PRER14A 1 dprer14a.htm PRELIMINARY REVISED PROXY STATEMENT Preliminary revised proxy statement
Table of Contents

United States

Securities and Exchange Commission

Washington, D.C. 20549

Schedule 14A

(Rule 14a-101)

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Amendment No. 1)

Filed by the Registrant  x

Filed by a Party other than the Registrant  ¨

Check the appropriate box:

 

x

   Preliminary Proxy Statement    ¨    Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))

¨

   Definitive Proxy Statement      

¨

   Definitive Additional Materials      

¨

   Soliciting Material Pursuant to §240.14a-12      

Landry’s Restaurants, Inc.

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

 

¨ No fee required.

 

x Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11.

 

  (1) Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:

Landry’s Restaurants, Inc. common stock, par value $0.01 per share (“Landry’s Common Stock”)

 

 

  (2) Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:

7,341,052 shares of Landry’s Common Stock and 63,919 options to purchase Landry’s Common Stock.

 

 

  (3) Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):

Calculated solely for the purpose of determining the filing fee. The transaction valuation is determined based upon the sum of (a) the product of (i) 7,341,052 shares of Landry’s Common Stock that are proposed to be converted into the right to receive the merger consideration and (ii) the merger consideration of $24.50 per share of Landry’s Common Stock and (b) an aggregate of $589,136 expected to be paid upon the cancellation of outstanding options having an exercise price less than $24.50 per share ((a) and (b) together, the “Total Consideration”). The filing fee, calculated in accordance with Exchange Act Rule 0-11(c)(1) and the Commission’s latest Fee Advisory, was determined by multiplying the Total Consideration by the applicable fee at the time of payment.

 

 

  (4) Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:

$180,444,910

 

 

  (5) Total fee paid:

$11,199

 

 

¨ Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.

 

x Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.

 

  (1) Amount Previously Paid:

$5,999

 

 

  (2) Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:

Schedule 14A

 

 

  (3) Filing Party:

Landry’s Restaurants, Inc.

 

 

  (4) Date Filed:

December 1, 2009

 

 


Table of Contents

PRELIMINARY, SUBJECT TO COMPLETION, DATED JULY 2, 2010

SPECIAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

TO BE HELD , 2010

, 2010

Dear Fellow Stockholder:

You are cordially invited to attend a special meeting of stockholders of Landry’s Restaurants, Inc., a Delaware corporation, to be held on , 2010 at 10:00 a.m. Houston time, at Landry’s corporate office, 1510 West Loop South, Houston, Texas. The accompanying proxy statement provides information regarding the matters to be acted on at the special meeting, including any adjournment or postponement.

At the special meeting, you will be asked to consider and vote upon a proposal to approve an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of November 3, 2009, which we refer to as the “original merger agreement”, as amended by that First Amendment to Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of May 23, 2010, which we refer to as the “first amended merger agreement” and the Second Amendment to Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of June 20, 2010, which we refer to as the “second amended merger agreement”, and collectively with the original merger agreement and the first amended merger agreement, the “merger agreement”, that we entered into with Fertitta Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Parent”), Fertitta Merger Co., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent (“Merger Sub”), and, for certain limited purposes, Tilman J. Fertitta, our Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President (“Mr. Fertitta”).

If the merger agreement is approved and the merger is consummated, each share of our common stock (other than shares of our common stock owned by Parent or Merger Sub, shares owned by stockholders who properly exercise dissenters’ rights of appraisal under Delaware law or shares of our common stock held in treasury by us) will be cancelled and converted automatically into the right to receive $24.50 in cash, without interest. Mr. Fertitta will contribute immediately prior to the merger at least $40.0 million in cash and all of the outstanding shares of our common stock that he beneficially owns to Parent in exchange for common stock of Parent. Pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and into us and we will continue as the surviving corporation and all of the outstanding shares of Merger Sub will be converted into equity interests in the surviving corporation. As a result of the merger, we will be privately owned and controlled by Mr. Fertitta through his ownership of the equity interests in Parent. Copies of the original merger agreement, the first amended merger agreement and the second amended merger agreement are included as Annexes A, B and C, respectively, to the accompanying proxy statement.

On June 20, 2010, our board of directors, after considering factors including the unanimous determination and recommendation of a special committee comprised entirely of outside, non-employee directors, unanimously determined (with Mr. Fertitta taking no part in the vote or the recommendations) that the merger agreement and the merger are advisable, fair to and in the best interests of us and our unaffiliated stockholders, and approved the merger agreement and the merger. In arriving at their recommendation of the merger agreement, our board of directors and the special committee carefully considered a number of factors which are described in the accompanying proxy statement. Our board of directors unanimously recommends (with Mr. Fertitta taking no part in such recommendation) that you vote “FOR” the approval of the merger agreement.

When you consider the recommendation of our board of directors to approve the merger agreement, you should be aware that some of our directors and executive officers have interests in the merger that may be different from, or in addition to, the interests of our stockholders generally.

The accompanying proxy statement provides you with detailed information about the special meeting, the merger agreement and the merger. You are urged to read the entire document carefully. You may also obtain more information about us from documents we have filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), which are available at the SEC’s Internet site at http://www.sec.gov.


Table of Contents

Regardless of the number of shares you own, your vote is very important. The merger cannot be completed unless the merger agreement is approved by the affirmative vote of both (i) a majority of the outstanding shares of our common stock not owned by Parent, Merger Sub, Mr. Fertitta, and any of the other defendants named in the lawsuit entitled Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated shareholders of Landry’s Restaurants, Inc. and derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Landry’s Restaurants, Inc. v. Tilman J. Fertitta, et al., C.A. No. 4339-VCL, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, or any of their respective affiliates and voted at the special meeting, which we refer to as the “majority of the minority approval” (for purposes of this calculation, abstentions will not be considered shares voted at the special meeting), and (ii) a majority of the outstanding shares of our common stock. As of the date hereof, Mr. Fertitta controls approximately 54.8% of our voting power and has agreed to vote the 5,731,481 shares owned beneficially or of record by him and his affiliates as of June 16, 2008, plus up to the first 300,000 shares acquired upon exercise of his outstanding options, provided all such shares are held as of the record date for the special meeting, in favor of the adoption of the merger agreement and the approval of the merger and any actions required in furtherance thereof, as the merger agreement may be modified or amended from time to time. Mr. Fertitta further agreed that, at the special meeting or any other meeting of our stockholders, however called, and in any action by written consent of our stockholders, he will vote, or cause to be voted, 3,162,674 shares, plus up to the next 500,000 shares acquired upon exercise of his outstanding options, then owned beneficially or of record by him and his affiliates, as of the record date for such meeting or consent, in such proportion as reflects the manner in which the shares owned by our stockholders other than Mr. Fertitta and his affiliates are actually voted (with abstentions counted as “no” votes for purposes of calculating how such shares of Mr. Fertitta and his affiliates are voted), with respect to (1) the adoption of the merger agreement and the approval of the merger and any actions required in furtherance thereof, as the merger agreement may be modified or amended from time to time, and (2) any Acquisition Proposal (as defined in the merger agreement) that results in the termination of the merger agreement.

On June 20, 2010, we entered into voting agreements with Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P. and Pershing Square GP, LLC and with Richard T. McGuire (collectively, the “Pershing Square Group”) whereby the Pershing Square Group has agreed, for so long as the voting agreements have not been terminated, to vote the shares of common stock beneficially owned by it, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the voting agreements, (i) in favor of the adoption of the merger agreement and the approval of other actions required in furtherance thereof, (ii) against the approval of any proposal made in opposition to or in competition with the merger agreement or the consummation of the merger as provided in the merger agreement, including any Acquisition Proposal (as defined in the merger agreement) and (iii) against (A) any merger, rights offering, reorganization, recapitalization or liquidation involving us or any of our subsidiaries (other than the merger), (B) a sale or transfer of a material amount of assets or capital stock of us or any of our subsidiaries or (C) any other action that is intended, or could reasonably be expected to, impede, interfere with, delay, postpone or adversely affect the merger or any of the other transactions contemplated by the merger agreement.

As of June 20, 2010, the Pershing Square Group beneficially owned approximately 9.9% of our outstanding shares of common stock, which represents 21.9% of the voting power for purposes of the majority of the minority approval.

The voting agreements will terminate when the first of the following occurs: (i) the special committee determines an Acquisition Proposal is a Superior Proposal (as such term is defined in the merger agreement); (ii) the merger agreement is terminated, including in connection with a termination by us in order to enter into an agreement with respect to a Superior Proposal; (iii) the merger agreement is further amended, or any provision thereunder is waived, that reduces or changes the form of the merger consideration, adds or modifies any closing condition, materially delays the closing of the merger or adversely affects in any material respect the rights or obligations of the parties under the voting agreement as of the date of the voting agreement; (iv) December 31, 2010; (v) the effective time of the merger under the merger agreement; and (vi) the agreement of the parties to terminate the voting agreements (subject to Parent’s consent).

 

ii


Table of Contents

If you fail to vote on the approval of the merger agreement, the effect will be the same as a vote against approval of the merger agreement for purposes of calculating whether a majority of the outstanding shares have voted to approve the merger agreement and the merger, but will have no effect for purposes of calculating whether the majority of the minority approval has been obtained. If you do not vote in favor of the approval and adoption of the merger agreement and you fulfill the procedural requirements that are summarized in the accompanying proxy statement, Delaware law entitles you to a judicial appraisal of the fair value of your shares.

