to access the capital markets on less than favorable terms, may force us to delay, reduce or cancel planned development and expansion projects, sell assets or obtain additional equity financing. Our current stock price, along with the stock prices of many public gaming companies, has declined sharply from the recent historical levels. We may choose to cancel or delay projects rather than issue equity at these levels. This may impair our growth and materially and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flow and the returns of investing in our securities.
Our ability to obtain bank financing or to access the capital markets for future debt or equity offerings may also be limited by our financial condition, results of operations or other factors, such as our credit rating or outlook at the time of any such financing or offering and the covenants in our existing debt agreements, as well as by general economic conditions and contingencies and uncertainties that are beyond our control. As we seek financing for our development projects, we will be subject to the risks of rising interest rates and other factors affecting the financial markets. Moreover, if we obtain additional funds by issuing equity securities or securities convertible into equity securities, dilution to stockholders may occur. In addition, preferred stock could be issued in the future without stockholder approval and the terms of the preferred stock could include dividend, liquidation, conversion, voting and other rights that are more favorable than the rights of the holders of our common stock.
Insufficient or lower-than-expected results generated from our new developments and acquired properties may negatively affect the market for our securities.
We cannot assure you that, if and once completed, the revenues generated from our new developments and acquired properties will be sufficient to pay related expenses; or, even if revenues are sufficient to pay expenses, that the new developments and acquired properties will yield an adequate or expected return on our significant investments. Our projects, if completed, may take significantly longer than we expect to generate returns, if any.
Moreover, lower-than-expected results from the opening of a new facility may negatively affect us and the market for our securities and may make it more difficult to raise capital, even as the shortfall increases the need to raise capital.
Many factors could prevent us from completing our construction and development projects as planned, including the escalation of construction costs beyond increments anticipated in our construction budgets.
Construction of major buildings has certain inherent risks, including the risks of fire, structural collapse, human error and electrical, mechanical and plumbing malfunction. Several of the buildings being built by us are high-rise structures, introducing additional risks related to heights and cranes. Our development and expansion projects also entail significant risks, including:
13
Table of Contents
Increases in the cost of raw materials for construction, driven by worldwide demand, higher labor and construction costs in urban areas such as St. Louis or Atlantic City and other factors, may cause price increases beyond those anticipated in the budgets for our development projects. Furthermore, the cost of construction in areas of the Gulf Coast that were affected by the hurricanes may rise due to demand for construction material and labor in such locales. Any shortages in materials or labor in such areas could prolong the construction period and increase the cost of our development projects in that area.
Escalating construction costs may cause us to modify the design and scope of projects from those initially contemplated or cause the budgets for those projects to be increased. We generally carry insurance to cover certain liabilities related to construction, but not all risks are covered and it is uncertain whether such insurance will provide sufficient payment in a timely fashion even for those risks that are insured.
It is uncertain whether any project will be completed on time or within established budgets. Significant delays or cost overruns related to our construction projects could significantly reduce any return on our investment in these projects and adversely affect our earnings and financial resources. There are also certain tax incentives for construction in hurricane damaged areas that require completion of new facilities by certain dates. There is no certainty that such dates will be met. Construction of our development projects exposes us to risks of cost overruns due to typical construction uncertainties associated with any project or changes in the designs, plans or concepts of such projects. For these and other reasons, construction costs may exceed the estimated cost of completion notwithstanding the existence of any guaranteed maximum price construction contracts.
In November 2007, we entered into a guaranteed maximum price contract for our Sugarcane Bay project. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, the general contractor is required to submit a proposal to us for the guaranteed maximum price in the near future. In the event that we and the general contractor are unable to agree upon the guaranteed maximum price, then we can either change the scope and scale of the work or terminate the contract. The contract must be approved by the LGCB.
In addition, we have not yet entered into a guaranteed maximum price contract with a general contractor with respect to our River City project. We have begun foundation work acting as our own general contractor and are utilizing a qualified sub-contractor. We anticipate completing the working drawings and entering into a guaranteed maximum price contract with a general contractor for the balance of the construction prior to completion of the foundations. Although it is our preference to enter into guaranteed maximum price construction contracts on major construction projects with general contractors when it is commercially reasonable to do so, we may build some or all of our future projects without entering into such construction contracts with general contractors.
14
Table of ContentsDevelopment of our Atlantic City site presents many risks, and we may not realize the financial and strategic goals that are contemplated from the development.
In November 2006, we completed our purchase of the entities that own the Atlantic City site. We continue to develop and design our Atlantic City project, which for a resort of this size is expected to take at least two to three years from the date of our acquisition of the site. The construction will then require approximately three to four additional years to complete. Concurrently, we are preparing the site for the future casino resort, including the late October 2007 implosion of an old casino-hotel structure. The new casino-hotel is planned to be among the largest and most spectacular resorts in the region. While we have not yet determined the scope or overall design of the new project, we estimate that the size and the cost of the new casino-hotel will be substantially greater than anything we have built previously.
The risks we may face in the development of our Atlantic City site include:
The gaming industry is very competitive and increased competition, including by Native American gaming facilities, could adversely affect our profitability.
We face significant competition in all of the markets in which we operate. This competition will intensify if new gaming operations enter our markets or existing competitors expand their operations. In 2008, two racetracks in metropolitan Indianapolis are each expected to begin operating 2,000 slot machines.
In Pennsylvania, a total of five “racinos” and one stand-alone slot machine facility opened in 2006 and 2007. In addition, one “racino” is scheduled to open in 2008 and four stand-alone slot machine facilities are scheduled to open in 2009 and 2010. Each of these facilities will provide additional competition for our Atlantic City project.
Further, several of our properties are located in jurisdictions that restrict gaming to certain areas and/or are adjacent to states that currently prohibit or restrict gaming operations. Economic difficulties faced by state governments could lead to intensified political pressures for the legalization of gaming in jurisdictions where it is currently prohibited. The legalization of gaming in such jurisdictions could be an expansion opportunity for us or a significant threat to us, depending on where the legalization occurs and our ability to capitalize on it. In
15
Table of Contentsparticular, our ability to attract customers would be significantly affected by the legalization or expansion of gaming in Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Oklahoma, California, Delaware, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York or northern New Jersey and the development or expansion of Native American casinos in our markets.
In the past, legislation to legalize or expand gaming has been introduced in some of these jurisdictions and federal law favors the expansion of Native American gaming. In 2006, legislation to add more than 30,000 slot machines at seven racetracks in Ohio was rejected by the voters of Ohio. In 2007, voters in West Virginia approved table games at racetracks in the Ohio, Hancock and Kanawha counties, but rejected a similar proposal in Jefferson County. In 2007, Indiana approved 2,000 slot machines at each of two racetracks in the Indianapolis area. In 2007, the Governor of Kansas signed legislation approving four state-owned casinos and up to 2,800 slot machines to be divided among three racetracks. We submitted two proposals for a new gaming entertainment complex to be located in Kansas City, Kansas and received an endorsement from the Unified Government for one of the proposals. We are one of several companies vying for the one gaming license anticipated to be issued in Northeastern Kansas. We expect similar proposals to legalize or expand gaming will be made in the future in various states and it is uncertain whether such proposals will be successful.
Even in gaming markets where the state governments do not choose to increase the maximum number of gaming licenses available, we face the risk that existing casino licensees will expand their operations and the risk that Native American gaming will continue to grow. Furthermore, Native American gaming facilities frequently operate under regulatory requirements and tax environments that are less stringent than those imposed on state-licensed casinos, which could provide them with a competitive advantage.
Many of our competitors are larger and have substantially greater name recognition and marketing resources than we do. Moreover, consolidation of companies in the gaming industry could increase the concentration of large gaming companies in the markets in which we operate. This may result in our competitors having even greater resources and name recognition than such competitors currently enjoy.
We face competition from racetracks that offer slot machines. We also compete with other forms of legalized gaming and entertainment such as bingo, pull-tab games, card parlors, sports books, pari-mutuel or telephonic betting on horse and dog racing, state-sponsored lotteries, video lottery terminals, video poker terminals and, in the future, may compete with gaming at other venues. Furthermore, competition from internet lotteries and other internet wagering gaming services, which allow their customers to wager on a wide variety of sporting events and play Las Vegas-style casino games from home, could divert customers from our properties and thus adversely affect our business. Such internet wagering services are often illegal under Federal law but operate from overseas locations and are nevertheless sometimes accessible to domestic gamblers.
We may not meet the conditions for the maintenance of the licenses that we plan to utilize for our Sugarcane Bay and Rivière projects.
In 2006, we completed the acquisition from Harrah’s of two entities that own certain Lake Charles, Louisiana gaming assets, including two licensed riverboat casinos, each with an associated gaming license. One of these licenses will be used in connection with our Sugarcane Bay facility and the other license will be used in connection with our planned Rivière facility. The LGCB has established numerous conditions for use of each of these licenses, including development of Sugarcane Bay on the site adjacent to L’Auberge du Lac and development of Rivière in Baton Rouge, which, if not satisfied, could result in forfeiture of such licenses. While we expect to fulfill all conditions set by the LGCB, it is uncertain whether we will be able to do so or that the LGCB would agree to make any amendments that might be necessary. Forfeiture of one or both licenses could adversely affect our plans for the Louisiana gaming market.
16
Table of ContentsOur present indebtedness and projected future borrowings could have adverse consequences to us; future cash flows may not be sufficient to meet our obligations and we might have difficulty obtaining additional financing; we may experience adverse effects of interest-rate and exchange-rate fluctuations.
In June 2007, we issued $385 million aggregate principal amount of 7.50% senior subordinated notes due 2015, using a portion of the proceeds to retire our $275 million term loan within our Credit Facility and a portion to purchase $25 million in principal amount of our outstanding 8.25% senior subordinated notes due 2012. As of December 31, 2007, we had indebtedness of approximately $841 million, including $50 million drawn on the revolving credit facility, $275 million in aggregate principal amount of our 8.25% senior subordinated notes due 2012, $135 million in aggregate principal amount of our 8.75% senior subordinated notes due 2013, and $385 million in aggregate principal amount of our 7.50% senior subordinated notes due 2015. Our Credit Facility is comprised of a $625 million revolving credit facility, of which we are limited to $350 million under the terms of the indenture governing our 8.75% senior subordinated notes (which limitation is $475 million under terms of our 8.25% senior subordinated notes). As of February 25, 2008, of the $350 million available for use under our revolving credit facility, we have drawn down $140 million and $21.2 million was utilized under various letters of credit. Our substantial development plans for capital-intensive projects will require us to borrow significant amounts under our Credit Facility and to incur substantial additional indebtedness.
While we believe that we have sufficient cash and cash-generating resources to meet our debt service obligations during the next 12 months, it is uncertain in the future whether we will generate sufficient cash flow from operations or through asset sales to meet our long-term debt service obligations. Our present indebtedness and projected future borrowings could have important adverse consequences to us, such as:
If we fail to generate sufficient cash flow from future operations to meet our debt service obligations, we may need to refinance all or a portion of our debt on or before maturity. In such circumstances, it is uncertain that we will be able to refinance any of our debt. Our future operating performance and our ability to service or refinance our debt will be subject to future economic conditions and to financial, business and other factors, many of which are beyond our control.
Our borrowings under our revolving credit facility are at variable rates of interest, and to the extent not protected with interest rate hedges, could expose us to market risk from adverse changes in interest rates. We currently have no such interest rate hedges. If interest rates increase, our debt service obligations on the variable-rate indebtedness could increase significantly even though the amount borrowed would remain the same. This
17
Table of Contentsmay only be partially offset by earning higher rates of interest on our surplus cash balances. Additionally, our operation of Casino Magic Argentina exposes us to foreign exchange rate risk from adverse changes in the exchange rate of the dollar to the Argentine Peso. The Bahamian dollar has been pegged to the U.S. dollar for many years. If, however, this should change, then we would also be exposed to foreign exchange risk from our Bahamian casino.
The terms of our credit facility and the indentures governing our subordinated indebtedness impose operating and financial restrictions on us.
Our Credit Facility and the indentures governing our 7.50%, 8.25% and 8.75% senior subordinated notes impose various customary covenants on us and our subsidiaries, including, among others, reporting covenants, incurrence covenants, covenants restricting our ability to make certain investments or other restricted payments, covenants to maintain insurance and comply with laws, covenants to maintain properties and other covenants customary in senior credit financings and indentures. In addition, our Credit Facility requires that we comply with various financial covenants, including an interest coverage and debt to operating cash flow ratios, and capital spending limits. Our ability to comply with these provisions may be affected by general economic conditions, industry conditions and other events beyond our control, including delay in the completion of new projects under construction. As a result, we cannot assure you that we will be able to comply with these covenants. Our failure to comply with the covenants contained in the instruments governing our indebtedness could result in an event of default, which could materially and adversely affect our operating results and our financial condition.
Economic and political conditions, including slowdowns in the economy, and other factors affecting discretionary consumer spending may harm our operating results.
The strength and profitability of our business depends on consumer demand for casino-hotel resorts and gaming in general and for the type of amenities we offer. A general downturn in economic conditions, changes in consumer preferences or other factors affecting discretionary consumer spending, including general or regional economic conditions, disposable consumer income, fears of recession and consumer confidence in the economy, could harm our business. An extended period of reduced discretionary spending and/or disruptions or declines in travel could significantly harm our operations.