Once you have read the accompanying proxy statement, please vote on the proposals submitted to stockholders at the special meeting, whether or not you plan to attend the meeting, by signing, dating and mailing the enclosed proxy card or by voting your shares by telephone or Internet using the instructions on your proxy card. If you receive more than one proxy card because you own shares that are registered differently, please vote all of your shares shown on all of your proxy cards. If your shares are held in “street name” by your broker, your broker will be unable to vote your shares without instructions from you. You should instruct your broker to vote your shares, following the procedures provided by your broker. Failure to instruct your broker to vote your shares will have the same effect as voting against the approval of the merger agreement.

Voting by proxy will not prevent you from voting your shares in person in the manner described in the accompanying proxy statement if you subsequently choose to attend the special meeting.

On behalf of your board of directors, thank you for your cooperation and support.

Sincerely,

 

    

 

Michael S. Chadwick    Steven L. Scheinthal
Co-Chairman of the Special Committee    Director

NEITHER THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION NOR ANY STATE SECURITIES COMMISSION HAS APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED OF THE MERGER, OR PASSED UPON THE FAIRNESS OR MERITS OF THE MERGER OR THE ADEQUACY OR ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ENCLOSED PROXY STATEMENT. ANY CONTRARY REPRESENTATION IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

The accompanying proxy statement is dated                 , 2010, and it and the proxy card are first being mailed to stockholders on or about , 2010.

IMPORTANT

YOUR VOTE IS VERY IMPORTANT, REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF SHARES YOU OWN. PLEASE SIGN, DATE AND PROMPTLY MAIL YOUR PROXY CARD OR VOTE BY TELEPHONE OR VIA THE INTERNET AT YOUR EARLIEST CONVENIENCE.

If you have any questions or need assistance voting your shares, please call MacKenzie Partners, Inc., which is assisting us in the solicitation of proxies, toll-free at 1-800-322-2885.

 

iii


Table of Contents

LANDRY’S RESTAURANTS, INC.

NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING

TO BE HELD , 2010

On , 2010, Landry’s Restaurants, Inc. will hold a special meeting of stockholders at 1510 West Loop South, Houston, Texas. The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. Houston time.

Only holders of shares of our common stock, par value $0.01 per share, of record at the close of business on , 2010, may vote at this meeting or at any adjournments or postponements thereof that may take place. At the meeting stockholders will be asked to:

 

   

consider and vote upon a proposal to approve and adopt the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of November 3, 2009, which we refer to as the “original merger agreement”, as amended by that First Amendment to Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of May 23, 2010, which we refer to as the “first amended merger agreement” and the Second Amendment to Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of June 20, 2010, which we refer to as the “second amended merger agreement,” and collectively with the original merger agreement and the first amended merger agreement, the “merger agreement”, that we entered into with Fertitta Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Parent”), Fertitta Merger Co., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent (“Merger Sub”), and, for certain limited purposes, Tilman J. Fertitta (“Mr. Fertitta”);

 

   

approve the adjournment of the special meeting to a later date, if necessary, to solicit additional proxies if there are insufficient votes at the time of the special meeting to approve the foregoing proposal; and

 

   

transact such other business as may properly come before the special meeting or any adjournment or postponement of the special meeting.

Our board of directors (with Mr. Fertitta taking no part in the vote or recommendation) has unanimously approved the merger agreement and the merger, determined that the merger agreement and merger are advisable, fair to and in the best interest of us and our unaffiliated stockholders and recommends that you vote “FOR” the approval of the merger agreement. In addition, our board of directors (with Mr. Fertitta taking no part in the vote or recommendation) unanimously recommends that you vote “FOR” the adjournment of the special meeting to a later date, if necessary, to solicit additional proxies if there are insufficient votes at the time of the special meeting to approve the merger agreement.

When you consider the recommendation of our board of directors to approve the merger agreement, you should be aware that some of our directors and executive officers have interests in the merger that may be different from, or in addition to, the interests of our stockholders generally, which are discussed in more detail in the accompanying proxy statement.

Regardless of the number of shares you own, your vote is very important. The merger cannot be completed unless the merger agreement is approved by the affirmative vote of both (i) a majority of the outstanding shares of our common stock not owned by Parent, Merger Sub, Mr. Fertitta, and any of the other defendants named in the lawsuit entitled Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated shareholders of Landry’s Restaurants, Inc. and derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Landry’s Restaurants, Inc. v. Tilman J. Fertitta, et al., C.A. No. 4339-VCL, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, or any of their respective affiliates and voted at the special meeting, which we refer to as the “majority of the minority approval” (for purposes of this calculation, abstentions will not be considered shares voted at the special meeting), and (ii) a majority of the outstanding shares of our common stock, which, together with the majority of the minority approval, we refer to as the “requisite stockholder vote”. As of the date hereof, Mr. Fertitta controls approximately 54.8% of our voting power and has agreed to vote the 5,731,481 shares owned beneficially or of record by him and his affiliates as of June 16, 2008, plus up to the first 300,000 shares acquired upon exercise of his outstanding options, provided all such shares are held as of the

 

i


Table of Contents

record date for the special meeting, in favor of the adoption of the merger agreement and the approval of the merger and any actions required in furtherance thereof, as the merger agreement may be modified or amended from time to time. Mr. Fertitta further agreed that, at the special meeting or any other meeting of our stockholders, however called, and in any action by written consent of our stockholders, he will vote, or cause to be voted, 3,162,674 shares, plus up to the next 500,000 shares acquired upon exercise of his outstanding options, then owned beneficially or of record by him and his affiliates, as of the record date for such meeting or consent, in such proportion as reflects the manner in which the shares owned by our stockholders other than Mr. Fertitta and his affiliates are actually voted (with abstentions counted as “no” votes for purposes of calculating how such shares of Mr. Fertitta and his affiliates are voted), with respect to (1) the adoption of the merger agreement and the approval of the merger and any actions required in furtherance thereof, and (2) any Acquisition Proposal (as defined in the merger agreement) that results in the termination of the merger agreement.

On June 20, 2010, we entered into voting agreements with Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P. and Pershing Square GP, LLC and with Richard T. McGuire (collectively, the “Pershing Square Group”) whereby the Pershing Square Group has agreed, for so long as the voting agreements have not been terminated, to vote the shares of common stock beneficially owned by it, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the voting agreements, (i) in favor of the adoption of the merger agreement and the approval of other actions required in furtherance thereof, (ii) against the approval of any proposal made in opposition to or in competition with the merger agreement or the consummation of the merger as provided in the merger agreement, including any Acquisition Proposal (as defined in the merger agreement) and (iii) against (A) any merger, rights offering, reorganization, recapitalization or liquidation involving us or any of our subsidiaries (other than the merger), (B) a sale or transfer of a material amount of assets or capital stock of us or any of our subsidiaries or (C) any other action that is intended, or could reasonably be expected to, impede, interfere with, delay, postpone or adversely affect the merger or any of the other transactions contemplated by the merger agreement.

As of June 20, 2010, the Pershing Square Group beneficially owned approximately 9.9% of our outstanding shares of common stock, which represents 21.9% of the voting power for purposes of the majority of the minority approval.

The voting agreements will terminate when the first of the following occurs: (i) the special committee determines an Acquisition Proposal is a Superior Proposal (as such term is defined in the merger agreement); (ii) the merger agreement is terminated, including in connection with a termination by us in order to enter into an agreement with respect to a Superior Proposal; (iii) the merger agreement is further amended, or any provision thereunder is waived, that reduces or changes the form of the merger consideration, adds or modifies any closing condition, materially delays the closing of the merger or adversely affects in any material respect the rights or obligations of the parties under the voting agreement as of the date of the voting agreement; (iv) December 31, 2010; (v) the effective time of the merger under the merger agreement; and (vi) the agreement of the parties to terminate the voting agreements (subject to Parent’s consent).

If you fail to vote on the merger agreement, the effect will be the same as a vote against the approval of the merger agreement for purposes of calculating whether a majority of the outstanding shares have voted to approve the merger agreement and the merger, but will have no effect for purposes of calculating whether the majority of the minority approval has been obtained. If you do not vote in favor of the approval and adoption of the merger agreement and you fulfill the procedural requirements that are summarized in the accompanying proxy statement, Delaware law entitles you to a judicial appraisal of the fair value of your shares.

We hope you will be able to attend the meeting, but whether or not you plan to attend, please vote your shares by:

 

   

signing and returning the enclosed proxy card as soon as possible;

 

   

calling the toll-free number listed on the proxy card; or

 

   

accessing the Internet as instructed on the proxy card.

 

ii


Table of Contents

Voting by proxy will not prevent you from voting your shares in person in the manner described in the accompanying proxy statement if you subsequently choose to attend the special meeting. If you hold your shares in “street name” through a bank, broker or custodian, you must obtain a legal proxy from such custodian in order to vote in person at the meeting. You should not send in your certificates representing shares of our common stock until you receive written instructions to do so.

BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS,

 

 

Steven L. Scheinthal
Secretary

 

iii


Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

     Page

SUMMARY TERM SHEET

   1

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE SPECIAL MEETING AND THE MERGER

   13

What is the proposed transaction?

   13

What happens if the merger is not consummated?

   13

What will our stockholders receive when the merger occurs?

   13

Why am I receiving this proxy statement and proxy card?

   14

Where and when is the special meeting?

   14

What matters will be voted on at the special meeting?

   14

Who is entitled to vote at the special meeting?

   14

What happens if I sell my shares of common stock before the special meeting?

   14

May I attend the special meeting?

   14

What constitutes a quorum for the special meeting?

   14

What vote is required to approve the merger agreement and to approve the adjournment of the meeting to a later date, if necessary, to solicit additional proxies if there are insufficient votes at the time of the special meeting to approve the merger agreement?

   15

What if the merger receives the majority vote but not the majority of the minority approval?

   16

How does our board of directors recommend that I vote on the proposals?

   16

How do our directors and executive officers intend to vote?

   16

How do I vote?

   17

If my shares are held in “street name” by my broker, banker or other nominee will my broker or banker vote my shares for me?

   17

What does it mean if I receive more than one proxy card?

   17

May I change my vote?

   18

How are votes counted?

   18

Should I send in my stock certificates now?

   18

When can I expect to receive the merger consideration for my shares?

   19

I do not know where my stock certificate is. How will I get my cash?

   19

When do you expect the merger to be completed?

   19

What are the material U.S. federal income tax consequences of the merger to stockholders?

   19

Do stockholders have appraisal rights?

   19

Who is soliciting my vote?

   19

What should I do now?

   19

Who can help answer my questions?

   20

SPECIAL FACTORS

   21

Background of the Merger

   21

Recommendation of the Special Committee and Board of Directors; Reasons for Recommending Approval of the Merger Agreement

   75

Opinion of Moelis & Company

   87

Financial Analyses

   89

Comparable Public Trading Multiples Analysis

   90

Precedent Transaction Analysis

   93

Discounted Cash Flow Analysis

   96

Illustrative Leveraged Buyout Analysis

   97

Position of Tilman J. Fertitta, Parent, and Merger Sub as to Fairness

   98

Purposes and Reasons of Tilman J. Fertitta for the Merger

   98

Purposes and Reasons for the Merger of Parent and Merger Sub

   99

Purposes, Reasons and Plans for Us After the Merger

   99

 

i


Table of Contents
     Page

Effects of the Merger

   99

Conduct of Our Business if the Merger is Not Completed

   101

Interests of Tilman J. Fertitta

   102

The Voting Agreements

   102

Interests of Our Directors and Officers

   104

Special Committee

   105

Indemnification and Insurance

   105

Arrangements with Respect to Us and Parent Following the Merger

   106

Capitalization of Parent Immediately Following the Merger

   106

Capitalization of Landry’s Immediately Following the Merger

   106

Financing of the Merger

   106

Cash and Equity Contributions by Tilman J. Fertitta

   108

Debt Financing

   108

Senior Secured Credit Facility

   108

Senior Secured Notes

   109

Other Debt Outstanding

   110

Fees and Expenses of the Merger

   111

Regulatory Approvals

   111

Accounting Treatment of the Merger

   112

Provisions for Unaffiliated Security Holders

   112

Appraisal Rights of Stockholders

   112

Projected Financial Information

   113

Summary Financial Projections as of October 27, 2009

   114

Summary Financial Projections as of May 14, 2010

   114

Material United States Federal Income Tax Consequences

   115

Litigation Related to the Merger

   117

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

   120

IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING THE PARTIES TO THE TRANSACTION

   122

Fertitta Group, Inc.

   122

Fertitta Merger Co.

   122

Tilman J. Fertitta

   122

THE SPECIAL MEETING

   123

Date, Time and Place

   123

Purpose

   123

Our Board Recommendation

   123

Record Date, Outstanding Shares and Voting Rights

   123

Vote Required

   123

Voting of Proxies

   125

Revocation of Proxies

   125

Solicitation of Proxies and Expenses

   126

Adjournment of the Special Meeting

   126

THE MERGER AGREEMENT

   127

The Merger

   127

Closing; Effective Time

   127

Merger Consideration

   127

Treatment of Options and Restricted Stock

   128

Payment for the Shares of Our Common Stock

   128

Appraisal Rights

   129

Representations and Warranties

   130

Conduct of Business Prior to Closing

   132

 

ii


Table of Contents
     Page

Agreement to Use Commercially Reasonable Efforts; Consents and Governmental Approvals

   134

Special Meeting

   137

Access to Information

   137

Debt Financing

   137

Solicitation of Other Offers

   138

Notices of Certain Events

   142

Indemnification and Insurance

   142

Public Announcements

   143

Control of Operations

   143

Delaware Litigation Settlement

   143

Conditions to the Merger

   143

Termination of the Merger Agreement

   145

Expense Reimbursement; Reverse Termination Fee

   147

Fertitta Voting Agreement

   150

Limited Guarantee

   151

Amendment and Waiver

   151

Specific Performance

   151

Remedies

   152

Fees and Expenses

   152

Pershing Square Group Voting Agreements

   152

APPRAISAL RIGHTS

   153

OTHER MATTERS

   155

Other Matters for Action at the Special Meeting

   155

Future Stockholder Proposals

   156

Householding of Special Meeting Materials

   156

OTHER IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING US

   157

Our Directors and Executive Officers

   157

Selected Historical Consolidated Financial Data

   158

Discontinued Operations

   160

Price Range of Common Stock, Dividend Information and Stock Repurchases

   161

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management

   165

Security Ownership of Parent and Merger Sub

   166

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

   166

Book Value Per Share

   166

WHERE YOU CAN FIND MORE INFORMATION

   166

Annex A—Agreement and Plan of Merger

   A-1

Annex B—First Amendment to Agreement and Plan of Merger

   B-1

Annex C—Second Amendment to Agreement and Plan of Merger

   C-1

Annex D—Opinion of Moelis & Company dated May 23, 2010

   D-1

Annex E—Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law

   E-1

Revocable Proxy

   P-1

 

iii


Table of Contents

SUMMARY TERM SHEET

The following summary and “Questions and Answers About the Special Meeting and the Merger” highlight selected information contained in this proxy statement. These sections may not contain all of the information that might be important in your consideration of the proposed merger. We encourage you to read carefully this proxy statement in its entirety, including the annexes and the documents we have incorporated by reference into this proxy statement, before voting. See “Where You Can Find More Information” beginning on page . In this proxy statement, the terms “Landry’s”, the “Company”, “we”, “our”, “ours” and “us” refer to Landry’s Restaurants, Inc. and its subsidiaries. Where appropriate, we have set forth a section and page reference directing you to a more complete description of the topics described in this summary.

The Parties to the Merger (Page ).

We are a national, diversified restaurant, hospitality and entertainment company principally engaged in the ownership and operation of full-service, specialty location restaurants, with 174 locations in 27 states and Canada as of December 31, 2009. We are one of the largest full-service restaurant operators in the United States, operating primarily under the names of Rainforest Cafe, Chart House, Saltgrass Steak House, Charley’s Crab, The Oceanaire Seafood Room and Landry’s Seafood House. Our concepts range from upscale steak and seafood restaurants to theme-based restaurants, and consist of a broad array of formats, menus and price points that appeal to a wide range of markets and consumer tastes. We are also engaged in the ownership and operation of select hospitality and entertainment businesses, which include hotels, casino resorts, aquarium complexes and the Kemah Boardwalk, a 40-acre amusement, entertainment and retail complex in Kemah, Texas, among others. We also own the Golden Nugget Hotels and Casinos located in Las Vegas and Laughlin, Nevada. We believe these businesses complement our restaurant operations and provide our customers with unique dining, leisure and entertainment experiences. Our corporate office is located at 1510 West Loop South, Houston, Texas 77027, telephone (713) 850-1010.

Fertitta Group, Inc., which we refer to as “Parent”, is a Delaware corporation that, following the consummation of the merger, will own all of our outstanding common stock. Parent is wholly-owned by Tilman J. Fertitta, our Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President.

Mr. Fertitta has agreed to contribute at least $40.0 million in cash, and all of his outstanding shares of our common stock to Parent in exchange for common stock of Parent and to vote the 5,731,481 shares owned beneficially or of record by him and his affiliates as of June 16, 2008, plus up to the first 300,000 shares acquired upon exercise of his outstanding options, provided all such shares are held as of the record date for the special meeting, in favor of the adoption of the merger agreement and the approval of the merger and any actions required in furtherance thereof, as the merger agreement may be modified or amended from time to time. Mr. Fertitta further agreed that, at the special meeting or any other meeting of our stockholders, however called, and in any action by written consent of our stockholders, he will vote, or cause to be voted, 3,162,674 shares, plus up to the next 500,000 shares acquired upon exercise of his outstanding options, then owned beneficially or of record by him and his affiliates, as of the record date for such meeting or consent, in such proportion as reflects the manner in which the shares owned by our stockholders other than Mr. Fertitta and his affiliates are actually voted (with abstentions counted as “no” votes for purposes of calculating how such shares of Mr. Fertitta and his affiliates are voted), with respect to (1) the adoption of the merger agreement and the approval of the merger and any actions required in furtherance thereof, as the merger agreement may be modified or amended from time to time, and (2) any Acquisition Proposal (as defined in the merger agreement) that results in the termination of the merger agreement. As of the record date, Mr. Fertitta owned 8,894,155 shares of our common stock, including 775,000 shares of restricted stock that have not yet vested. Under the terms of his restricted stock agreements, Mr. Fertitta is entitled to vote all of his unvested shares of restricted stock.

Fertitta Merger Co., which we refer to as “Merger Sub”, is a Delaware corporation and, prior to the effective time of the merger, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent.

 

 

1


Table of Contents

The Proposal (Page ).

You are being asked to consider and vote on a proposal to approve the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of November 3, 2009, which we refer to as the “original merger agreement”, as amended by that First Amendment to Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of May 23, 2010, which we refer to as the “first amended merger agreement” and the Second Amendment to Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of June 20, 2010, which we refer to as the “second amended merger agreement,” and collectively with the original merger agreement and the first amended merger agreement, the “merger agreement”, that we entered into with Parent, Merger Sub, and, for certain limited purposes, Mr. Fertitta, pursuant to which Merger Sub will be merged with and into us and we will continue as the surviving corporation.