Our stock price has been and may remain volatile, and the value of our common stock may decline as a result of this volatility.
The market price of our common stock has been in the past, and may be in the future, subject to wide fluctuations in response to factors such as:
18
Table of Contents
In addition, in recent years, the stock market has experienced significant price and volume fluctuations, which are often unrelated to the performance or condition of particular companies. Such broad market fluctuations could adversely affect the market price of our common stock. Following periods of volatility in the market price of a particular company’s securities, securities class action litigation has often been brought against a company. If we become subject to this kind of litigation in the future, it could result in substantial litigation costs, damages awards against us, and the diversion of our management’s attention and resources.
Damage and closures caused by Hurricane Katrina in the New Orleans area make our future operating results at Boomtown New Orleans less predictable.
The damage caused by the hurricanes in the Gulf Coast and the New Orleans metropolitan area, including damage to roads, utilities and residential and commercial buildings, has affected the local gaming markets. Some of our competitors have chosen to exit the hurricane-damaged areas and some have chosen to reenter such markets on a grander scale and rebuild their facilities with significant capital investments. Tourism in the region is generally believed to be below pre-hurricane levels and may never return to such levels. As a result, future operating results at casinos in the region have been less predictable.
Issues with respect to our insurance policies could affect our recovery of further insurance proceeds associated with the 2005 hurricane damage and related business interruption.
We are currently in litigation with two insurance carriers regarding our right to recover further insurance proceeds from the damage to Casino Magic Biloxi, which was closed as a result of Hurricane Katrina and which we have now sold. In April 2006, we filed a claim for $347 million for property damage and business interruption incurred at the Casino Magic Biloxi site as a result of Hurricane Katrina. We have since revised our estimate of the value of our insurance claim, before consideration of any litigation claim for interest or bad-faith damages, to approximately $297 million. Such insurance claim includes approximately $171 million for property damage, approximately $120 million for business-interruption loss and approximately $5.7 million for emergency, mitigation and demolition expenses. We have received $105 million in advances as of December 31, 2007 towards our insurance claim and have reached a recent settlement with one insurance carrier for an additional approximately $36.8 million. We continue to litigate with the two remaining defendant insurance carriers regarding our right to recover further insurance proceeds with respect to our claim. It is uncertain whether our damage claim will be sustained or whether we will be fully compensated for all losses sustained due to the closure of the Biloxi facility or whether we will be paid on a timely basis. Some of our insurance carriers have indicated to us that their estimate of the total loss is approximately $176 million. The recent settlement implies a negotiated level of loss less than the claimed amount of $297 million, but we have preserved all of our rights to pursue our full claim, plus interest, bad-faith and punitive damages against the two remaining insurance carriers that have withheld payment. We participated in a mediation with two of our three insurance carriers in September 2007; the recent settlement was reached with one of such insurance carriers. We recently agreed to
19
Table of Contentsattempt mediation with the third insurance carrier. While we believe it is unlikely that we will reach a mediated settlement, the mediator is continuing to try to help us and the two remaining insurance carriers reach a consensus.
Recent natural disasters have made it more challenging for us to obtain similar levels of Weather Catastrophe Occurrence/Named Windstorm, Flood and Earthquake insurance coverage for our properties compared to the levels before the 2005 hurricanes.
Because of significant loss experience caused by hurricanes and other natural disasters over the last several years, a number of insurance companies have stopped writing insurance in Class 1 hurricane areas, including Louisiana and Mississippi. Others have significantly limited the amount of coverage they will write in these markets and have dramatically increased the premiums charged for this coverage. As a result, our policy limits for Weather Catastrophe Occurrences/Named Windstorms as well as other losses are significantly less than the policy limits we had during the 2005 hurricane season. During that period, our aggregate Weather Catastrophe Occurrence coverage was $400 million per occurrence. Our coverage for a Named Windstorm today is $200 million per occurrence, with a deductible of 5% of stated values. Above this $200 million limit, we have an additional $200 million of coverage per occurrence, but excluding Named Windstorms. If any of our properties suffer a Named Windstorm, any damages in excess of the coverage limits will likely be borne by us. A Weather Catastrophe Occurrence is defined in the 2005-2006 policies as “all loss or damage occurring during a period of 72 consecutive hours, which is caused by or results from a storm or weather disturbance, which is named by the National Weather Service or any other recognized meteorological authority. Storm or weather disturbance includes all weather phenomena associated with or occurring in conjunction with the storm or weather disturbance, including, but not limited to flood, wind, hail, sleet, tornadoes, hurricane or lightning.” A Named Windstorm is defined in the 2007-2008 policies as “the direct action of wind including wind driven rain, storm surge and resulting waves, tide or tidal water, tsunami, rapid accumulation of surface waters, or the rising (including overflow of breaking of boundaries) of lakes, reservoirs, rivers, streams or other bodies of water that has been declared by the National Weather Service to be a Hurricane, Typhoon, Tropical Cyclone or Tropical Storm.”
We operate in a highly taxed industry and may be subject to higher taxes in the future.
In most gaming jurisdictions, state and local governments raise considerable revenues from taxes based on casino revenues and operations. We also pay property taxes, admission taxes, sales and use taxes, payroll taxes, franchise taxes and income taxes.
Our profitability depends on generating enough revenues to pay gaming taxes and other largely variable expenses, such as payroll and marketing, as well as largely fixed expenses, such as our property taxes and interest expense. From time to time, state and local governments have increased gaming taxes and such increases can significantly impact the profitability of gaming operations.
We cannot assure you that governments in jurisdictions in which we operate, or the federal government, will not enact legislation that increases gaming tax rates.
We could lose the right to pursue our River City project if we fail to meet the conditions imposed by the Missouri Gaming Commission.
We have entered into a lease and development agreement with St. Louis County Port Authority with respect to our River City project. The St. Louis County Port Authority may terminate the lease and development agreement under certain instances. Under the lease and development agreement, if we fail to complete the applicable project in accordance with its terms, we will owe monetary penalties and liquidated damages and could lose the right to continue to pursue such project, irrespective of the substantial investments made to date.
20
Table of ContentsOne of our subsidiaries was selected by the MGC to proceed for licensing for the operation of the River City casino. The issuance of the operating license is subject to, among other requirements: (i) the completion of construction of the facility by a certain completion date; (ii) the construction of a road for access to the facility by a certain completion date; (iii) maintaining an interest coverage ratio (as defined by the MGC) of at least 2.0x; (iv) compliance with the statutory requirements regarding riverboat gaming, including the requirement that the casino is located within 1,000 feet of the Mississippi River; and (v) the suitability of Pinnacle and its key persons as defined by Missouri law. The issuance of the operating license is in the discretion of the MGC. Although our subsidiary was selected by the MGC to proceed for licensing, it is uncertain whether the license will ultimately be granted. We have invested a significant amount of capital in this project, which may be lost or difficult to recoup in the event that the license is not ultimately granted to us by the MGC.
Our industry is highly regulated, which makes us dependent on obtaining and maintaining gaming licenses and subjects us to potentially significant fines and penalties.
The ownership, management and operation of gaming facilities are subject to extensive state and local regulation. The statutes, rules and regulations of the states and local jurisdictions in which we and our subsidiaries conduct gaming operations require us to hold various licenses, registrations, permits and approvals and to obtain findings of suitability. The various regulatory authorities, including the Indiana Gaming Commission, the Louisiana Gaming Control Board, the Missouri Gaming Commission, the Nevada State Gaming Control Board, the Nevada Gaming Commission, the New Jersey Casino Control Commission, the Government of the Province of Neuquén, Argentina and The Gaming Board of The Bahamas may, among other things, limit, condition, suspend, revoke or fail to renew a license to conduct gaming operations or prevent us from owning the securities of any of our gaming subsidiaries for any cause deemed reasonable by such licensing authorities. Substantial fines or forfeitures of assets for violations of gaming laws or regulations may be levied against us, our subsidiaries and the persons involved.
To date, we have obtained all governmental licenses, findings of suitability, registrations, permits and approvals necessary for the operation of our gaming facilities. However, it is uncertain whether we will be able to obtain any new licenses, registrations, permits, approvals and findings of suitability that may be required in the future or that existing ones will be renewed or will not be suspended or revoked. Any expansion of our gaming operations in our existing jurisdictions or into new jurisdictions may require various additional licenses, findings of suitability, registrations, permits and approvals of the gaming authorities. The approval process can be time consuming and costly and has no assurance of success.
Certain past transactions by a few employees of our Argentine subsidiary may not have complied with law and may subject our Argentine subsidiary to fines or other penalties.
We previously reported that a small number of employees of our Argentine subsidiary participated in transactions with certain third parties to transfer funds to Argentina using our Argentine subsidiary’s U.S. bank accounts. These transactions may not have complied with certain laws of Argentina, principally the currency exchange control laws. We believe that the amount of funds transferred totaled approximately $1.7 million in the aggregate. Based on an independent investigation of this matter, we do not believe that any funds of our subsidiary were misappropriated. We have reported the transactions to the Argentine authorities and have terminated certain of our employees. We also have informed our U.S. state gaming regulators of this matter. At this time, we do not know whether our Argentine subsidiary will have to pay a penalty or be subject to other consequences as a result of the transactions.
Potential changes in the regulatory environment could harm our business.
From time to time, legislators and special-interest groups have proposed legislation that would restrict or prevent gaming operations. Changes in regulations affecting the casino business can affect our existing or proposed operations. For example, on February 7, 2007, the city council of Atlantic City passed an ordinance
21
Table of Contentsprohibiting smoking in 75% of the gaming areas in Atlantic City casinos. This placed casinos in Atlantic City at a competitive disadvantage to certain casinos in Pennsylvania and New York and on tribal lands in Connecticut. Similarly, the city of Neuquén banned smoking in our Neuquén casino in Argentina, which ban does not apply to our competition in neighboring Rio Negro, Argentina. This has negatively affected our business. Other restrictions or prohibitions on our current or future gaming operations could curtail our operations and could result in decreases in income.
The concentration and evolution of the slot machine manufacturing industry could impose additional costs on us.
A majority of our revenues are attributable to slot machines at our casinos. It is important for competitive reasons that we offer the most popular and up-to-date slot machine games with the latest technology to our customers.
We believe that in recent years the prices of new slot machines and related slot machine systems have escalated faster than the rate of inflation. Furthermore, in recent years, slot machine manufacturers have frequently refused to sell slot machines featuring the most popular games, instead requiring participating lease arrangements. Generally, a participating lease is substantially more expensive over the long term than the cost to purchase a new machine.
For competitive reasons, we may be forced to purchase new slot machines, slot machine systems, or enter into participating lease arrangements that are more expensive than our current costs associated with the continued operation of our existing slot machines. If the newer slot machines do not result in sufficient incremental revenues to offset the increased investment and participating lease costs, it could affect our profitability.
Adverse weather conditions, highway construction, gasoline shortages and other factors affecting our facilities and the areas in which we operate could make it more difficult for potential customers to travel to our properties and deter customers from visiting our properties.
Our continued success depends upon our ability to draw customers from each of the geographic markets in which we operate. Adverse weather conditions or highway construction can deter our customers from traveling to our facilities or make it difficult for them to frequent our properties. In addition, gasoline shortages or fuel price increases in regions that constitute a significant source of customers for our properties could make it more difficult for potential customers to travel to our properties and deter customers from visiting our properties. We believe that the vast majority of our customers drive to our properties. Our small Bahamian casino, however, is highly dependent on air service to the island of Great Exuma.
Our dockside gaming facilities in Indiana, Louisiana and Missouri, as well as any additional riverboat or dockside casino properties that might be developed or acquired, are also subject to risks, in addition to those associated with land-based casinos, which could disrupt our operations. Although none of our vessels leave their moorings in normal operations, there are risks associated with the movement or mooring of vessels on waterways, including risks of casualty due to river turbulence, flooding, collisions with other vessels and severe weather conditions.
Our results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected by the occurrence of natural disasters, such as hurricanes, or other catastrophic events, including war and terrorism.
Natural disasters such as major hurricanes, floods, fires and earthquakes could adversely affect our business and operating results. Hurricanes are common to the areas in which our Louisiana properties are located and the severity of such natural disasters is unpredictable. In 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused significant damage in the Gulf Coast region. Our Biloxi facility was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. Our Boomtown New
22
Table of ContentsOrleans casino was forced to close for 34 days as a result of Hurricane Katrina. Hurricane Rita caused significant damage in the Lake Charles, Louisiana area and forced our L’Auberge du Lac resort to close for 16 days in addition to causing physical damage. Atlantic City is on a barrier island and could also be susceptible to hurricanes and storm surges. We cannot accurately predict the long-term impact that the recent hurricanes or any future natural disasters will have on our ability to maintain our customer base or to sustain our business activities.
Catastrophic events such as terrorist and war activities in the United States and elsewhere have had a negative effect on travel and leisure expenditures, including lodging, gaming (in some jurisdictions) and tourism. We cannot accurately predict the extent to which such events may affect us, directly or indirectly, in the future. We also cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain or choose to purchase any insurance coverage with respect to occurrences of terrorist acts and any losses that could result from these acts. If there is a prolonged disruption at our properties due to natural disasters, terrorist attacks or other catastrophic events, or if several of our properties simultaneously experience such events, our results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.