The merger will have the following effects when it is completed:

 

   

Parent will own all of our common stock and we will be privately owned and controlled by Mr. Fertitta through his ownership of the equity interests in Parent;

 

   

you will no longer own any shares in us;

 

   

you will no longer have an interest in our future earnings or growth;

 

   

we will cease to be a publicly traded company and will no longer be listed or traded on the New York Stock Exchange; and

 

   

we may no longer be required to file annual, quarterly and current reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or “SEC”, except to the extent such reports are required by any indenture governing the outstanding indebtedness of the surviving corporation or applicable law.

Merger Consideration (Page ).

If the merger is consummated, holders of shares of our outstanding common stock (other than shares owned by Parent or Merger Sub, shares owned by stockholders who properly exercise dissenter’s rights of appraisal under Delaware law and shares of our common stock held in treasury by us) will be entitled to receive $24.50 in cash, without interest, which we refer to as the “merger consideration”, for each share of our common stock owned at the effective time of the merger. We will be entitled to deduct and withhold from the merger consideration any amounts required to be withheld under any applicable tax law, and any such amounts so withheld shall be treated as having been paid to the holder from whose merger consideration the amounts were so deducted and withheld.

Treatment of Outstanding Options and Restricted Stock (Page ).

If the merger is consummated, each outstanding option to purchase shares of our common stock will, except as otherwise provided by the terms of the plan governing such option, become fully vested to the extent not already vested. At the effective time of the merger, all outstanding and unexercised options having an option exercise price of less than $24.50 will be cancelled and the holder of each such cancelled option will be entitled to receive a cash payment (subject to applicable withholding taxes) equal to the number of shares of our common stock subject to the cancelled option multiplied by the amount by which $24.50 exceeds the option exercise price, without interest, except that all options owned by Mr. Fertitta that remain unexercised at the effective time of the merger will be cancelled and he will not receive any cash or consideration for his unexercised options. All options having an exercise price equal to or greater than $24.50 will be cancelled without payment of any consideration therefor. In addition, each share of restricted stock will be treated in the same manner as other shares of outstanding common stock and will be cancelled and converted automatically into the right to receive $24.50 in cash, without interest, except that Mr. Fertitta’s shares of restricted stock will be contributed to Parent

 

 

2


Table of Contents

immediately prior to the effective time of the merger and cancelled and he will not receive any cash or consideration for his shares of restricted stock.

Interests of Certain Persons in the Merger (Page ).

In considering the proposal to approve and adopt the merger agreement, you should be aware that some of our directors and officers have interests in the merger that may be different from, or in addition to, your interests as one of our stockholders generally, including:

 

   

Accelerated vesting and cash-out of options held by our directors and officers other than Mr. Fertitta, which will result in the payment of consideration in the aggregate amount of approximately $193,596 to such directors and officers;

 

   

Cash-out of restricted stock held by our directors and officers other than Mr. Fertitta, which will result in the payment of consideration in the aggregate amount of approximately $243,237 to such directors and officers;

 

   

Mr. Fertitta’s ownership of us prior to the merger and his anticipated direct ownership of all of the common stock of Parent, and indirect ownership of all of our common stock following the merger;

 

   

Continued service of our officers and directors after the merger;

 

   

Subject to final court approvals, certain derivative litigation under which our directors are named parties relating to Mr. Fertitta’s proposal to acquire all of our outstanding stock in 2008 and claims arising from the current proposed merger would be terminated and thus resolved in a manner favorable to such directors upon consummation of the merger; and

 

   

Continued indemnification and directors’ and officers’ liability insurance coverage to be provided by Parent and the surviving corporation for at least six years following the effective time of the merger.

The special committee formed by our board of directors and our board of directors were aware of these interests and considered them, among other matters, prior to providing their respective recommendations with respect to the merger agreement.

Requisite Stockholder Vote (Page ).

The presence, in person or by proxy, of stockholders holding at least a majority of the voting power of our stock outstanding on the record date will constitute a quorum for the special meeting. The merger cannot be completed unless the merger agreement is approved by the affirmative vote of both (i) a majority of the outstanding shares of our common stock not owned by Parent, Merger Sub, Mr. Fertitta, and any of the other defendants named in the lawsuit entitled Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated shareholders of Landry’s Restaurants, Inc. and derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Landry’s Restaurants, Inc. v. Tilman J. Fertitta, et al., C.A. No. 4339-VCL, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Delaware Litigation”), or any of their respective affiliates and voted at the special meeting, which we refer to as the “majority of the minority approval” (for purposes of this calculation, abstentions will not be considered shares voted at the special meeting), and (ii) a majority of the outstanding shares of our common stock, which, together with the majority of the minority approval, we refer to as the “requisite stockholder vote”. Approval of the adjournment of the meeting to a later date, if necessary, to solicit additional proxies if there are insufficient votes at the time of the special meeting to approve the merger agreement requires the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares of our common stock present, in person or by proxy, and entitled to vote at the special meeting on that matter, even if less than a quorum. If you fail to vote on the merger agreement, the effect will be the same as a vote against the approval of the merger agreement for purposes of calculating whether a

 

 

3


Table of Contents

majority of the outstanding shares have voted to approve the merger agreement and the merger, but will have no effect for purposes of calculating whether the majority of the minority approval has been obtained.

As of the date hereof, Mr. Fertitta controls approximately 54.8% of our voting power and has agreed to vote the 5,731,481 shares owned beneficially or of record by him and his affiliates as of June 16, 2008, plus up to the first 300,000 shares acquired upon exercise of his outstanding options, provided all such shares are held as of the record date for the special meeting, in favor of the adoption of the merger agreement and the approval of the merger and any actions required in furtherance thereof, as the merger agreement may be modified or amended from time to time. Mr. Fertitta further agreed that, at the special meeting or any other meeting of our stockholders, however called, and in any action by written consent of our stockholders, he will vote, or cause to be voted, 3,162,674 shares, plus up to the next 500,000 shares acquired upon exercise of his outstanding options, then owned beneficially or of record by him and his affiliates, as of the record date for such meeting or consent, in such proportion as reflects the manner in which the shares owned by our stockholders other than Mr. Fertitta and his affiliates are actually voted (with abstentions counted as “no” votes for purposes of calculating how such shares of Mr. Fertitta and his affiliates are voted), with respect to (1) the adoption of the merger agreement and the approval of the merger and any actions required in furtherance thereof, as the merger agreement may be modified or amended from time to time, and (2) any Acquisition Proposal (as defined in the merger agreement) that results in the termination of the merger agreement. As of the record date, Mr. Fertitta owned 8,894,155 shares of our common stock, including 775,000 shares of restricted stock that have not yet vested. Under the terms of his restricted stock agreements, Mr. Fertitta is entitled to vote all of his unvested shares of restricted stock. As of the record date, there were 7,341,052 shares of common stock outstanding and held by stockholders other than Mr. Fertitta, Parent and Merger Sub, which includes 21,213 shares of common stock outstanding and held by the named defendants in the Delaware Litigation and their affiliates (excluding Mr. Fertitta, Parent and Merger Sub).

Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P., Pershing Square GP, LLC and Richard T. McGuire (collectively the “Pershing Square Group”) and certain of their affiliates, in their joint Schedule 13D filings with the SEC, have disclosed beneficial ownership of our common stock equal to an aggregate of 1,604,255 shares, representing approximately 9.9% of our outstanding common stock and 21.9% of the voting power with respect to the majority of the minority approval, and additional economic exposure to approximately 2,404,126 shares of our common stock under certain cash-settled total return swaps, which brings their total aggregate economic exposure to 4,008,381 shares, representing approximately 24.7% of our outstanding common stock.

On June 20, 2010, we entered into voting agreements with the Pershing Square Group whereby the Pershing Square Group has agreed, for so long as the voting agreements have not been terminated, to vote the shares of common stock beneficially owned by it, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the voting agreements, (i) in favor of the adoption of the merger agreement and the approval of other actions required in furtherance thereof, (ii) against the approval of any proposal made in opposition to or in competition with the merger agreement or the consummation of the merger as provided in the merger agreement, including any Acquisition Proposal (as defined below) and (iii) against (A) any merger, rights offering, reorganization, recapitalization or liquidation involving us or any of our subsidiaries (other than the merger), (B) a sale or transfer of a material amount of assets or capital stock of us or any of our subsidiaries or (C) any other action that is intended, or could reasonably be expected to, impede, interfere with, delay, postpone or adversely affect the merger or any of the other transactions contemplated by the merger agreement.

The voting agreements will terminate when the first of the following occurs: (i) the special committee determines an Acquisition Proposal is a Superior Proposal (as defined below); (ii) the merger agreement is terminated, including in connection with a termination by us in order to enter into an agreement with respect to a Superior Proposal; (iii) the merger agreement is further amended, or any provision thereunder is waived, that reduces or changes the form of the merger consideration, adds or modifies any closing condition, materially delays the closing of the merger or adversely affects in any material respect the rights or obligations of the parties

 

 

4


Table of Contents

under the voting agreement as of the date of the voting agreement; (iv) December 31, 2010; (v) the effective time of the merger under the merger agreement; and (vi) the agreement of the parties to terminate the voting agreements (subject to Parent’s consent).

Recommendations (Page ).

Our board of directors formed a special committee of outside, non-employee directors on August 14, 2009 to consider strategic alternatives with respect to enhancing value to our stockholders. On September 4, 2009, Mr. Fertitta sent a letter to the special committee expressing his desire to enter into formal discussions on a non-binding proposal regarding a going-private transaction and a related tax-free split-off of our wholly-owned subsidiary, Saltgrass, Inc., in which Mr. Fertitta would acquire all of the shares of our common stock that he did not own and our stockholders, including Mr. Fertitta, would receive shares of Saltgrass in exchange for their shares of our common stock. After review, the special committee rejected the proposal as inadequate. Mr. Fertitta then proposed an all cash transaction, and Mr. Fertitta and the special committee negotiated the original merger agreement.

Subsequently, Mr. Fertitta and the special committee negotiated the first and second amended merger agreements. The special committee has unanimously determined that the merger agreement and the merger are advisable, fair to and in the best interests of us and our unaffiliated stockholders, and recommended to our full board of directors that the board of directors approve the merger agreement and the merger, and that our board of directors recommend that our stockholders approve and adopt the merger agreement. After considering certain factors, including the unanimous recommendation of the special committee, our board of directors (with Mr. Fertitta taking no part in the vote or recommendation) has unanimously determined that the merger agreement and the merger are advisable, fair to and in the best interest of us and our unaffiliated stockholders, has approved the merger agreement and the merger and has recommended that our stockholders approve and adopt the merger agreement. An unaffiliated representative was not retained to act solely on behalf of our unaffiliated security holders for purposes of negotiating the terms of the merger agreement.

The board of directors (with Mr. Fertitta taking no part in the recommendation) unanimously recommends that you vote “FOR” the approval and adoption of the merger agreement.

Mr. Fertitta, Parent and Merger Sub did not undertake a formal evaluation of the merger or engage a financial advisor for the purpose of reviewing and evaluating the merits of the proposed merger from our stockholders’ point of view. However, after considering certain factors, Mr. Fertitta, Parent and Merger Sub believe the merger is fair to us and our unaffiliated stockholders.

Opinion of Moelis & Company (Page ).

On May 23, 2010, at a meeting of the special committee held to evaluate the merger, Moelis & Company LLC (“Moelis”) delivered to the special committee its oral opinion subsequently confirmed by delivery of a written opinion, dated May 23, 2010, to the effect that, based upon and subject to the limitations and qualifications set forth in the written opinion, as of the date of the opinion, the consideration of $24.00 per share in cash that was to be received by the stockholders of the Company in the merger was fair, from a financial point of view, to such stockholders, other than Mr. Fertitta, Parent, Merger Sub and their respective affiliates (the “Excluded Persons”). Moelis was not requested to, and did not, deliver an opinion in connection with the execution of the second amendment to the merger agreement on June 20, 2010 which provided for an increase of the merger consideration from $24.00 to $24.50 per share in cash. However, Moelis indicated that, in light of the second amendment, it was not withdrawing its fairness opinion, which opinion speaks as of May 23, 2010. The full text of the May 23, 2010 Moelis opinion describes the assumptions made, procedures followed, matters considered and limitations on the review undertaken by Moelis. The opinion is attached in its entirety as Annex D to this proxy statement. We encourage you to read carefully this opinion in its entirety. The opinion of Moelis

 

 

5


Table of Contents

was provided for the use and benefit of the special committee in its evaluation of the merger and does not constitute a recommendation to any stockholder as to how you should vote with respect to the merger.

What Needs to be Done to Consummate the Merger (Page ).

We will consummate the merger only if the conditions set forth in the merger agreement are satisfied or waived, where permissible. The conditions to each party’s obligations include the following:

 

   

adoption of the merger agreement by the requisite stockholder vote;

 

   

the absence of any legal restraint or prohibition that has the effect of making the merger illegal or otherwise preventing the consummation of the merger;

 

   

the expiration or termination of any applicable waiting period under the HSR Act; and

 

   

the consummation of certain equity financing and the debt financing by Mr. Fertitta and us, respectively. The debt financing has been consummated.

The obligations of Parent and Merger Sub to consummate the merger are subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the following further conditions at or prior to the effective time of the merger:

 

   

our representations and warranties contained in the merger agreement will be true and correct (without giving effect to any limitation as to materiality or Material Adverse Effect (as defined below) set forth in such representations and warranties) as of the closing date as though made at and as of the closing date (except for the representations and warranties that address matters only as of a particular date, which will remain true and correct as of such date), except where the failure of all such representations and warranties to be so true and correct would not in the aggregate reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect as of the closing date, except that neither Parent nor Merger Sub may assert that this condition has not been satisfied if the representation by Parent concerning its knowledge of inaccuracies of our representations and warranties was inaccurate as of the date of the second amended merger agreement, unless the matters resulting in the inaccuracy of such representation as of the date of the second amended merger agreement would not in the aggregate reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect as of the closing date;

 

   

we shall have performed in all material respects all of our obligations and shall have complied in all material respects with all of our agreements and covenants to be performed or complied with by us under the merger agreement prior to the effective time of the merger;

 

   

we shall have delivered to Parent a certificate, dated the date of the closing, signed by any of our executive officers or any member of the special committee, certifying our satisfaction of the closing conditions set forth in the two bullet points above; and

 

   

the partial settlement with respect to the Delaware Litigation shall have been approved by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, conditioned only on the closing of the merger.

Our obligation to consummate the merger is subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the following further conditions at or prior to the effective time of the merger:

 

   

Parent’s and Merger Sub’s representations and warranties contained in the merger agreement will be true and correct (without giving effect to any limitation as to materiality or Parent Material Adverse Effect (as defined below) set forth in such representations and warranties) as of the closing date as though made at and as of the closing date (except for the representations and warranties that address matters only as of a particular date, which will remain true and correct as of such date), except where the failure of all such representations and warranties to be so true and correct would not in the aggregate reasonably be expected to have a Parent Material Adverse Effect as of the closing date;

 

 

6


Table of Contents
   

Parent and Merger Sub shall have performed in all material respects all of their respective obligations and shall have complied in all material respects with all of their agreements and covenants to be performed or complied with by them under the merger agreement on or prior to the effective time of the merger; and

 

   

Parent shall have delivered to us a certificate, dated the date of the closing, signed by any executive officer of Parent, certifying the satisfaction by Parent and Merger Sub of the closing conditions set forth in the two bullet points above.

At any time before the effective time of the merger, our board of directors, if approved by the special committee, or the board of directors of Parent or Merger Sub, as the case may be, may (1) extend the time for the performance of any obligation or other act of any other party to the merger agreement, (2) waive any inaccuracy in the representations and warranties contained in the merger agreement or in any document delivered pursuant thereto and (3) waive compliance with any agreement or condition contained in the merger agreement. As of the date of this proxy statement, none of us, Parent or Merger Sub expects that any condition will be waived.

Termination of the Merger Agreement (Page ).

The merger agreement may be terminated at any time prior to the effective time of the merger, whether before or after stockholder approval has been obtained:

 

   

by mutual written consent of each of Parent, Merger Sub and us duly authorized with respect to Parent and Merger Sub, by their respective boards of directors or other governing body and with respect to us, by the special committee if then in existence or otherwise by resolution of a majority of our disinterested directors;

 

   

by us (with the prior approval of the special committee, if then in existence, or otherwise by resolution of a majority of our disinterested directors), Parent or Merger Sub if:

 

   

the effective time shall not have occurred on or before December 31, 2010, unless the failure by the party seeking to exercise such termination right caused, or resulted in, the failure of the merger to be consummated on or before such date;

 

   

any governmental authority enacts, promulgates, issues, enforces or enters any order or applicable law that is final and nonappealable and has the effect of preventing or prohibiting the consummation of the merger, except that such termination right shall not be available to any party (1) whose failure to fulfill any obligation under the merger agreement has been the cause of, or resulted in, any such order to have been enacted, issued, promulgated, enforced or entered or (2) that did not use reasonable best efforts to have such order vacated prior to its becoming final and nonappealable;

 

   

our stockholders, at the special meeting or at any adjournment or postponement thereof at which the merger agreement was voted on, fail to approve the merger agreement by the requisite stockholder vote, except that such termination right shall not be available to any party whose breach of any provision of the merger agreement caused, or resulted in, the failure to obtain the requisite stockholder vote;

 

   

by Parent or Merger Sub if any of the following actions or events occur:

 

   

our board of directors directly or indirectly withdraws or modifies, or publicly proposes to withdraw or modify, its recommendation in favor of the merger in a manner that is adverse to Parent or Merger Sub, unless we (acting through the special committee if then in existence or by resolution of a majority of our disinterested directors) duly call, give notice of, convene and hold the special meeting;

 

   

our board of directors (acting through the special committee, if then in existence, or by resolution of a majority of our disinterested directors) recommends to our stockholders an Acquisition

 

 

7


Table of Contents
 

Proposal (as defined below) or resolves or publicly proposes to recommend an Acquisition Proposal or enters into any letter of intent or similar document or any contract accepting any Acquisition Proposal, unless we (acting through the special committee if then in existence or by resolution of a majority of our disinterested directors) duly call, give notice of, convene and hold the special meeting (other than if our board (acting through the special committee if then in existence or by resolution of a majority of our disinterested directors) enters into a contract accepting an Acquisition Proposal); or

 

   

we intentionally or materially breach any of our obligations under the merger agreement relating to the solicitation of Acquisition Proposals;

 