The loss of management and other key personnel could significantly harm our business.
Our continued success and our ability to maintain our competitive position is largely dependent upon, among other things, the efforts and skills of our senior executives and management team, including Daniel R. Lee, our Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. Although we have entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Lee and certain of our other senior executives and managers, we cannot guarantee that these individuals will remain with us. If we lose the services of any members of our management team or other key personnel, our business may be significantly impaired. We cannot assure you that we will be able to retain our existing senior executive and management personnel or attract additional qualified senior executive and management personnel.
In addition, our officers, directors and key employees also are required to file applications with the gaming authorities in each of the jurisdictions in which we operate and are required to be licensed or found suitable by these gaming authorities. If the gaming authorities were to find an officer, director or key employee unsuitable for licensing or unsuitable to continue having a relationship with us, we would have to sever all relationships with that person. Furthermore, the gaming authorities may require us to terminate the employment of any person who refuses to file appropriate applications. Either result could significantly impair our gaming operations.
We experience seasonal fluctuations that significantly impact our operating results.
We experience significant fluctuations in our operating results due to seasonality and other factors. Historically, the summer months are our strongest period and the winter months are our slowest period.
We are subject to litigation which, if adversely determined, could cause us to incur substantial losses.
From time to time during the normal course of operating our businesses, we are subject to various litigation claims and legal disputes. Some of the litigation claims may not be covered under our insurance policies, or our insurance carriers may seek to deny coverage. As a result, we might also be required to incur significant legal fees, which may have a material adverse effect on our financial position. In addition, because we cannot predict the outcome of any action, it is possible that, as a result of current and/or future litigation, we will be subject to adverse judgments or settlements that could significantly reduce our earnings or result in losses.
We face environmental and archaeological regulation of our real estate.
Our business is subject to a variety of federal, state and local governmental statutes and regulations relating to the use, storage, discharge, emission and disposal of hazardous materials. Failure to comply with such laws could result in the imposition of severe penalties or restrictions on our operations by government agencies or
23
Table of Contentscourts of law or the incurrence of significant costs of remediation of hazardous materials. A material fine or penalty, severe operational or development restriction, or imposition of material remediation costs could adversely affect our business.
In addition, the locations of our current or future developments may coincide with sites containing archaeologically significant artifacts, such as Native American remains and artifacts. Federal, state and local governmental regulations relating to the protection of such sites may require us to modify, delay or cancel construction projects at significant cost to us.
We face risks associated with growth and acquisitions.
We regularly evaluate opportunities for growth through development of gaming operations in existing or new markets, through acquiring other gaming entertainment facilities or through redeveloping our existing facilities. For example, we acquired the Atlantic City site and entities that hold two riverboats and gaming operations to be used in our Sugarcane Bay and Rivière projects. The expansion of our operations, whether through acquisitions, development or internal growth, could divert management’s attention and could also cause us to incur substantial costs, including legal, professional and consulting fees. It is uncertain that we will be able to identify, acquire, develop or profitably manage additional companies or operations or successfully integrate such companies or operations into our existing operations without substantial costs, delays or other problems. Additionally, it is uncertain that we will receive gaming or other necessary licenses or governmental approvals for our new projects or that gaming will be approved in jurisdictions where it is not currently approved. Further, we may not have adequate financing for such opportunities on acceptable terms.
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “Act”) provides certain “safe harbor” provisions for forward-looking statements. Except for the historical information contained herein, the matters addressed in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, as well as in other reports filed with or furnished to the SEC or statements made by us, may constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. From time to time, we may provide oral or written forward-looking statements in our other periodic reports on Form 10-Q, 8-K, press releases and other materials released to the public. All forward-looking statements made in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and any documents we incorporate by reference are made pursuant to the Act. Words such as, but not limited to, “believes,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “estimates,” “intends,” “plans,” “could,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “is fairly confident” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements, which may include, without limitation, anticipated completion and opening schedules of various projects, expansion plans, construction schedules, cash needs, cash reserves, adequacy of resources to fund development and expansion projects, liquidity, operating and capital expenses, financing options, including the state of the capital markets and our ability to access the capital markets, expense reductions, expected receipts of insurance proceeds including the amount of any such recovery and sufficiency of such coverage, the future outlook of Pinnacle and the gaming industry, the ability to meet the fixed-charge coverage ratio required by the MGC, our continuing exclusivity rights to operate casinos in Neuquén, Argentina after 2016, operating results and pending regulatory and legal matters, are all subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated by us. This can occur as a result of inaccurate assumptions or as a consequence of known or unknown risks and uncertainties. Factors that may cause our actual performance to differ materially from that contemplated by such forward-looking statements include, among others, the various risk factors discussed above, in addition to general domestic and international economic and political conditions as well as market conditions in our industry. For more information on the potential factors that could affect our operating results and financial condition in addition to the risk factors described above, see the “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Factors Affecting Future Operating Results” sections contained elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and review our other filings (other than any portion of such filings that are furnished under applicable SEC Rules rather than filed) with the SEC.
24
Table of ContentsAll forward-looking statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are made only as of the date of this Form 10-K. We undertake no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
None.
Item 2. Properties
The following describes our principal real estate properties:
L’Auberge du Lac: We lease 242 acres from the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District upon which our L’Auberge du Lac casino-hotel resort is located. The lease has an initial term of 10 years, which commenced in May 2005, with six renewal options of 10 years each. The annual base rent for the lease is approximately $918,000 per year, which amount adjusts annually for changes in the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”). We own the facilities and associated improvements at the property, including the casino facility.
Sugarcane Bay: Adjoining L’Auberge du Lac, we lease approximately 234 acres of land from the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District upon which we anticipate building our Sugarcane Bay casino-hotel resort. The Sugarcane Bay casino-hotel will occupy only a portion of this land. The balance would allow the eventual development of 18 additional golf holes at the L’Auberge du Lac/Sugarcane Bay complex, with the possible sale of residential home sites along that golf course. The lease has an initial term of 10 years, which began on December 31, 2007 with six renewal options of 10 years each, similar to the L’Auberge du Lac lease. The annual rent on the 234-acre lease is $1.2 million for the first five years and thereafter the amount adjusts annually for changes in the CPI, not to exceed 5%. The land is located adjacent to our L’Auberge du Lac facility. Included in the 234 acres of land we leased in January 2008 are 50 acres that we purchased for $5.0 million, though we have not selected the particular location of the acreage purchased. We will designate the location of those 50 acres in connection with the opening of Sugarcane Bay. In addition, we purchased approximately 56 acres of land adjacent to the Sugarcane Bay and L’Auberge du Lac properties for future development opportunities.
Belterra Casino Resort: We lease approximately 148 of the 315 acres that our Belterra Casino Resort occupies in southern Indiana. The current lease term is through September 2010 and has eight remaining consecutive five-year automatic renewal periods. The lease currently provides for minimum annual rental payments of approximately $1.2 million, plus 1.5% of gross gaming win (as defined in the lease agreement) in excess of $100 million. The lease obligation included in rent expense was $2.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, and $2.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2005. We also have the option to purchase the property on or after October 2020 for $30 million, subject to adjustments as defined in the lease agreement. In addition, we own the facilities and associated improvements at the property, including the dockside riverboat casino and a 54-guestroom Best Western-branded hotel approximately 10 miles from the Belterra Casino Resort, which we recently renovated.
Boomtown New Orleans: We own approximately 54 acres in Harvey, Louisiana that are utilized by Boomtown New Orleans. We also own the facilities and associated improvements at the property, including the dockside riverboat casino.
Boomtown Bossier City: We own 23 acres on the banks of the Red River in Bossier City, Louisiana. We also own the facilities and associated improvements at the property, including the dockside riverboat casino. We also lease approximately one acre of water bottoms from the State of Louisiana. The current lease term expires in September 2011. We have options to extend the lease for seven additional five-year periods.
Boomtown Reno: We own approximately 550 acres in Reno, Nevada, approximately 60 acres of which are utilized for current operations and another 490 acres are developable. We own all of the improvements and
25
Table of Contentsfacilities at the property, including the casino, hotel, recreational vehicle park and service station, along with substantial related water and development rights.
We also own 330 acres in the mountains outside Reno, Nevada, which are surrounded by federal land.
Lumière Place-St. Louis: We own approximately 18 acres of contiguous land in the city of St. Louis for Lumière Place, approximately nine acres of which are being utilized for our casino and hotel facilities. We own all of the improvements and facilities at the property, including the casino, hotels and various amenities. We also own The Admiral Riverboat Casino and certain land-based improvements.
River City: We lease 56 acres in south St. Louis County located approximately 10 miles south of downtown St. Louis, where we are building for our River City casino-hotel. We have also acquired ownership and control of a road right-of-way for the construction of a four-lane, approximately one-mile-long public road to connect the River City casino-hotel to the nearby interstate highway.
Casino Magic Argentina: We operate several small casinos in southern Argentina under an exclusive license agreement with the Province of Neuquén. This includes the principal facility in the City of Neuquén and a much smaller facility in San Martin de los Andes. In Neuquén, we own the 20 acre site on which we operate the casino, hotel that will open in early 2008 and other amenities. In San Martin de los Andes, we lease the building in which we operate the casino. Such lease expires in January 2010.
Great Exuma, Bahamas: We sublease a 5,000-square-foot facility in which we operate our casino adjacent to the Four Seasons Resort Great Exuma at Emerald Bay in The Bahamas. Such sublease has an initial term of 20 years, commencing in December 2005, with a 20-year renewal option.
Rivière: We own approximately 517 acres of land approximately 10 miles south of downtown Baton Rouge, Louisiana. We also own an additional 58 acres through a co-ownership with a third party where we own 83 1/3% and a third party owns a 16 2/3% interest. We are actively seeking the partition of such acreage with the third-party minority owner. We intend to build our $250 million Rivière casino-hotel in East Baton Rouge Parish, and expect to open the project in 2010, subject to approval of the LGCB.
Atlantic City, New Jersey: We own or have under contract to purchase approximately 22 contiguous acres of land at the heart of Atlantic City along the Boardwalk. We have demolished the former casino and plan to demolish certain of the remaining existing structures on the site and build a new casino-resort over the next several years.
Kansas City, Kansas: We have under option 60 acres in Kansas City designated for use in a $650 million gaming entertainment complex. Our proposal on that site has been endorsed by the Unified Government for possible licensing by the Kansas Racing and Gaming Commission. If chosen for licensing, the project will be subject to conditions and regulatory approvals by the Kansas Racing and Gaming Commission.
Central City, Colorado: We own approximately one and one-half acres of gaming-zoned land in Central City, Colorado. In addition, we have an option to purchase an additional six acres of adjoining non-casino zoned land.
Lake Charles, Louisiana: In connection with the purchase of the two entities from Harrah’s in 2006, we acquired two dockside riverboat casinos, neither of which are in service. In addition, we acquired approximately nine acres of land containing a non-operating hotel and parking structure. We also acquired two water bottoms leases with the State of Louisiana at the former casino site, which expire in 2010. We plan to use the one license for our Sugarcane Bay project and the other license for our Rivière project.
Substantially all of our real property interests collateralize our obligations under our Credit Facility, except for the real estate owned in Atlantic City, Argentina and the Bahamas. Certain of our newly acquired real
26
Table of Contentsproperty interests are in the process of being pledged under our Credit Facility. For a description of the segments that use the properties described above, please see the section entitled “Company Overview” contained in Item 1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
Indiana State Sales Tax Dispute: The State of Indiana conducted a sales and use tax audit at our Belterra entity in 2001. In October 2002, we received a proposed assessment in the amount of approximately $3.1 million with respect to the Miss Belterra casino riverboat, including interest and a penalty. We filed a protest in December 2002. The Indiana Department of Revenue (the “IDR”) conducted an administrative hearing of our protest on March 24, 2006. On April 24, 2006, the IDR issued a Letter of Findings denying our protest with respect to almost the entire assessment. On May 23, 2006, we filed an appeal of the IDR’s findings with the Indiana Tax Court regarding a portion of the original assessment and conceded on a smaller portion (which amount was expensed and paid in the 2006 first quarter). In the 2006 third quarter, the Indiana Tax Court ordered the parties to file summary judgment motions on or before March 9, 2007 for the remaining tax dispute and later extended such filing deadline to May 11, 2007. We filed our summary judgment motion on May 11, 2007, but the IDR failed to file a timely response. We have asked the Court to prohibit any belated or other filings in the case by the IDR due to its failure to file a timely response to our summary judgment motion. While the Court refused to allow the IDR to file a late summary judgment brief, the Court did allow the IDR to proceed with a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. We filed a brief in opposition to this IDR Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. As of December 31, 2007, the remaining disputed assessment is approximately $1.9 million, which amount would be capitalized to the book value of the riverboat if we were unsuccessful in our dispute. Interest and penalties through such date are approximately $908,000. Until such time as this dispute is resolved, the assessment will increase due to ongoing interest costs. We have reserved approximately $798,500 for this matter as of December 31, 2007.