   

by Parent or Merger Sub if there has been a breach by us (other than a breach caused by any action taken or omitted to be taken by or at the direction of Mr. Fertitta) of any representation, warranty, covenant or agreement contained in the merger agreement, or if any representation or warranty of us becomes untrue, in either case that would result in a failure of our representations and warranties contained in the merger agreement to be true and correct (without giving effect to any limitation as to materiality or Material Adverse Effect set forth in such representations and warranties) as of the closing date as though made at and as of the closing date (except for the representations and warranties that address matters only as of a particular date, which will remain true and correct as of such date), except where the failure of all such representations and warranties to be so true and correct would not in the aggregate reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect as of the closing date, or that would result in our failure to perform in all material respects all of our obligations or to comply in all material respects with all of our agreements and covenants to be performed or complied with by us under the merger agreement prior to the effective time of the merger, except that Parent and Merger Sub may not terminate unless (1) neither Parent nor Merger Sub is in material breach of any of its obligations (including, in the case of Parent, Mr. Fertitta’s guarantee obligations) or any of its representations and warranties under the merger agreement, (2) Parent has delivered written notice to us of such breach and (3) if such breach is capable of being cured by us within thirty days after the delivery of such notice, Parent may not terminate the merger agreement until the earlier of the expiration of such thirty-day period and December 31, 2010;

 

   

by us (acting through the special committee if then in existence or by resolution of a majority of our disinterested directors) if:

 

   

there has been a breach by Parent or Merger Sub of any representation, warranty, covenant or agreement contained in the merger agreement, or if any representation or warranty of Parent or Merger Sub becomes untrue, in either case that would result in a failure of Parent’s and Merger Sub’s representations and warranties contained in the merger agreement to be true and correct (without giving effect to any limitation as to materiality or Parent Material Adverse Effect set forth in such representations and warranties) as of the closing date as though made at and as of the closing date (except for the representations and warranties that address matters only as of a particular date, which will remain true and correct as of such date), except where the failure of all such representations and warranties to be so true and correct would not in the aggregate reasonably be expected to have a Parent Material Adverse Effect as of the closing date, or that would result in Parent’s or Merger Sub’s failure to perform in all material respects all of their respective obligations or to comply in all material respects with all of their agreements and covenants to be performed or complied with by them under the merger agreement on or prior to the effective time of the merger, except that we may not terminate unless (1) we are not in material breach of any of our obligations or any of our representations and warranties under the merger agreement, (2) we, acting through the special committee if then in existence or by resolution of a majority of our disinterested directors, have delivered written notice to Parent of such breach and (3) if such breach is capable of being cured by Parent within thirty days after the

 

 

8


Table of Contents
 

delivery of such notice, we, acting through the special committee if then in existence or by resolution of a majority of our disinterested directors, may not terminate the merger agreement until the earlier of the expiration of such thirty-day period and December 31, 2010;

 

   

prior to obtaining the requisite stockholder vote, our board of directors, acting through the special committee if then in existence or otherwise by resolution of a majority of its disinterested directors, concludes in good faith, after consultation with its outside legal advisors, that the failure to terminate the merger agreement (whether or not to enter into a definitive agreement with respect to a Superior Proposal (as defined below)) could reasonably be determined to be inconsistent with its fiduciary duties to the stockholders under applicable law and we are not in material breach of our obligations under the merger agreement relating to solicitations of Acquisition Proposals and we reimburse the reasonable out-of-pocket fees and expenses incurred by Parent, Merger Sub and their affiliates in connection with the merger agreement, as provided under “The Merger Agreement—Expense Reimbursement; Reverse Termination Fee—Expense Reimbursement Payable by Us,” concurrently with such termination; or

 

   

the merger has not been consummated due to the failure to consummate the equity financing or debt financing within two business days following the satisfaction or waiver of all of the other conditions to the consummation of the merger (other than those conditions that, by their nature, cannot be satisfied until the consummation of the merger), although we may not exercise this right to terminate until 15 days following the special meeting.

Expense Reimbursement; Reverse Termination Fee (Page ).

If the merger agreement is terminated in certain circumstances, we have agreed to reimburse the reasonable out-of-pocket fees and expenses incurred by Parent, Merger Sub and their affiliates in connection with the merger agreement, up to $3.5 million in the aggregate, or $2.4 million if the action or event forming the basis for termination is an Acquisition Proposal submitted to us or the special committee or that is publicly disclosed or otherwise becomes generally known to the public before the end of the second go-shop period (as defined below). If the merger agreement is terminated in connection with a Superior Proposal, the amount of any such out-of-pocket fees and expenses paid to Mr. Fertitta shall be credited against cash amounts, including amounts received as tax “gross-ups” under Section 280G and 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, otherwise due to Mr. Fertitta in the event of his termination following an event constituting a change of control under the terms of the employment agreement, dated as of January 1, 2003, as amended, between the Company and Mr. Fertitta. We are not required to pay Parent, Merger Sub or any of their affiliates, including Mr. Fertitta, a termination fee in the event of a termination of the merger agreement. Parent has agreed to pay us a reverse termination fee of $20.0 million if the merger agreement is terminated in certain circumstances.

Except in certain events where expense reimbursement or a reverse termination fee is payable, in the case of a willful breach of any representation, warranty or covenant, Parent, Merger Sub and we have agreed that the damages suffered or to be suffered by us, in the case of a willful breach of the merger agreement by Parent or Merger Sub, or by Parent and Merger Sub, in the case of a willful breach of the merger agreement by us, will not be limited and, to the extent proven, may include the benefit of the bargain of the merger to such party, including the benefit of the bargain lost by our unaffiliated stockholders, adjusted to account for the time value of money.

Limited Guarantee (Page ).

Mr. Fertitta agreed in the merger agreement to guarantee certain of Parent’s payment obligations under the merger agreement, including the payment of fees and expenses for regulatory filings, consents and approvals, fees and expenses incurred in connection with the merger agreement, the reverse termination fee, if any, and any costs and expenses incurred by us to enforce payment of any reverse termination fee.

 

 

9


Table of Contents

Financing of the Merger (Page ).

The consummation of the merger is contingent upon the consummation of the equity financing commitment from Mr. Fertitta and the consummation of the refinancing of certain of our debt obligations, which financings, in the aggregate, together with cash on hand from Parent, Merger Sub and us, Parent has represented to us in the merger agreement will be sufficient to pay the aggregate merger consideration and any other amounts required to be paid by Parent and Merger Sub in connection with the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement. The refinancing of our indebtedness was completed on November 30, 2009.

The total amount of funds necessary to consummate the merger is anticipated to be approximately $187.0 million, consisting of (i) approximately $180.5 million to be paid to our stockholders (other than Mr. Fertitta, Parent and Merger Sub) and option holders (other than Mr. Fertitta) under the merger agreement and (ii) approximately $6.5 million to pay fees and expenses incurred in connection with the merger, which we collectively refer to as the “merger payments”.

On November 30, 2009, we (1) completed an offering of $406.5 million of 11 5/8% senior secured notes due 2015 (the “11 5/8% Notes”), which resulted in our receiving $400.1 million in net proceeds; and (ii) closed a four year $235.6 million amended and restated senior secured credit facility consisting of a $75.0 million revolving credit facility and a $160.6 million term loan. At March 31, 2010, we had outstanding (i) $28.0 million under our senior secured revolving credit facility and (ii) $152.6 million under our senior secured term loan facility. Additionally, on April 28, 2010, we completed the offering of an additional $47.0 million of 11 5/8% Notes, which resulted in our receiving $49.8 million in gross proceeds. Pursuant to these loans, up to $79.5 million of our cash and the cash of certain of our restricted subsidiaries can be used to consummate the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, so long as Mr. Fertitta or Parent contributes at least $40.0 million to the equity of Merger Sub or us. In the event the merger is not consummated, these funds will be used for general corporate purposes.

The funds to pay for the acquisition of our stock are anticipated to come from the following sources:

 

   

approximately $101.5 million of cash, which amount includes contributions by Mr. Fertitta and funds available from certain of our unrestricted subsidiaries; and

 

   

approximately $79.5 million from our cash and the cash of certain of our restricted subsidiaries.

The foregoing amounts do not include the value of all of the shares of common stock and shares of restricted stock held by Mr. Fertitta that are being contributed to Parent immediately prior to the effective time of the merger, and which will be cancelled as of the effective time, or Mr. Fertitta’s stock options that are being cancelled in connection with the merger. As of the date of this proxy statement, Mr. Fertitta owned 8,894,155 shares of our common stock, which includes 775,000 shares of restricted stock with an aggregate value of $217.9 million at $24.50 per share, and options to purchase 800,000 shares of our common stock.

We have been provided an equity commitment letter dated as of November 3, 2009, as amended on May 23, 2010 and June 20, 2010, relating to Mr. Fertitta’s cash and equity contributions to Parent.

Solicitations of Other Offers (Page ).