Action by Greek Authorities: Prior to our acquisition of Casino Magic Corp. in 1998, Casino Magic Corp. had a Greek subsidiary that conducted gaming-related operations in Greece in 1995 and 1996. By the time of our acquisition of Casino Magic Corp., the Greek subsidiary had become inactive. In 1995, a Dutch subsidiary of Casino Magic Corp., Casino Magic Europe B.V. (“CME”), performed management services for Porto Carras Casino, S.A. (“PCC”), a joint venture in which CME had a minority interest. Effective December 31, 1995, CME, with the approval of PCC, assigned its interests and obligations under the PCC management agreement to a Greek subsidiary, Casino Magic Hellas S.A. (“Hellas”). Hellas issued invoices to PCC for management fees which accrued during 1995, but had not been billed by CME.
In September 1996, local Greek tax authorities in Thessaloniki assessed a penalty of approximately $3.5 million against Hellas, and an equal amount against PCC, arising out of the presentation and payment of the invoices. The Thessaloniki tax authorities asserted that the Hellas invoices were fictitious, representing an effort to reduce the taxable income of PCC. PCC and Hellas each appealed their respective assessments. The assessment of the fine against PCC was overturned by the Administrative Court of Thessaloniki on December 11, 2000. The court determined that the actions taken by Hellas and PCC were not fictitious but constituted a legitimate business transaction and accordingly overturned the assessment of the fine. The taxing authorities appealed the court’s decision. Hellas’s appeal was dismissed for technical procedural failures and has not been reinstated; presumably, however, the rationale of the court in the PCC fine matter would apply equally to the Hellas matter.
Under Greek law, shareholders are not liable for the liabilities of a Greek company in which they hold shares, even if the entity is later liquidated or dissolved, and assessments such as these generally are treated as liabilities of the company. Additionally, all of PCC’s stock was sold to an unrelated company in December of 1996, and the buyer assumed all of PCC’s liabilities.
The Greek taxing authorities assessed such penalties against the subsidiary and against certain former representatives of the Greek subsidiary arising out of the foregoing pre-acquisition activities, and such
27
Table of Contentsrepresentatives were also prosecuted and convicted in absentia. We defended those former representatives, one of whom was then a director of our Company and one of whom was then an employee of our Company. Their criminal convictions were overturned by a Greek court in 2003. In October 2005, we learned that the Greek taxing authorities had commenced a new proceeding against the former employee and another former representative of the Greek subsidiary seeking to collect fines and assessments of approximately $6.7 million from these individuals stemming from their status as representatives of the Greek subsidiary. Some or all of the fines and assessments involved in this new action relate to the penalties originally assessed against the Greek subsidiary. We are obligated to indemnify the former employee and have retained counsel to defend him in this current action. The other former representative is now deceased, of which the court has been so advised, hence the prosecution against him has ceased. On June 28, 2007, the former employee was tried in absentia, found guilty and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. However, the court granted a stay of enforcement pending the filing and resolution of an appeal. Counsel for the former employee timely filed the appeal which had the effect of suspending the conviction until the ruling by the Court of Appeals. On October 29, 2007, a hearing was held before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals annulled the decision of the lower court and tried the case again. The Court of Appeals found the former employee guilty for non-payment of taxes because of the former employee’s position as Chairman of the Board and Managing Director of the Greek subsidiary. However, the Court of Appeals reduced the criminal penalty to three years’ imprisonment. Under Greek law, imprisonment of up to three years can be converted to a monetary penalty. The Court of Appeals converted the penalty into a monetary penalty at the lowest conversion rate per day. On January 9, 2008, the Court of Appeals’ decision was officially recorded. On January 14, 2008, we paid a total of approximately $15,000 for the monetary fine on behalf of the former employee. The payment of the monetary fine within one month after the issuance of the decision of the Court of Appeals constituted a satisfaction of the judgment. The former employee has advised us that he has determined not to have a further appeal to the Greek Supreme Court filed on his behalf and we now consider this matter closed.
Insurance Litigation: In April 2006, we filed a $347 million insurance claim for our losses related to our former Casino Magic Biloxi property caused by Hurricane Katrina. We currently estimate that the value of our insurance claim, excluding any litigation claim for interest or bad-faith damages, is approximately $297 million. Such insurance claim includes approximately $171 million for property damage, $120 million for business-interruption loss ($30.0 million of which is caused by insurer delay) and $5.7 million for emergency, mitigation and demolition expenses. Setting aside coverage issues which the insurers are alleging, our insurance carriers have estimated the total loss to be approximately $176 million.
In August 2006, we filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against three of our insurance carriers, Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company, Arch Specialty Insurance Company and RSUI Indemnity Company. There is a coverage dispute based on policy language, among other things, that may impact our recovery. The insurers have taken the position that they may not have to pay anything because their policies contain a Flood exclusion, among other provisions. They claim an allocation needs to be done between wind damage and flood damage. One insurer has requested appraisal of outstanding differences over the amount of the loss; however, the Court has deferred action on this request until after its ruling on the pending motions for partial summary judgment, which are currently set to be heard on March 19, 2008. We believe that there is full coverage because all of the policies specifically say they cover a Weather Catastrophe Occurrence, such as Hurricane Katrina, and the definition of a Weather Catastrophe Occurrence specifically includes any flooding caused thereby. Collectively, our insurance policies with these three insurers provide $300 million of coverage in excess of $100 million of coverage provided to us by insurance policies with other insurers. In total, our policies applicable to the Hurricane Katrina loss provide an aggregate of up to $400 million of coverage for loss caused by a Weather Catastrophe Occurrence (as defined by the policies) and up to $100 million of inclusive coverage for loss caused by a Flood Occurrence (as defined by the policies). Our insurance policies also permit a “replacement” facility to be built anywhere in the United States and these insurers have taken a position that a certain portion of the loss is not covered due to our designation of our River City facility as that replacement.
28
Table of ContentsAs noted above, we filed suit in August 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada seeking damages totaling $347 million, but as of December 31, 2007, we estimate the value of such claims at a total of $297 million. Our suit seeks damages equal to the outstanding amount of our claim (now totaling approximately $297 million, less the $105 million paid through September 30, 2007). The suit also seeks unspecified punitive and other damages and prejudgment interest for the improper actions of the defendants in connection with our claim. A summary judgment motion on the issue of coverage was filed by us and the carriers have filed cross-motions. Those motions are currently set to be heard by the court on March 19, 2008. We participated in a mediation with two of these three carriers in September 2007. On February 22, 2008, we agreed to settle our lawsuit against one of the excess carriers, Arch Specialty Insurance Company, in exchange for Arch’s agreement to pay us approximately $36.8 million out of its policy layer providing $50 million of coverage, as part of $100 million of coverage excess of $150 million of coverage. Arch’s payment to us is due on or before March 17, 2008. The recent settlement implies a negotiated level of loss less than our claimed amount of $297 million, but we have preserved all of our rights to pursue our full claim, plus interest, bad-faith and punitive damages against the two remaining insurance carriers, Allianz (which provides $50 million of coverage immediately below Arch’s layer) and RSUI (which provides $50 million of coverage at the same layer as Arch and an additional $150 million of coverage above that layer), for their respective shares of our total hurricane-related damage and consequential loss in Biloxi. The United States District Court for the District of Nevada recently agreed that in conjunction with our bad-faith claim against Allianz, we can conduct discovery on that insurance carrier’s actions in numerous other hurricane-related claims.
On November 15, 2006, we and the insurance carriers reached a stipulation in which the defendants agreed to the designation of the River City casino-hotel project as a replacement for Casino Magic Biloxi. Although the River City casino-hotel is expected to cost more than it would have cost to rebuild and repair Casino Magic Biloxi, recovery under the policies is nevertheless limited to the lesser of what would have been the cost to rebuild and repair Casino Magic Biloxi or the actual cost incurred in constructing the River City casino-hotel. Subsequent to this stipulation, the insurers have taken the position that a certain portion of the loss is not covered due to our designation of the River City facility as a replacement for Casino Magic Biloxi.
We anticipate that any negotiated or litigated resolution of our remaining insurance claim will be protracted. There can be no assurances that our estimate of damages will be sustained or that we will be fully compensated for all losses sustained due to the closure of the Biloxi facility or that we will be paid on a timely basis.
Cumulatively, as of December 31, 2007, we have received $105 million in advances toward our insurance claim. As of such date, the insurers have not designated the advances as being specific to any particular part of the claim. Therefore, the advances have offset the depreciated book value of the destroyed assets and certain insured expenses. To the extent these advances exceeded such expenses and depreciated book value, the difference (currently $21.5 million) is recorded as a deferred gain on our Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Our ultimate insurance claim and recovery amounts are based on replacement costs rather than book value and are computed differently from, and likely to be substantially larger than, the asset write-offs and insured expenses. Management believes that the replacement cost of the assets that were destroyed is substantially in excess of their depreciated book value. We are also insured for lost profits as a result of the damage, but will not book such profits until the claim is resolved. As a result, when the insurance claim is ultimately resolved, management expects to record a significant accounting gain. Such gain would reflect the foregone profits and the difference between the cost of a new facility that could be built today and the depreciated book value of the facility that was destroyed.
Argentine Matters: We previously reported that we learned that a small number of employees of our Argentine subsidiary participated in transactions with certain third parties to transfer funds to Argentina using our Argentine subsidiary’s U.S. bank account. These transactions may not have complied with certain laws of Argentina, principally the currency exchange control laws. Based on an independent investigation of this matter, the amount of funds transferred totaled approximately $1.7 million in the aggregate and it does not appear that
29
Table of Contentsany funds of our subsidiary were misappropriated. We have reported the transactions to the Argentine authorities and have terminated certain of our employees in Argentina. We also have informed our U.S. state gaming regulators of this matter. At this time, we do not know whether our Argentine subsidiary will have to pay a penalty or be subject to other consequences as a result of the transactions.
Jebaco Litigation: On August 9, 2006, Jebaco, Inc. (“Jebaco”) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Harrah’s Operating Co., Inc., Harrah’s Lake Charles, LLC, Harrah’s Star Partnership, Players LC, LLC, Players Riverboat Management, LLC, Players Riverboat II, LLC, and Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. The lawsuit arises out of an agreement between Jebaco and Harrah’s (as successor in interest to the various Players defendants) whereby Harrah’s is obligated to pay Jebaco an annual fee based on the number of patrons entering Harrah’s two Lake Charles, Louisiana riverboat casinos. In November 2006, we closed the transaction to acquire the Harrah’s Lake Charles subsidiaries, including the two riverboats. The lawsuit filed by Jebaco asserts that Harrah’s, in ceasing gaming operations in Lake Charles and ceasing payments to Jebaco, breached its contractual obligations to Jebaco and asserts damages of approximately $34.0 million. Jebaco also asserts that our agreement with Harrah’s violates state and federal antitrust laws. The lawsuit seeks antitrust damages jointly and severally against both us and Harrah’s based on a trebling of the $34.0 million in damages Jebaco alleges it has suffered. The defendants have answered the complaint, denying all claims and asserting that the lawsuit is barred, among other reasons, because of the approval of our transaction with Harrah’s by the Louisiana Gaming Control Board and the lack of antitrust injury to Jebaco. In January of 2007, all of the defendants moved to dismiss all of the claims of the complaint, which motions were heard on July 18, 2007. The motions to dismiss are under submission and have not yet been ruled on by the court. Trial has been set for October 27, 2008.
Other: We are a party to a number of other pending legal proceedings. Management does not expect that the outcome of such proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material effect on our financial position, cash flows or results of operations.
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
None.
30
Table of Contents
Item 5. Market for the Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
Our common stock is quoted on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “PNK”. The table below sets forth the high and low sales prices of our common stock as reported on the New York Stock Exchange:
As of February 25, 2008, there were 2,567 stockholders of record of our common stock.
Dividends: We did not pay any dividends in 2007, 2006 or 2005. Our indentures governing our 7.50% senior subordinated notes due 2015, 8.25% senior subordinated notes due 2012 and 8.75% senior subordinated notes due 2013 and existing Credit Facility limit the amount of dividends that we are permitted to pay. The Board of Directors does not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future, as our financial resources are being reinvested into the expansion of our business.
Share Repurchase: During the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2007, we did not make any purchases of the Company’s equity securities.
Sales of Unregistered Equity Securities: During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, we did not issue or sell any unregistered equity securities.
31
Table of ContentsStock Performance Graph
The stock performance graph and related information presented below is not deemed to be “soliciting material” or to be “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission or subject to Regulation 14A or 14C under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or to the liabilities of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent we specifically incorporate it by reference into such a filing.
Set forth below is a graph comparing the cumulative total stockholder return for Pinnacle’s common stock with the cumulative total returns for the New York Stock Exchange Composite Index (the “NYSE Composite Index”) and the Dow Jones US Gambling Index. The total cumulative return calculations are for the period commencing December 31, 2002 and ending December 31, 2007, and include the reinvestment of dividends. The stock price performance shown in this graph is neither necessarily indicative of, nor intended to suggest, future stock price performance.
32
Table of ContentsItem 6. Selected Financial Data
The following selected financial information for the years 2003 through 2007 was derived from our consolidated financial statements. The information set forth below should be read in conjunction with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” the audited Consolidated Financial Statements and related notes thereto.
33
Table of ContentsItem 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
The following discussion and analysis of financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and capital resources should be read in conjunction with, and is qualified in its entirety by, our audited Consolidated Financial Statements and the notes thereto, and other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Overview and Summary
Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. is a leading developer, owner and operator of casinos and related hospitality and entertainment facilities. We currently operate six domestic casino destinations, including Lumière Place in downtown St. Louis, where we began the complex’s phased opening with the casino and several restaurants on December 19, 2007, followed by the opening of the two hotels and other amenities in early 2008. Internationally, we operate several small casinos in Argentina and one in The Bahamas.
Our long-term strategy is to maintain and improve each of our existing casinos; to build new resorts that produce returns above our cost of capital; and to develop the systems to tie all of our casinos together into a national gaming network. Hence, we are developing new, high-quality gaming properties in attractive gaming markets; we are maintaining and improving our existing properties with disciplined capital expenditures; we are developing a customer loyalty program designed to motivate customers to continue to patronize our casinos; and we may make strategic acquisitions at reasonable valuations, when and if available. During 2007 and early 2008, we made significant progress toward achieving our long-term strategy.
On December 19, 2007, we opened portions of Lumière Place-St. Louis, our largest and most ambitious investment to date, in downtown St. Louis, Missouri, including the 75,000-square-foot casino and certain restaurants. In the first quarter of 2008, we opened HoteLumière, additional restaurants, retail outlets, and a luxury spa. Also, in the first quarter of 2008, we opened the Four Seasons Hotel St. Louis, which we own and have entered into a long-term agreement with Four Seasons Hotels Limited to manage. A group led by famed chef Hubert Keller manages two of our restaurants. In April 2008, we plan to open a pedestrian tunnel, which will link Lumière Place to the America’s Center convention center, the Edward Jones domed stadium and the city’s central business district.
We have a number of projects at various stages of development. In south St. Louis County, Missouri, we began foundation work for our River City casino, which we expect to open in mid-2009. In Lake Charles, Louisiana, we plan to build the Sugarcane Bay casino and hotel adjacent to L’Auberge du Lac. In East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, we received voter approval in February 2008 permitting construction of our proposed casino-hotel complex on land that we own or control in Baton Rouge. In Atlantic City, New Jersey, we continue to plan and design our casino resort, including demolition of several buildings on our site. We are one of several finalists for a proposed new gaming complex to be located in Kansas City, Kansas. In Central City, Colorado, we own a well-located casino site.
Finally, we are continuing development of the technology and infrastructure required to create a national customer-loyalty program.
In support of our expansion plans and to help fund our development pipeline, we raised $353 million (net proceeds) through a common stock offering. We also received $379 million (net proceeds) from the issuance of 7.50% senior subordinated notes, a portion which was used to refinance and extend a portion of our debt capital. The balance of such proceeds is being used for funding of our development and expansion activities.
We also have an outstanding $297 million insurance claim associated with Hurricane Katrina’s destruction of our former Casino Magic Biloxi operations, of which we have collected $105 million as of December 31, 2007. Pursuant to a recent settlement agreement with one of the insurance carriers, we expect to receive an additional approximately $36.8 million in March. This claim is the subject of pending litigation with the two remaining insurance carriers.
34
Table of ContentsRESULTS OF OPERATIONS
The following table highlights our results of operations for the three years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005. As discussed in Note 12 to our audited Consolidated Financial Statements, we report segment operating results based on revenues and Adjusted EBITDA. Such segment reporting is on a consistent basis with how we measure our business and allocate resources internally. See Note 12 to our audited Consolidated Financial Statements for more information regarding our segment information.
35
Table of Contents
We use Adjusted EBITDA to compare operating results among our properties and between accounting periods. The presentation of Adjusted EBITDA has economic substance because it is used by management as a performance measure to analyze the performance of our business segments. Management also reviews pre-opening and development costs separately as such expenses are also included in total project costs when assessing budgets and project returns and because such costs relate to anticipated future revenues and income. EBITDA measures, such as Adjusted EBITDA, are not calculated in the same manner by all companies and accordingly, may not be an appropriate measure of comparing performance among different companies.
Comparison of the year ended December 31, 2007 to December 31, 2006 and to December 31, 2005
Operating Results Consolidated revenues increased to $924 million for the year ended December 31, 2007, compared to consolidated revenues of $912 million for the year ended December 31, 2006. The 2007 year-end revenues reflect continued strong performances at L’Auberge du Lac and Belterra, as well as the benefit of the December 2006 acquisition of The Admiral Riverboat Casino. Those increases were offset by a revenue decline at Boomtown New Orleans, which continues to perform well despite lower year-over-year comparisons with 2006’s exceptional post-hurricane-affected results. Gaming revenues increased by $28.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2007, while food and beverage increased by $885,000. Hotel and truck stop/service station revenues were lower for the year ended December 31, 2007 by $6.9 million and $11.5 million, respectively. Our Boomtown Reno truck stop closed on June 15, 2007. Other revenue, comprised primarily of retail, arcade and showroom revenue, decreased slightly in 2007 from 2006.
Revenues rose to $912 million for the year ended December 31, 2006 from $668 million for the year ended December 31, 2005. The increase is the result of a full year of operations at L’Auberge du Lac and limited competition for Boomtown New Orleans in 2006, following Hurricane Katrina. Gaming revenues increased by $217 million for the year ended December 31, 2006, while food and beverage increased by $8.3 million. Hotel revenues increased by $8.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2006, reflecting the September 2005 acquisition of the Embassy Suites in downtown St. Louis and the May 2005 opening of L’Auberge du Lac. Other revenue, comprised primarily of retail, arcade and showroom revenue, increased by $8.5 million to $23.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2006, again due primarily to a full year of such operations at L’Auberge du Lac.
Each segment’s contribution to the operating results was as follows:
L’Auberge du Lac revenues increased to $321 million for the year ended December 31, 2007, a 2.9% increase from $312 million for the year ended December 31, 2006. The increase in revenues contributed to an increase in Adjusted EBITDA to $75.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2007, from $72.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2006. In December 2007, L’Auberge du Lac opened 208 guestrooms of its new 252-guestoom expansion. Hotel occupancy, inclusive of the additional guestrooms that opened in late December 2007, was 92.4% for the year ended December 31, 2007.
36
Table of ContentsWe opened L’Auberge du Lac on May 26, 2005. Revenues rose to $312 million for the twelve months of operations in 2006, a 111% increase from the $148 million earned in the seven months of operations in 2005. Adjusted EBITDA was $72.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2006 versus $11.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2005.
Boomtown New Orleans revenues and Adjusted EBITDA were $162 million and $54.2 million, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2007. Such results reflect a considerable improvement in business levels as compared to pre-Hurricane Katrina periods, consistent with both the increase in population in the West Bank community in which Boomtown New Orleans operates and the ongoing regional rebuilding efforts. In comparison, pre-Hurricane Katrina revenues and Adjusted EBITDA for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 were $111 million and $32.2 million, respectively.
In 2006, Boomtown New Orleans operated with limited competition in both the New Orleans and the Gulf Coast Region for the first half of the year with business levels moderating at the end of the year, once significant competition had reopened. Consequently, revenues and Adjusted EBITDA for the year ended December 31, 2006 were $201 million and $81.0 million, respectively.
For the year ended December 31, 2005, revenues and Adjusted EBITDA were $143 million and $51.4 million, respectively, including the exceptional post-Hurricane Katrina fourth quarter results.
Belterra Casino Resort revenues increased to $178 million for the year ended December 31, 2007, compared to $173 million for the year ended December 31, 2006. A successful marketing plan designed to increase gaming customers and hotel occupancy contributed to a 1.8% increase in gaming revenues and an 11.1% increase in hotel revenues for the year ended December 31, 2007. The increase in revenues contributed to the 5.3% increase in Adjusted EBITDA to $39.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2007, compared to $37.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2006. In August 2007, five new retail shops opened and in December 2007, the refurbishment of 11 of the high-end suites was completed.
In May 2007, the Governor of Indiana signed legislation approving the installation of 2,000 slot machines in each of two racetracks in the Indianapolis area, thereby significantly expanding the gaming capacity in this market. As a result, we postponed indefinitely our planned 250-guestroom addition, which resulted in a $1.0 million write-off of accumulated project costs, which amount is excluded from the calculation of Adjusted EBITDA.
Belterra’s revenues increased to $173 million for the year ended December 31, 2006, compared to $169 million for the year ended December 31, 2005, while Adjusted EBITDA decreased to $37.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2006 from $40.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2005. The decrease in Adjusted EBITDA was partially due to increased gaming taxes and additional taxes incurred from a previous sales and use tax audit. In November 2006, the new access road opened at Belterra and a new competing resort-casino opened approximately 100 miles from Belterra that competes with us for customers from Louisville and Indianapolis, which are secondary and tertiary markets for Belterra.
Boomtown Bossier City revenues and Adjusted EBITDA decreased to $89.7 million and $17.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2007, compared to $96.3 million and $23.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2006, and $95.4 million and $19.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2005, respectively. The Bossier City/Shreveport gaming market is competitive, with four dockside riverboat casino-hotels and a racetrack operation. In addition, the Bossier City/Shreveport gaming market, which is approximately 188 miles east from Dallas/Fort Worth, competes with Native American gaming in southern Oklahoma located approximately 60 miles north of Dallas/Fort Worth. Such Native American casinos continue to expand, including the addition of table games in early 2005.
In 2006, we acquired a barge that we intend to convert to an arrival facility for guests of our riverboat casino. The arrival facility will adjoin our casino and offer escalators, making it easier for customers to travel
37
Table of Contentsamong the three levels of our riverboat casino. Our operating results for 2006 reflect the benefit of a temporary increase in the local population due to the hurricanes in southern Louisiana, as well as reduced regional competition.
Our Lumière Place-St. Louis operations include the Lumière Place Casino, HoteLumière, the Four Seasons Hotel St. Louis, The Admiral Riverboat Casino and other amenities. The Four Seasons Hotel St. Louis and HoteLumière began operations in the first quarter of 2008. For the year ended December 31, 2007, the Lumière Place-St. Louis operations generated revenues of $66.1 million, including $5.5 million associated with the first 12 days of operations at Lumière Place Casino. Adjusted EBITDA for the year ended December 31, 2007 was $6.1 million compared to the $2.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2006, primarily from a full year of operations of The Admiral Riverboat Casino.
In connection with the renovation of HoteLumière, we wrote off $2.8 million related to furniture, fixtures and equipment that had been replaced as part of the hotel refurbishment. Also, we are in discussions with a local partner and a construction lender about dissolving our joint venture to develop a $25 million, 10-story luxury condominium project in Laclede’s Landing near Lumière Place-St. Louis. Through our affiliate, we have contributed approximately $1.3 million in expenses and our local partner has contributed a portion of the project real property. In connection with the anticipated dissolution of the joint venture, we wrote off $1.0 million of accumulated project costs. Such write-offs were excluded from the calculation of Adjusted EBITDA.
Boomtown Reno revenues and Adjusted EBITDA were $67.2 million and $3.5 million, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2007, compared to $87.1 million and $6.8 million, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2006. The decreases in revenues and Adjusted EBITDA are primarily due to the June 15, 2007 closure of the Boomtown truck stop, which sold fuel at low margins. The truck stop closure also resulted in fewer casino customers.
We closed the truck stop to facilitate construction of the neighboring Cabela Inc.’s branded sporting goods store, which opened on November 16, 2007. The parking for Cabela’s utilizes the former truck stop location. The Cabela’s store has not resulted in as many incremental casino customers as we envisioned. We have entitlements for a new satellite casino and travel plaza that could be built at a different location on the property’s 490 acres of available land.
Boomtown Reno’s revenues and Adjusted EBITDA decreased to $87.1 million and $6.8 million, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2006, compared to $88.2 million and $10.4 million, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2005, primarily from the decrease in gaming revenues due to increased competition. Although truck stop/service station revenues increased, fuel sales have significantly lower margins than gaming revenues. As a result, shifts to fuel sales from gaming revenue adversely affected Adjusted EBITDA. Additionally, medical costs were approximately $1.4 million higher for the year ended December 31, 2006 than for the year ended December 31, 2005.
Our International segment includes Casino Magic Argentina and The Casino at Emerald Bay in The Bahamas. Revenues and Adjusted EBITDA for the year ended December 31, 2007 rose to $39.2 million and $12.7 million, respectively, from $28.6 million and $9.2 million, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2006. The increase in revenues is primarily due to a $9.3 million increase in gaming revenues, primarily at our Casino Magic Argentina operation. We are building a 32-guestroom hotel adjoining our principal casino in Neuquén, Argentina. The new hotel is expected to cost approximately $13.0 million and is being funded through the property’s existing cash balances and operating cash flows.
For the year ended December 31, 2006, revenues grew 39.5% to $28.6 million from $20.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2005, primarily due to a full year of operations at our larger replacement casino in the city of Neuquén, Argentina. Adjusted EBITDA increased to $9.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2006 from $7.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2005.