The merger agreement provides that during the period that began on the date of the signing of the original merger agreement and ended at 11:59 p.m., New York City time, on December 17, 2009, which we refer to as the “first go-shop period,” and then again for the period that began on the date of the signing of the first amended merger agreement and continuing until 11:59 p.m., New York City time, on July 7, 2010, which we refer to as

 

 

10


Table of Contents

the “second go-shop period,” and, together with the first go-shop period, the “go-shop periods,” we will, under the direction of the special committee, actively seek to:

 

   

initiate, solicit and encourage Acquisition Proposals, including by way of public disclosure and by way of providing access to non-public information to any person pursuant to one or more confidentiality agreements that contain terms and provisions that are substantially similar to those contained in the confidentiality agreements entered into by us or on our behalf during the 30-day period prior to the date of the original merger agreement with persons having a potential interest in making an Acquisition Proposal; and

 

   

enter into and maintain, or participate in, discussions or negotiations with respect to Acquisition Proposals or otherwise cooperate with or assist or participate in, or facilitate any such inquiries, proposals, discussions or negotiations or the making of any Acquisition Proposals; and

The second go-shop period may be extended, if deemed necessary by the special committee, for a period of at least 15 days to permit additional due diligence to be conducted with respect to us. Under the terms of the second go-shop period, the special committee will cause letters to be sent to all persons that have been contacted by the special committee or its representatives in connection with the solicitation of Acquisition Proposals stating that all Acquisition Proposals will be considered by the special committee. Any Acquisition Proposal must state the person’s willingness to proceed without Mr. Fertitta and our senior management and may also include terms for an Acquisition Proposal that assumes Mr. Fertitta and our senior management continue with us. In addition, we will reimburse up to $500,000 in actual out-of-pocket due diligence costs incurred in connection with the due diligence investigation of us by up to the two highest bidders, provided that each such bidder submits a proposal to acquire us at a price that exceeds $24.00 per share that is reasonably likely to lead to a Superior Proposal but which does not result in a consummated transaction. The special committee will waive standstills, except for hostile offers or open market transactions in our securities, to permit proposals during the second go-shop period and will permit requests for waivers of standstills to be made thereafter.

In connection with the go-shop process, the special committee may ultimately decide to give Mr. Fertitta an opportunity to top any Superior Proposal if providing that opportunity is, in the special committee’s judgment, consistent with share value maximization. If the special committee provides that opportunity to Mr. Fertitta, then it must likewise provide any other bidder that has made a Superior Proposal with the same opportunity to top any Superior Proposal by Mr. Fertitta if that would be, in the special committee’s judgment, consistent with share value maximization. The special committee’s counsel and/or Moelis will provide plaintiff’s counsel in the Delaware Litigation with information regarding all written and material oral communications with actual or potential bidders on a real-time basis (i.e., in advance of communications or within 24 hours thereof).

After the end of each go-shop period and until the effective time of the merger or the earlier termination of the merger agreement, we have agreed that we will not, and will use reasonable efforts to cause our representatives not to, directly or indirectly:

 

   

initiate, solicit or encourage (including by way of providing non-public information) the submission of any Acquisition Proposal or engage in any substantive discussions or negotiations with respect thereto; or

 

   

approve or recommend, or publicly propose to approve or recommend, an Acquisition Proposal or enter into any merger agreement, letter of intent, agreement in principle, share purchase agreement, asset purchase agreement or share exchange agreement, option agreement or other similar agreement providing for or relating to an Acquisition Proposal or consummate any such transaction or enter into any agreement or agreement in principle requiring us to abandon, terminate or fail to consummate the merger or any of the other transactions contemplated by the merger agreement or resolve or agree to do any of the foregoing.

However, under certain circumstances, our board of directors, acting through the special committee if then in existence or otherwise by resolution of a majority of disinterested directors: (1) from and after the end of each

 

 

11


Table of Contents

go-shop period, may continue discussions or negotiations with any third party with respect to an Acquisition Proposal if such discussions or negotiations commenced prior to the end of the go-shop period and were ongoing as of the end of the go-shop period; and (2) may respond to an unsolicited Acquisition Proposal, withdraw or modify its recommendation to stockholders in favor of the merger, terminate the merger agreement or enter into an acquisition agreement with respect to a Superior Proposal, in each case so long as we comply with certain terms of the merger agreement described under “The Merger Agreement—Solicitation of Other Offers.”

Prior to terminating the merger agreement or entering into an agreement with respect to an Acquisition Proposal, we are required to comply with certain terms of the merger agreement described under “The Merger Agreement—Solicitation of Other Offers.”

An “Acquisition Proposal”, as defined in the merger agreement, means any bona fide inquiry, offer or proposal (other than from Parent or Merger Sub or their respective affiliates) concerning any (i) merger, consolidation, business combination, recapitalization, liquidation, dissolution or similar transaction involving us, (ii) direct or indirect sale, lease, pledge or other disposition of our assets or business representing 15% or more of our consolidated revenues, net income or assets, in a single transaction or a series of related transactions, (iii) our issuance, sale or other disposition to any person or group (other than Parent or Merger Sub or any of their respective affiliates) of securities (or options, rights or warrants to purchase, or securities convertible into or exchangeable for, such securities) representing 15% or more of our voting power, or (iv) transaction or series of related transactions in which any person or group (other than Parent or Merger Sub or their respective affiliates) acquires beneficial ownership, or the right to acquire beneficial ownership, of 15% or more of our outstanding common stock.

A “Superior Proposal”, as defined in the merger agreement, means an Acquisition Proposal (except the references therein to “15%” shall be replaced by “50%”) which was not obtained in violation of the solicitation provisions of the merger agreement, and which our board of directors, acting through the special committee, if then in existence, or a majority of disinterested directors, in good faith determines (after consultation with our financial advisors and outside counsel), taking into account the various legal, financial and regulatory aspects of the proposal, including the financing terms thereof, and the person making the proposal, (i) if accepted, is reasonably likely to be consummated and (ii) if consummated, would result in a transaction that is more favorable to our stockholders, from a financial point of view, than the merger.

Material United States Federal Income Tax Consequences (Page ).

In general, the receipt of cash in exchange for shares of our common stock pursuant to the merger will be a taxable sale transaction for U.S. federal income tax purposes. In general, you will recognize gain or loss as a result of the merger in an amount equal to the difference, if any, between the cash you receive and your tax basis in the shares of our common stock you surrender. Payment of the cash consideration to a holder of our common stock with respect to the disposition of shares of our common stock pursuant to the merger may be subject to information reporting. A holder of our common stock may also be subject to U.S. backup withholding tax at the applicable rate (currently 28%), unless the holder of our common stock properly certifies as to its taxpayer identification number or otherwise establishes an exemption from backup withholding and complies with all other applicable requirements of the backup withholding rules. The tax consequences of the merger to you will depend upon your particular circumstances. You should consult your tax advisor for a full understanding of the U.S. federal, state, local and non-U.S. tax consequences of the merger to you.

Accounting Treatment of the Merger (Page ).

For financial accounting purposes the Company is expected to retain its historical cost basis accounting records as the transaction is between entities under common control.

 

 

12


Table of Contents

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE SPECIAL MEETING AND THE MERGER

The following questions and answers are intended to address some commonly asked questions regarding the special meeting and the proposed merger. These questions and answers may not address all the questions that may be important to you as one of our stockholders. Please refer to the more detailed information contained elsewhere in this proxy statement, the annexes to this proxy statement and the documents referred to or incorporated by reference in this proxy statement.

 

Q: What is the proposed transaction?

 

A: The proposed transaction is the merger of Merger Sub with and into us pursuant to the merger agreement. Once the merger agreement has been adopted by our stockholders and the other closing conditions under the merger agreement have been satisfied or waived, Merger Sub will merge with and into us and we will continue as the surviving corporation.

The merger will have the following effects when it is completed:

 

   

Parent will own all of our common stock and we will be privately owned and controlled by Mr. Fertitta through his ownership of the equity interests in Parent;

 

   

you will no longer own any shares in us;

 

   

you will no longer have an interest in our future earnings or growth;

 

   

we will cease to be a publicly traded company and will no longer be listed or traded on the New York Stock Exchange; and

 

   

we may no longer be required to file annual, quarterly and current reports with the SEC, except to the extent such reports are required by any indenture governing the outstanding indebtedness of the surviving corporation or applicable law.

 

Q: What happens if the merger is not consummated?

 

A: If the merger agreement is not approved by our stockholders or if the merger is not consummated for any other reason, you will not receive any payment for your shares in connection with the merger. Instead, we will remain an independent public company and our common stock will continue to be listed and traded on the New York Stock Exchange. In addition, if the merger is not consummated, we expect that, except as otherwise noted in this proxy statement, management will operate our business in a manner similar to the manner in which it currently is being operated and that our stockholders will continue to be subject to the same risks and opportunities as they currently are.

Under specified circumstances, we may be required to reimburse Parent for some of its out-of-pocket expenses, or Parent may be required to pay us a reverse termination fee, in each case as described under “The Merger Agreement—Expense Reimbursement; Reverse Termination Fee” beginning on page . In certain circumstances where we are required to reimburse Parent’s expenses or in the event Parent is required to pay us a reverse termination fee, payment of such amounts will be the receiving party’s exclusive remedy with respect to any liability or obligation relating to or arising out of the merger agreement or the transactions contemplated thereby.

 

Q: What will our stockholders receive when the merger occurs?

 

A: For every share of our common stock owned at the effective time of the merger, a stockholder (other than Mr. Fertitta, Parent, Merger Sub, us or stockholders who properly exercise dissenters’ rights of appraisal under Delaware law) will have the right to receive $24.50 in cash, without interest, less any applicable withholding taxes.

 

13


Table of Contents
Q: Why am I receiving this proxy statement and proxy card?

 

A: You are being asked to consider and vote upon a proposal to approve and adopt a merger agreement that we entered into on November 3, 2009, as amended on May 23, 2010 and June 20, 2010. The original merger agreement and amended merger agreements are attached as Annexes A, B and C, respectively, to this proxy statement. We urge you to read them carefully. In the event that there are not sufficient votes at the time of the special meeting to adopt the merger agreement, stockholders may also be asked to vote upon the adjournment of the special meeting to a later date so that we may solicit additional proxies. See “The Merger Agreement” beginning on page .

 

Q: Where and when is the special meeting?

 

A: We will hold a special meeting of our stockholders on , 2010 at 10:00 a.m. Houston time, at our corporate office located at 1510 West Loop South, Houston, Texas 77027.

 

Q: What matters will be voted on at the special meeting?