38
Table of ContentsDepreciation and amortization expense for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 were $81.0 million, $69.1 million, and $55.7 million, respectively. The increase in depreciation expense for the year ended December 31, 2007 is primarily due to the St. Louis segment operations, which includes a full year of depreciation for The Admiral Riverboat Casino, which we acquired in December 2006. The increase in depreciation expense for the year ended December 31, 2006 is primarily due to a full year of depreciation for L’Auberge du Lac, which we opened in May 2005.
Pre-opening and development costs for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 were $60.8 million, $29.8 million and $29.6 million, respectively. The pre-opening and development costs for 2007 were primarily related to the St. Louis development activities, the Atlantic City development and our Sugarcane Bay project. The pre-opening and development costs for 2006 were primarily related to the St. Louis development activities and our other acquisitions and expansions during 2006. In 2005, pre-opening and developments costs were primarily related to the opening of L’Auberge du Lac, as well as early stages of the St. Louis development activities.
Corporate expenses were $39.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2007, compared to $29.2 million and $23.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively. The increase in corporate expenses is due to the hiring of additional corporate staff in support of our expanding operations.
Write-off and other charges, net We incurred asset write-downs and other charges of $4.5 million associated with the postponed 250-guestroom addition at Belterra Casino Resort ($1.0 million), the renovation activities at HoteLumière ($2.8 million) and the cancelled St. Louis condominium project ($1.0 million). Partially offsetting these charges was a gain on the sale of a corporate aircraft of $488,000. All of these transactions were excluded from the calculation of Adjusted EBITDA.
2006 litigation settlement reserve In the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2006, we recorded a $2.2 million litigation settlement reserve involving our former chairman. The suit was settled in the first quarter of 2007 for an amount approximating the litigation reserve.
Other non-operating income consists primarily of interest income of $15.5 million, $14.2 million and $3.7 million for fiscal years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively. The 2007 increase reflects higher interest rates and higher cash levels in the first half of the year. The 2006 period also includes a gain of $1.8 million on the sale of Aztar Corporation common stock sold in the third quarter of 2006.
Interest expense, net of capitalized interest was $25.7 million, $53.7 million and $49.5 million for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively. The decrease in 2007 from 2006 is the result of a significant increase in the portion of interest expense that was capitalized in the 2007 period. Such increase primarily reflected amounts invested into Lumière Place, which opened late in the year, and Atlantic City.
Loss on early extinguishment of debt During the 2007 second quarter, we issued fixed-rate eight-year 7.50% senior subordinated debt at an effective yield of 7.75% to maturity. A majority of the proceeds were used to retire $275 million of floating rate secured term debt and to purchase $25.0 million in principal amount of our 8.25% senior subordinated notes. These transactions resulted in a write-off of $6.1 million of debt issuance costs in 2007. There were no debt issuance costs written off in 2006.
In December 2005, we entered into (and subsequently amended) a new credit facility that reduced our borrowing costs and provided more flexible covenants. In early 2005, we retired the remaining portion of our 9.25% senior subordinated notes using borrowings from the prior credit facility. Although advantageous to our overall capital structure, we incurred charges of $3.8 million in 2005 related to unamortized debt issuance costs and similar items associated with the retired debt.
39
Table of ContentsMerger termination proceeds The 2006 results reflect net proceeds of approximately $44.7 million related to our terminated merger agreement with Aztar Corporation. The gross breakup fee from the merger agreement was $78.0 million. The difference reflects legal, financing fees and other costs related to the terminated merger agreement.
Income tax (expense) benefit Our 2007 effective income tax rate for continuing operations was 25.1%, or a benefit of approximately $0.5 million, as compared to 39.9%, or an expense of $41.1 million, in the prior year. While our rate benefited from the reversal of certain FIN 48 accruals resulting from the final resolution of tax matters with taxing authorities and federal hiring tax credits, the lower than expected rate was primarily due to the effects of nondeductible expenses such as the gaming tax add-back for Indiana income tax purposes, certain lobbying expenditures and the recording of a valuation allowance against certain deferred tax assets associated with our Argentine subsidiary.
Discontinued operations We completed the sale of our Crystal Park Casino card club in April 2006, our leasehold interest and related receivables in the Hollywood Park Casino card club in July 2006 and our Casino Magic Biloxi site and certain related assets in November 2006.
LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
As of December 31, 2007, we had $191 million of cash, and cash equivalents and approximately $279 million of availability under our Credit Facility (see discussion below). We estimate that approximately $100 million of cash is currently used to fund our casino cages, slot machines and day-to-day operating accounts. We generally produce significant positive cash flows from operations, though this is not always reflected in our reported net income due to large depreciation charges and other non-cash costs.
Our working capital (current assets less current liabilities, excluding restricted cash) was $69.5 million at December 31, 2007, versus $75.5 million at December 31, 2006.
Cash provided by operations was $153 million for the year ended December 31, 2007, compared to $207 million for the 2006 period, which included net merger termination proceeds of $44.7 million and excess insurance proceeds of approximately $16.7 million.
Cash invested in property and equipment for the year ended December 31, 2007 was $546 million, including approximately $321 million for Lumière Place-St. Louis, $18.3 million for our River City casino-hotel, $69.8 million for L’Auberge du Lac and $21.4 million for Baton Rouge, compared to $187 million for the year ended December 31, 2006, which included approximately $103 million for construction at Lumière Place (including the purchase of land adjacent to the project) and $19 million at River City project. Additionally, in 2006, we invested approximately $334 million for acquisitions of the Atlantic City site and the two Harrah’s entities, and approximately $41.0 million to purchase The Admiral Riverboat Casino, in each case, including working capital and net of cash acquired in the transactions.
In 2008 and for the next several years, our anticipated capital needs include the following:
40
Table of Contents
In January 2007, we consummated the public offering of 11.5 million newly issued common shares (including over-allotment shares) at $32.00 per share, resulting in net proceeds to us of approximately $353 million after underwriters’ fees and expenses, which funds are for general corporate purposes and to fund one or more of our capital projects.
41
Table of ContentsIn early 2006, we consummated the public offering of 6.9 million newly issued common shares (including over-allotment shares) at $27.35 per share, resulting in net proceeds to us of approximately $179 million after underwriters’ fees and expenses, which funds were used for general corporate purposes.
Second Amended and Restated Credit Facility
In December 2005, we entered into a $750 million amended and restated credit facility (the “Credit Facility”). In November 2006, we amended the Credit Facility to, among other things, increase the overall size of the facility to $1 billion, including a $625 million revolving credit facility, a $275 million funded term loan facility and a $100 million delayed-draw term loan facility.
In June 2007, we repaid the $275 million term loan facility and elected to allow the $100 million delayed-draw term loan to expire undrawn on July 2, 2007. Consequently, our Credit Facility currently consists of a $625 million revolving credit facility that matures in December 2010. Utilization of our Credit Facility is currently limited to $350 million by the indenture governing our 8.75% senior subordinated notes due 2013, which notes become callable in 2008.
As of December 31, 2007, our indebtedness of $841 million consists of $50 million drawn on our Credit Facility, $385 million aggregate principal amount of 7.50% senior subordinated notes due 2015, $275 million aggregate principal amount of 8.25% senior subordinated notes due 2012, $135 million aggregate principal amount of 8.75% senior subordinated notes due 2013 and certain other debt.
At December 31, 2007, we had issued approximately $21.2 million of irrevocable letters of credit, which includes $10.0 million related to our ongoing commitments required by our redevelopment agreement in St. Louis, $3.0 million associated with our River City project and $8.2 million for various self-insurance programs. As of February 25, 2008, of the $350 million available for use under our Credit Facility, we have drawn $140 million and $21.2 million was utilized under various letters of credit.
We are obligated to make mandatory prepayments of indebtedness under the Credit Facility from the net proceeds of certain debt offerings and certain asset sales and dispositions. No such payments have been made or are required at this time. In addition, we are required to prepay borrowings under the Credit Facility with a percentage of our “Excess Cash Flow” as defined in the Credit Facility. No such payments have been made, nor does management believe such payments will be required in the foreseeable future, as the definition of excess cash flow incorporates capital spending activities in a given year and our capital expenditure plans are substantial. We have the option to prepay all or any portion of the indebtedness under the Credit Facility at any time without premium or penalty.
For borrowings under the Credit Facility the interest rate is computed as a margin over LIBOR based on our “Consolidated Leverage Ratio” as defined in the Credit Facility. Such margin was 1.50% and LIBOR was 5.21% as of December 31, 2007. The Credit Facility also bears commitment fees, which are based on our Consolidated Leverage Ratio. Under the Credit Facility, at least 40% of our total funded debt obligations must be subject to fixed interest rates or hedge agreements or other interest rate protection agreements. As of December 31, 2007, approximately 94.1% of our debt was at fixed versus floating interest rates.
The Credit Facility has, among other things, restrictive financial covenants and capital spending limits and other affirmative and negative covenants. The obligations under the Credit Facility are secured by most of our assets and those of our domestic restricted subsidiaries, including a pledge of the equity interests in our domestic restricted subsidiaries. Our obligations under the Credit Facility are also guaranteed by our domestic restricted subsidiaries. Our subsidiaries that own the Atlantic City site and related parcels of land, our Argentine and Bahamian operations, our airplane and certain other assets, are unrestricted subsidiaries under the Credit Facility. We are in compliance with all such covenants as of December 31, 2007.
42
Table of ContentsThe Credit Facility provides for permitted capital expenditures for our Lumière Place and River City projects, maintaining our existing casinos and hotels and for various new projects, all up to certain limits. In certain circumstances, our Credit Facility permits those limits to be increased through asset sales or equity transactions.
Senior Subordinated Indebtedness
In 2003, we issued $135 million in aggregate principal amount of 8.75% of senior subordinated notes due 2013 (the “8.75% Notes”), which notes were issued at 98.369% of par, thereby yielding 9.00% to first call and maturity. In 2004, we issued $300 million in aggregate principal amount of 8.25% senior subordinated notes due 2012 (the “8.25% Notes”), $200 million of which were issued at a price of 99.282% of par, thereby yielding 8.375% to first call and maturity, and $100 million of which were issued later at a price of 105.00% of par, thereby yielding 7.10% to the first call date (7.35% to maturity). Net proceeds of these offerings were used to refinance our then-existing higher coupon senior subordinated notes with maturity dates in 2007.
In June 2007, we issued $385 million in aggregate principal amount of 7.50% senior subordinated notes due 2015 (the “7.50% Notes”). The 7.50% Notes were issued in a private offering conducted pursuant to Rule 144A and Regulation S under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, at 98.525% of par to yield 7.75% to maturity, with interest payable on June 15 and December 15, beginning December 2007. Net of the original issue discount, initial purchasers’ fees and various costs and expenses, proceeds from the offering were approximately $379 million. In connection with the sale of the 7.50% Notes, we entered into a registration rights agreement with the initial purchasers of the 7.50% Notes. Under the registration rights agreement, we have agreed to file a registration statement with respect to an offer to exchange the 7.50% Notes for a new issue of substantially identical notes registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, no later than March 31, 2008. We retired our then-outstanding $275 million term loan, discussed above, and we used a portion of the proceeds to purchase $25.0 million in principal amount of our 8.25% Notes.
Under the indentures governing our 7.50% Notes, 8.25% Notes and 8.75% Notes, we are permitted to incur up to $1.5 billion, $475 million and $350 million in senior indebtedness, respectively, among other debt incurrence baskets. Under our indentures, we may also incur additional indebtedness if, after giving effect to the indebtedness proposed to be incurred, our Consolidated Coverage Ratio (essentially, a ratio of adjusted EBITDA to interest) for a trailing four-quarter period on a pro forma basis (as defined in the indentures) would be at least 2:1. As of December 31, 2007, our Consolidated Coverage Ratio under our two more restrictive indentures was below 2:1. Such ratio was above 2:1 for the indenture governing our 7.50% Notes, as its definition for adjusted EBITDA is different.
The 7.50% Notes, 8.25% Notes and 8.75% Notes are unsecured obligations, guaranteed by all of our domestic material restricted subsidiaries, as defined in the indentures. The indentures governing these notes contain certain covenants limiting our ability and the ability of our restricted subsidiaries to incur additional indebtedness, issue preferred stock, pay dividends or make certain distributions, repurchase equity interests or subordinated indebtedness, create certain liens, enter into certain transactions with affiliates, sell assets, issue or sell equity interests in our subsidiaries, or enter into certain mergers and consolidations.
The 7.50% Notes, 8.25% Notes and 8.75% Notes become callable at a premium over their face amount on June 15, 2011, March 15, 2008 and October 1, 2008, respectively. Such premiums decline periodically as the bonds near their respective maturities. The 7.50% Notes are redeemable prior to such time at a price that reflects a yield to first call equivalent to the applicable Treasury bond yield plus 0.5 percentage points.
Our ongoing liquidity will depend on a number of factors, including available cash resources, cash flow from operations, compliance with covenants contained in our Credit Facility and indentures, and our ability to access the capital markets. Generally, development of our projects, including River City, Sugarcane Bay and Rivière, are contingent upon regulatory or other approvals that may or may not be achieved. We have purchased
43
Table of Contentsland in Atlantic City, New Jersey and Central City, Colorado for development of casino-hotels. We frequently evaluate other potential projects as well. Some of our development projects, including River City and Sugarcane Bay, are being developed pursuant to agreements and conditions with relevant government entities that require minimum investment levels and completion time schedules. We expect that the total cost of our development and expansion projects over the next several years will be several billion dollars. While we will endeavor to stage development and construction of these projects over several years, our proposed projects could strain our financial resources.
Management’s intention is to utilize existing cash resources, cash flows from operations, funds available under our Credit Facility and anticipated Biloxi and New Orleans insurance proceeds to fund operations, maintain existing properties, make necessary debt service payments and fund the development of some of our capital projects. The capital required for most of our development and expansion projects exceeds our available resources. Accordingly, construction of most of our projects would require us to access the capital markets. As a result of the turmoil in the capital markets, the availability of financing in the credit markets is constrained, expensive and perhaps unavailable. We can give no assurance as to when financing would be available on more favorable terms. Various projects may have to be postponed or may not make economic sense, or may not be possible to finance, if capital markets do not improve.
While we are proceeding with our development projects, construction and completion of our various projects may require amending the terms of some of our debt and Credit Facility and accessing the capital markets, which would be difficult or expensive under current market conditions. If the credit markets do not improve, we may be forced to adopt one or more alternatives, such as incurring debt on less than favorable terms, delaying or reducing planned development and expansion projects, selling assets, restructuring or modifying debt, or obtaining additional equity financing. Our current stock price, along with the stock prices of many public gaming companies, has declined sharply from the recent historical levels. We may choose to cancel or delay projects rather than issue equity at these levels. This may impair our growth and materially and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flow and the returns of investing in our securities. The inability to access the capital markets when needed, or the incurrence of debt on less than favorable terms, may impair our growth and materially and adversely affect our returns from new projects and expansions and our financial condition, results of operations and cash flow and the per share trading price of our common stock. For further discussion of the impact of the current disruption in the credit markets on our development plans, see Part I, Item 1-Business-Financing Overview and Part I, Item 1A—Risk Factors—”Our substantial funding needs in connection with our development projects, our current expansion projects and other capital-intensive projects, to the extent such projects are undertaken, will require us to raise substantial amounts of money from outside sources. In the near term, the availability of financing may be constrained by current disruptions in the credit markets.”
44
Table of ContentsCONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS AND OTHER COMMITMENTS
The following table summarizes our contractual obligations and other commitments as of December 31, 2007:
The table above excludes certain commitments as of December 31, 2007, for which the timing of expenditures associated with such commitments is unknown, contractual agreements have not been executed, or the guaranteed maximum price for such contractual agreements has not been agreed upon. Such commitments include: (i) the remaining commitment for residential housing, retail, or mixed-use development stipulated by our City of St. Louis redevelopment agreement, which must be completed by December 19, 2012; (ii) the remaining $375 million and $75 million commitments under our lease and development agreement with the St. Louis County Port Authority by May 1, 2009 and May 1, 2012, respectively; (iii) expenditures associated with our proposed expansion and development projects at Boomtown New Orleans, Boomtown Bossier City, Boomtown Reno, Sugarcane Bay, Rivière, Colorado and Atlantic City; (iv) the funding, in certain circumstances, of an additional $5.0 million into an indemnification trust we created in 2005; (v) the $4.0 million to $10.0 million of industrial revenue bonds at Boomtown Reno we have agreed to purchase under certain circumstances, if necessary; (vi) expenditures associated with our proposed gaming and entertainment complex in Kansas City for which we are one of the endorsed applicants for the one gaming license to be granted in Northeastern Kansas.
45
Table of ContentsFACTORS AFFECTING FUTURE OPERATING RESULTS
L’Auberge du Lac: We recently completed an approximately $67 million expansion project that included 252 guestrooms and other amenities. We opened 208 of the guestrooms by December 31, 2007. All of the guestrooms were available by the end of January 2008, bringing the total number of guestrooms to approximately 995.
Boomtown New Orleans: We are planning to construct a 200-guestroom upscale hotel and other upgrades to the property. We also plan to replace the three-level casino riverboat with a large single-deck casino boat, similar to the casino boat at L’Auberge du Lac.
Belterra Casino Resort: In 2007, we added five new retail shops and refurbished 11 of the high-end suites at Belterra. In May 2007, the Governor of Indiana signed legislation authorizing the installation of 2,000 slot machines at each of two racetracks in the Indianapolis metropolitan area. As a result, we postponed indefinitely our planned construction of a 250-guestroom addition due to the significant expansion of gaming capacity in this market. Belterra is located one hour from downtown Cincinnati, Ohio and 80 minutes from Louisville, Kentucky. Belterra is also approximately two hours from Indianapolis, which is the third-largest market for Belterra, after Cincinnati, Ohio and Louisville, Kentucky. Management estimates that residents of the Indianapolis metropolitan area account for approximately 10% of Belterra’s casino revenues and approximately 11% of the guests staying at Belterra’s 608-guestroom hotel. The expanded racetrack facilities will also compete with Belterra for customers that live between Indianapolis and Cincinnati.
Boomtown Bossier City: We are planning to construct an arrival facility for guests of our dockside riverboat casino. We also plan to refurbish the guestrooms at Boomtown Bossier City and we expect to complete this in late 2008 or early 2009.
Boomtown Reno: The Boomtown truck stop was closed on June 15, 2007 and demolished in July to facilitate completion of the neighboring Cabela’s Inc. branded sporting goods store, which opened in November 2007. We have the entitlements to construct a new satellite casino and travel plaza, to replace the truck stop, at a different location on the property’s 490 acres of available land. We are planning to refurbish the hotel guestrooms at the property.
Lumière Place–St. Louis: We opened our Lumière Place Casino and certain restaurants in December 2007. We opened the Four Seasons Hotel St. Louis, HoteLumière, additional restaurants, retail outlets, and spa in the first quarter of 2008. We also plan to open a pedestrian tunnel in April 2008. We purchased The Admiral Riverboat Casino in December 2006. The Lumière Place Casino and The Admiral Riverboat Casino compete with four other riverboat casinos in the area.
River City: Development of the River City casino facility requires construction of a new road to the site, which is now underway, including a bridge over an active railroad yard, which is the “critical path” for this project. We began the foundation work for the casino project in the first quarter of 2008. We currently expect our River City project to open mid-2009, subject to licensing by the MGC.
Our River City project is subject to ongoing approval and licensing by the MGC. The issuance of the operating license is subject to, among other requirements, maintaining a fixed-charge coverage ratio (as defined by the MGC) of at least 2:1. Such ratio for the period ended December 31, 2007 was 3.47x. We believe that future operating results should provide sufficient earnings to meet such ratio, however, there is no guarantee that this will be the case.
Sugarcane Bay: In June 2007, the LGCB approved the architectural plans for our proposed Sugarcane Bay casino resort to be built adjacent to our L’Auberge du Lac facility. The Sugarcane Bay project requires a minimum investment of $350 million. Such facility is expected to include approximately 400 guestrooms and
46
Table of Contentssuites, approximately 1,500 slot machines, and 50 table games, including a poker room. We are required to complete specific milestones within certain timeframes, subject to certain approvals by the LGCB. We are currently awaiting LGCB approval of our construction agreement.
Casino Magic Argentina: We are building a 32-guestroom hotel, consisting of 15 standard rooms and 17 suites, adjoining our principal casino in Neuquén, Argentina. We expect that the hotel will be completed in mid-2008. The new hotel is expected to cost approximately US$13.0 million and is being funded through the property’s existing cash balances and operating cash flows.
Atlantic City: We began site preparation work in 2007, including the implosion of the former Sands Casino Hotel and other structures on the site. We continue to plan and design our Atlantic City project, which for a resort of this size is expected to take at least two to three years from the date of our acquisition of the site in November 2006. The construction will then require approximately three to four additional years to complete with an anticipated opening date no earlier than 2012, subject to various regulatory approvals.
Rivière: In September 2007, we received approval from the LGCB for our plans for a hotel and gaming entertainment project on approximately 517 acres of land that we own in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. We also own an additional 58 acres of land through a co-ownership with a third party where we own 83 1/3% and a third party owns a 16 2/3% interest. We are actively seeking the partition of such acreage with the third-party minority owner. On February 9, 2008, voters in the East Baton Rouge approved a local referendum approving the casino location in accordance with Louisiana law. The project, named Rivière, features a single-deck casino with approximately 1,500 slot machines and approximately 50 table games, a high-end hotel with 100 guestrooms, a live entertainment venue and various restaurants. Future plans for the large site (which may be developed in partnership with others) may include a residential community, a golf course, an equestrian center and miles of walking and biking trails. The first phase of the Rivière project is expected to cost $250 million. We are required to complete specific milestones within certain timeframes, subject to certain approvals by the LGCB.
Kansas City: In December 2007, the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas (the “Unified Government”) endorsed our plan as one of three proposals sent on to state officials for consideration for the one casino license in the county to be issued by the state under legislation passed in 2004. Besides these three, there are other competing proposals under consideration for the same license. On December 31, 2007, a subsidiary of ours signed a development agreement with the Unified Government outlining our obligations if we are selected by the state. We believe that the other two endorsed proposals signed similar development agreements. If we are chosen as the licensee, we intend to invest $650 million in the project, which, at a minimum, will include the construction of (a) a gaming and multi-use facility; (b) a 500-guestroom hotel; (c) a combination retail, commercial and/or entertainment facility; (d) a convention center; and (e) a central water feature connecting the gaming facility with the Schlitterbahn Vacation Village resort and water park now under construction. The project is anticipated to be substantially completed approximately 36 months after the occurrence of the latter of (i) the Lottery Gaming Facility Management Contract becoming effective or (ii) the resolution of the pending lawsuit relating to the constitutionality of the Kansas Expanded Lottery Act. The State of Kansas is expected to choose the licensee during 2008.
Corporate Expenses: We intend to operate our existing and future casino-hotels under a marketing umbrella whereby customers of each casino facility are recognized for their level of play at all of our casino facilities. We believe that such a marketing network will enhance customer loyalty at any given location, increase customer traffic through our casino facilities in other locations, and improve our returns on investment of both existing and new facilities. We anticipate the costs to create such a marketing umbrella will be significant over the next several years, as we increase staffing, purchase technology and build the database infrastructure. This accounted for much of the increase in corporate expenses in 2007 and such expenses are anticipated to remain at such levels.
47
Table of ContentsFinancing: To execute all of our growth plans, we will need to arrange additional financing. We expect to utilize our revolving credit facility and our internally generated cash flow. We will also need to obtain substantial additional funding in the capital markets, which today are highly volatile and constrained. We expect that a portion of the capital that we intend to invest in future years will be indebtedness and that our financial leverage will increase. However, depending upon the scale and timing of the various projects and our interim cash flows, it may also be necessary or advantageous to access the equity markets again in the future. If the terms for the necessary funding at any given time are not acceptable to us, then we may delay the start of construction of one or more projects.
Biloxi Insurance Claim: In April 2006, we have filed an insurance claim and in August 2006, we filed a lawsuit against three of our insurance carriers for the losses associated with hurricane-related damage to our former Casino Magic Biloxi site. We currently estimate the value of our insurance claim, net of any litigation claim for interest or bad-faith damages, at approximately $297 million. In February 2008, we agreed to settle our lawsuit against one of the excess carriers, Arch Specialty Insurance Company, in exchange for Arch’s agreement to pay us approximately $36.8 million on or before March 17, 2008. We continue to pursue our claims against the two remaining defendant carriers for their respective shares of Pinnacle’s total hurricane-related damage and consequential loss in Biloxi.
Cumulatively, as of December 31, 2007, we have received $105 million in advances toward our insurance claim. As of such date, the insurers have not designated the advances as being specific to any particular part of the claim. Therefore, the advances have offset the depreciated book value of the destroyed assets and certain insured expenses. To the extent that the advances exceed such expenses and depreciated book value, the difference (currently $21.5 million) is recorded as a deferred gain on our Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Our ultimate insurance claim and recovery amounts are based on replacement costs rather than book value and are unrelated to, computed differently from, and likely to be substantially larger than the asset write-offs. Management believes that the replacement cost of the assets that were destroyed is substantially in excess of their depreciated book value. We are also insured for lost profits as a result of the damage, but will not book such profits until the claim is resolved. As the insurance claim is resolved, which is likely to be either through negotiation or litigation, management expects to record a significant accounting gain when amounts are received. Such gain would primarily reflect the forgone profits and the difference between the cost of a new facility that could be built today and the depreciated book value of the facility that was destroyed.
Pre-opening and Development Costs: Pre-opening costs consist primarily of pre-opening payroll costs of the costs to hire, employ and train the workforce prior to opening an operating facility; marketing campaigns prior to or commensurate with opening; legal and professional fees related to the project but not otherwise attributable to depreciable assets; and lease payments, real estate taxes and similar costs prior to opening. Development costs include master planning, conceptual design fees and general and administrative costs related to our projects.
Although anticipated pre-opening costs are included in our various project budgets, such costs are and will continue to be expensed as incurred in accordance with GAAP.
Construction Disruption: As noted above, we have announced various capital investment and renovation programs at existing locations. Although the expansion and renovation work is being planned carefully around existing operations, one or all of such locations may experience some level of construction disruption.
Contingencies: We assess our exposure to loss contingencies, including legal matters, and reserve for an exposure if it is judged to be probable and estimable. We assess our exposure to tax matters using the recognition threshold and measurement attributes prescribed by Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Interpretation No. 48 (“FIN 48”) “Uncertainty in Income Taxes,” which became effective for us on January 1, 2007. If the actual loss from a contingency differs from our estimate, operating results could be affected.
48
Table of ContentsCRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES
The audited Consolidated Financial Statements were prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. Certain of the accounting policies require management to apply significant judgment in defining the estimates and assumptions for calculating financial estimates. These judgments are subject to an inherent degree of uncertainty. Management’s judgments are based on our historical experience, terms of various past and present agreements and contracts, industry trends, and information available from other sources, as appropriate. There can be no assurance that actual results will not differ from those estimates. Changes in these estimates could adversely affect our financial position or our results of operations.
We have determined that the following accounting policies and related estimates are critical to the preparation of our audited Consolidated Financial Statements:
Property and Equipment: We have a significant investment in long-lived property and equipment, which represents approximately 78.2% of our total assets. Judgments are made in determining the estimated useful lives of assets, the salvage values to be assigned to assets and if or when an asset has been impaired. The accuracy of these estimates affects the amount of depreciation expense recognized in the financial results and whether to record a gain or loss on disposition of an asset. We review the carrying value of our property and equipment whenever events or circumstances indicate that the carrying value of an asset may not be recoverable from estimated future undiscounted cash flows expected to result from its use and eventual disposition.
Self-insurance Reserves: We are self-insured up to certain limits for costs associated with general liability, workers’ compensation and employee medical coverage. Insurance claims and reserves include accruals of estimated settlements for claims. In estimating these accruals, we consider historical loss experience and make judgments about the expected levels of cost per claim.
Income Tax Assets and Liabilities: We utilize estimates related to cash flow projections for the application of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 109, “Accounting for Income Taxes,” to the realization of deferred income tax assets. The estimates are based upon recent operating results and budgets for future operating results. Management considers the scheduled reversal of deferred tax liabilities, projected future taxable income and tax planning strategies in this assessment.
In accordance with SFAS No. 5, “Accounting for Contingencies,” we record tax contingencies when the exposure item becomes probable and reasonably estimable. We assess the tax uncertainties on a quarterly basis and maintain the required tax reserves until the underlying issue is resolved or upon the expiration of the statute of limitations. Our estimate of the potential outcome of any uncertain tax issue is highly judgmental and we believe we have adequately provided for any reasonable and foreseeable outcomes related to uncertain tax matters.
Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets: In January 2002, we adopted SFAS No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,” which requires an annual review of goodwill and other non-amortizing intangible assets for impairment. The annual evaluation of goodwill and other non-amortizing intangible assets requires the use of estimates, including recent and future operating results, discount rates, risk premiums and terminal values, to determine the estimated fair values of our reporting units and gaming licenses.
Insurance Receivables: We have significant receivables from insurance companies related to the Biloxi property. We record receivables to the extent of our net book value for physical property damage and for actual costs incurred under the business-interruption coverage. Until such claims are resolved, no gains for coverage in excess of net book value and no potential insurance recoveries for lost profits are recorded. Significant estimates are required in determining the amount of our insurance claims.
49
Table of ContentsShare-based Compensation: Effective January 1, 2006, we adopted the provisions of SFAS No. 123R, “Share-Based Payment,” requiring that compensation cost relating to share-based payment transactions be recognized in our consolidated financial statements. The cost is measured at grant date, based on the calculated fair value of the award and is recognized as expense over the vesting period of the equity award. Prior to January 1, 2006, we accounted for share-based compensation to employees in accordance with APB No. 25 and related interpretations. We also followed the disclosure requirements of SFAS No.123 as amended by SFAS No. 148, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation-Transition and Disclosure.” The Company adopted SFAS No. 123R using the modified prospective method and, accordingly, financial statement amounts for 2005 do not reflect the fair value method of recognizing compensation cost relating to share-based compensation.
RECENTLY ISSUED AND ADOPTED ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements
FIN No. 48 In July 2006, the FASB released FIN 48, “Uncertainty in Income Taxes,” which defines accounting for uncertain tax positions and includes amendments to SFAS No. 109. FIN 48 addresses the recognition, measurement, classification and disclosure issues related to the recording of financial statement benefits for income tax positions that have some degree of uncertainty. FIN 48 became effective for us on January 1, 2007 (our first fiscal year after December 15, 2006). See Note 5 to our audited Consolidated Financial Statements for more information.
SFAS No. 159 In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159, “The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities—Including an Amendment of FASB Statement No. 115,” which permits entities to choose to measure many financial instruments and certain other items at fair value. SFAS No. 159 will become effective for us on January 1, 2008 (our first fiscal year beginning after November 15, 2007). We do not plan to apply the fair value option to any items in our consolidated financial statements.
SFAS No. 157 In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements.” The statement defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value, expands disclosures about fair value measurements and does not require any new fair value measurements. SFAS No. 157 will become effective for us on January 1, 2008 (our first fiscal year beginning after November 15, 2007). We have not yet determined the effect, if any, SFAS No. 157 will have on our consolidated financial statements.
SFAS No. 160 In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 160, “Non-controlling interests in Consolidated Financial Statements.” The statement is an amendment of Accounting Research Bulletin No. 51. The objective of this statement is to improve the relevance, comparability, and transparency of the financial information that a reporting entity provides in its consolidated financial statements regarding minority interest. SFAS No. 160 will become effective for us on January 1, 2009 (our first fiscal year beginning after December 15, 2008). We have not yet determined the effect, if any, SFAS No. 160 will have on our consolidated financial statements.
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
At times, we are exposed to market risk from adverse changes in interest rates with respect to the short-term floating interest rate on borrowings under our Credit Facility. Our Credit Facility is comprised of a $625 million revolving credit facility that matures in 2010. As of December 31, 2007, there was outstanding $50 million under this revolving credit facility and $21.2 million under various letters of credit. In early 2008, we borrowed an additional $90 million under our revolving credit facility. Our borrowings under our Credit Facility accrue interest at LIBOR plus a margin, which margin is currently 1.50%. If LIBOR rates were to increase or decrease by one percentage point, our interest expense would increase or decrease by approximately $500,000 per year, assuming constant debt levels.
50
Table of ContentsWe are also exposed to market risk from adverse changes in the exchange rate of the dollar to the Argentine peso. The total assets of Casino Magic Argentina at December 31, 2007 were $32.9 million, or approximately 1.5% of our consolidated assets. In addition, at this time the Bahamian dollar is pegged to the U.S. dollar. If the Bahamian government should choose to no longer peg its currency to the U.S. dollar, we would be subject to exchange rate fluctuations.
The table below provides the principal cash flows and related weighted average interest rates by contractual maturity dates for our debt obligations at December 31, 2007. At December 31, 2007, we did not hold any material investments in market-risk-sensitive instruments of the type described in Item 305 of Regulation S-K.
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
The Consolidated Financial Statements included on pages F-1 through F-44 are incorporated herein by reference.
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure
None.
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures
(a) Management’s Conclusion Regarding the Effectiveness of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
The Company’s management, with the participation of the Chief Executive Officer (the “CEO”) and Chief Financial Officer (the “CFO”), evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act) as of December 31, 2007. Based on this evaluation, the Company’s management, including the CEO and the CFO, concluded that, as of December 31, 2007, the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures were effective, in that they provide a reasonable level of assurance that information required to be disclosed by the Company in the reports filed or submitted by it under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms. The Company’s disclosure controls and procedures are designed to provide reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed by the Company in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to the Company’s management, including the CEO and the CFO, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, there can be no assurance that the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures will detect or uncover all failures of persons within the Company and its consolidated subsidiaries to
51
Table of Contentsdisclose material information otherwise required to be set forth in the Company’s periodic reports. There are inherent limitations to the effectiveness of any system of disclosure controls and procedures, including the possibility of human error and the circumvention or overriding of the controls and procedures. Accordingly, even effective disclosure controls and procedures can only provide reasonable, not absolute, assurance of achieving their control objectives.
No change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) occurred during the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2007 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.
(b) Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) refers to the process designed by, or under the supervision of, our CEO and CFO, and effected by our board of directors, management and other personnel, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over our financial reporting.
We have evaluated the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007. This evaluation was performed using the internal control evaluation framework developed by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on such evaluation, management has concluded that, as of such date, our internal control over financial reporting was effective.
Deloitte & Touche LLP has issued an attestation report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. This report follows in Item 9A(c).
(c) Attestation report of the independent registered public accounting firm.
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. Las Vegas, Nevada
We have audited the internal control over financial reporting of Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2007, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The Company’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
52
Table of ContentsA company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed by, or under the supervision of, the company’s principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, and effected by the company’s board of directors, management, and other personnel to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of the inherent limitations of internal control over financial reporting, including the possibility of collusion or improper management override of controls, material misstatements due to error or fraud may not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Also, projections of any evaluation of the effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting to future periods are subject to the risk that the controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, based on the criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 of the Company and our report dated February 29, 2008 expressed an unqualified opinion, and includes explanatory paragraphs related to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R) and Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, on those consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule.
/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP Las Vegas, Nevada February 29, 2008
Pinnacle has elected to include the following information in this Item 9B of Form 10-K in lieu of reporting it on a separately filed Form 8-K. The following disclosures would otherwise be filed on Form 8-K under the heading “Item 5.02(e)—Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers.”
On February 25, 2008, the Compensation Committee (the “Compensation Committee”) of the Board of Directors of Pinnacle approved a 2007 bonus for Mr. Lee of $733,275, 30% of which shall be deferred as described below. Such bonus was based on achievement of previously-established objective performance goals for 2007 pursuant to the 2005 Equity and Incentive Performance Plan, which plan was filed as Exhibit 10.1 to Pinnacle’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on May 12, 2006, and Mr. Lee’s employment agreement, which agreement was filed as Exhibit 10.1 to Pinnacle’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on December 28, 2006. The deferred portion of Mr. Lee’s bonus was deferred as permitted by and under the terms of Mr. Lee’s employment agreement and by action of the Compensation Committee. The deferred portion of the bonus is paid in three equal annual installments beginning January 2009, and no interest is accrued or paid on such deferred amount. The deferred portion of the bonus is also payable upon termination in certain circumstances and forfeited under certain other circumstances. The cash portion of the bonus will be paid to Mr. Lee in the near future.
53
Table of ContentsPART III
The information required under this item will be contained in our definitive Proxy Statement for our 2008 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after December 31, 2007 under the captions “Election of Directors—General,” “Election of Directors—Information Regarding the Director Nominees,” “Election of Directors—Executive Officers,” “Election of Directors—Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance,” “Election of Directors—Code of Ethical Business Conduct,” and the information regarding our audit committee and our audit committee financial expert in “Election of Directors—Board Meetings and Board Committees” and is incorporated herein by reference.
The information required under this item will be contained in our definitive Proxy Statement for our 2008 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after December 31, 2007 under the captions “Election of Directors—Director Compensation”, “Election of Directors—Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation,” “Executive Compensation—Compensation Committee Report” and “Executive Compensation” and is incorporated herein by reference.
The information required under this item will be contained in our definitive Proxy Statement for our 2008 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after December 31, 2007 under the captions “Election of Directors—Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management” and “Executive Compensation—Equity Compensation Plan Information” and is incorporated herein by reference.
The information required under this item will be contained in our definitive Proxy Statement for our 2008 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after December 31, 2007 under the captions “Election of Directors—Transactions with Related Persons, Promoters and Certain Control Persons” and “Election of Directors—Director Independence” and is incorporated herein by reference.
The information required under this item will be contained in our definitive Proxy Statement for our 2008 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after December 31, 2007 under the caption “Ratification of Appointment of Independent Auditors—Audit and Related Fees” and is incorporated herein by reference.
54
Table of Contents
Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules
(a) Documents filed as a part of this report.
We have omitted all other financial statement schedules because they are not required or are not applicable, or the required information is shown in the financial statements or notes to the financial statements.
55
Table of Contents
56
Table of Contents
57
Table of Contents
58
Table of Contents
59
Table of Contents
60
Table of Contents
61
Table of Contents
62
Table of Contents
63
Table of Contents
64
Table of ContentsSIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.
Table of Contents
INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
F-1
Table of ContentsREPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. Las Vegas, Nevada
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated income statements, changes in stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2007. Our audits also included the financial statement schedule listed in the Index at Item 15(a)(2). These financial statements and the financial statement schedule are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial statements and financial statement schedule based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2007, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Also, in our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.
As discussed in Note 8 to the consolidated financial statements, on January 1, 2006, the Company adopted the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), Share-Based Payment.
As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, on January 1, 2007, the Company adopted the provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48 “Uncertainty in Income Taxes.”
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, based on the criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated February 29, 2008 expressed an unqualified opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.
/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP Las Vegas, Nevada February 29, 2008
F-2
Table of Contents
CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS
See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.
F-3
Table of Contents
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.
F-4
Table of Contents
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
For the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005
See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.
F-5
Table of Contents
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