 

A: You will be asked to consider and vote on the following proposals:

 

   

to approve and adopt the merger agreement;

 

   

to approve the adjournment of the special meeting to a later date, if necessary, to solicit additional proxies if there are insufficient votes at the time of the special meeting to approve and adopt the merger agreement; and

 

   

to transact such other business as may properly come before the special meeting or any adjournment or postponement of the special meeting.

 

Q: Who is entitled to vote at the special meeting?

 

A: The record date for the special meeting is , 2010. Only holders of our outstanding common stock at the close of business on the record date are entitled to notice of, and to vote at, the special meeting or any adjournment or postponement thereof. On the record date, there were 16,235,207 shares of our common stock outstanding of which Mr. Fertitta owned 8,894,155 shares or 54.8%. Additionally, the Pershing Square Group beneficially owned 1,604,255 shares representing approximately 9.9% of our outstanding common stock, which represents 21.9% of the voting power for purposes of the majority of the minority approval.

 

Q: What happens if I sell my shares of common stock before the special meeting?

 

A: The record date for the special meeting is earlier than the expected date of the merger. If you transfer your shares of common stock after the record date but before the special meeting, you will, unless other arrangements are made, retain your right to vote at the special meeting but will transfer the right to receive the merger consideration to the person to whom you transfer your shares.

 

Q: May I attend the special meeting?

 

A: All stockholders of record as of the close of business on , 2010, the record date for the special meeting, may attend the special meeting.

If your shares are held in “street name” by your broker, bank or other nominee, and you plan to attend the special meeting, you must present proof of your ownership of our common stock, such as a bank or brokerage account statement, to be admitted to the meeting. You also must present at the meeting a proxy issued to you by the holder of record of your shares.

 

Q: What constitutes a quorum for the special meeting?

 

A:

The presence, in person or by proxy, of stockholders holding at least a majority of the voting power of our common stock outstanding on the record date will constitute a quorum for the special meeting. Mr. Fertitta

 

14


Table of Contents
 

owns 54.8% of our outstanding stock, which constitutes a quorum for the special meeting, and has indicated that such shares will be present at the special meeting.

 

Q: What vote is required to approve the merger agreement and to approve the adjournment of the meeting to a later date, if necessary, to solicit additional proxies if there are insufficient votes at the time of the special meeting to approve the merger agreement?

 

A: The merger cannot be completed unless the merger agreement is approved by the affirmative vote of both (i) a majority of the outstanding shares of our common stock not owned by Parent, Merger Sub, Mr. Fertitta, and any of the other defendants named in the Delaware Litigation, or any of their respective affiliates and voted at the special meeting, which we sometimes refer to as the “majority of the minority approval” (for purposes of this calculation, abstentions will not be considered shares voted at the special meeting), and (ii) a majority of the outstanding shares of our common stock, which, together with the majority of the minority approval, we refer to as the “requisite stockholder vote”. Approval of the adjournment of the meeting to a later date, if necessary, to solicit additional proxies if there are insufficient votes at the time of the special meeting to approve the merger agreement requires the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares of our common stock present, in person or by proxy, and entitled to vote at the special meeting on that matter, even if less than a quorum. If you fail to vote on the merger agreement, the effect will be the same as a vote against the approval of the merger agreement for purposes of calculating whether a majority of the outstanding shares have voted to approve the merger agreement and the merger, but will have no effect for purposes of calculating whether the majority of the minority approval has been obtained.

As of the date hereof, Mr. Fertitta controls approximately 54.8% of our voting power and has agreed to vote the 5,731,481 shares owned beneficially or of record by him and his affiliates as of June 16, 2008, plus up to the first 300,000 shares acquired upon exercise of his outstanding options, provided all such shares are held as of the record date for the special meeting, in favor of the adoption of the merger agreement and the approval of the merger and any actions required in furtherance thereof, as the merger agreement may be modified or amended from time to time. Mr. Fertitta further agreed that, at the special meeting or any other meeting of our stockholders, however called, and in any action by written consent of our stockholders, he will vote, or cause to be voted, 3,162,674 shares, plus up to the next 500,000 shares acquired upon exercise of his outstanding options, then owned beneficially or of record by him and his affiliates, as of the record date for such meeting or consent, in such proportion as reflects the manner in which the shares owned by our stockholders other than Mr. Fertitta and his affiliates are actually voted (with abstentions counted as “no” votes for purposes of calculating how such shares of Mr. Fertitta and his affiliates are voted), with respect to (1) the adoption of the merger agreement and the approval of the merger and any actions required in furtherance thereof, as the merger agreement may be modified or amended from time to time, and (2) any Acquisition Proposal (as defined in the merger agreement) that results in the termination of the merger agreement. As of the record date, Mr. Fertitta owned 8,894,155 shares of our common stock, including 775,000 shares of restricted stock that have not yet vested. Under the terms of his restricted stock agreements, Mr. Fertitta is entitled to vote all of his unvested shares of restricted stock. As of the record date, there were 7,341,052 shares of common stock outstanding and held by stockholders other than Mr. Fertitta, Parent and Merger Sub, which includes 21,213 shares of common stock outstanding and held by the named defendants in the Delaware Litigation and their affiliates (excluding Mr. Fertitta, Parent and Merger Sub). Mr. Fertitta has indicated that he intends to vote in favor of the adjournment of the meeting to a later date, if necessary, to solicit additional proxies if there are insufficient votes at the time of the special meeting to approve the merger agreement, which will ensure that the adjournment proposal is approved.

On June 20, 2010, we entered into voting agreements with the Pershing Square Group whereby the Pershing Square Group has agreed, for so long as the voting agreements have not been terminated, to vote the shares of common stock beneficially owned by it, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the voting agreements, (i) in favor of the adoption of the merger agreement and the approval of other actions required in furtherance thereof, (ii) against the approval of any proposal made in opposition to or in competition with the merger agreement or the consummation of the merger as provided in the merger agreement, including any Acquisition Proposal and (iii) against (A) any merger,

 

15


Table of Contents

rights offering, reorganization, recapitalization or liquidation involving us or any of our subsidiaries (other than the merger), (B) a sale or transfer of a material amount of assets or capital stock of us or any of our subsidiaries or (C) any other action that is intended, or could reasonably be expected to, impede, interfere with, delay, postpone or adversely affect the merger or any of the other transactions contemplated by the merger agreement.

As of June 20, 2010, the Pershing Square Group beneficially owned approximately 9.9% of our outstanding shares of common stock, which represents 21.9% of the voting power for purposes of the majority of the minority approval.

The voting agreements will terminate when the first of the following occurs: (i) the special committee determines an Acquisition Proposal is a Superior Proposal; (ii) the merger agreement is terminated, including in connection with a termination by us in order to enter into an agreement with respect to a Superior Proposal; (iii) the merger agreement is further amended, or any provision thereunder is waived, that reduces or changes the form of the merger consideration, adds or modifies any closing condition, materially delays the closing of the merger or adversely affects in any material respect the rights or obligations of the parties under the voting agreement as of the date of the voting agreement; (iv) December 31, 2010; (v) the effective time of the merger under the merger agreement; and (vi) the agreement of the parties to terminate the voting agreements (subject to Parent’s consent).

 

Q: What if the merger receives the majority vote but not the majority of the minority approval?

 

A: The merger will not be consummated if the majority of the minority approval is not received. However, in such event, if the proposal to adjourn the special meeting is approved, we may determine to adjourn the special meeting to a later date to solicit additional proxies.

 

Q: How does our board of directors recommend that I vote on the proposals?

 

A: The board of directors (with Mr. Fertitta taking no part in the recommendations) recommends that you vote:

 

   

“FOR” the proposal to approve and adopt the merger agreement; and

 

   

“FOR” the adjournment of the special meeting to a later date, if necessary, to solicit additional proxies if there are insufficient votes at the time of the special meeting to approve and adopt the merger agreement.

You should read “Special Factors—Recommendation of the Special Committee and Board of Directors; Reasons for Recommending Approval of the Merger Agreement” beginning on page for a discussion of factors that our board of directors considered in deciding to recommend the approval of the merger agreement. See also “Special Factors—Interests of Our Directors and Officers” beginning on page .

 

Q: How do our directors and executive officers intend to vote?

 

A: As of the record date, our directors and executive officers (excluding Mr. Fertitta) held and are entitled to vote, in the aggregate, 23,212 shares of our common stock, representing less than 1% of our outstanding shares, excluding options to purchase shares of our common stock. We believe our directors and executive officers (excluding Mr. Fertitta) intend to vote all of their shares of our common stock owned as of the record date “FOR” the approval and adoption of the merger agreement and “FOR” the adjournment of the special meeting to a later date, if necessary, to solicit additional proxies if there are insufficient votes at the time of the special meeting to approve and adopt the merger agreement. The shares of our common stock owned by our officers and directors that are defendants in the Delaware Litigation will not constitute shares eligible for the majority of the minority approval and therefore will not be counted in determining if the majority of the minority approval has been received.

Moreover, Mr. Fertitta has agreed in the merger agreement to vote the 5,731,481 shares owned beneficially or of record by him and his affiliates as of June 16, 2008, plus up to the first 300,000 shares acquired upon exercise of his outstanding options, provided all such shares are held as of the record date for the special

 

16


Table of Contents

meeting, in favor of the adoption of the merger agreement and the approval of the merger and any actions required in furtherance thereof, as the merger agreement may be modified or amended from time to time. Mr. Fertitta further agreed that, at the special meeting or any other meeting of our stockholders, however called, and in any action by written consent of our stockholders, he will vote, or cause to be voted, 3,162,674 shares, plus up to the next 500,000 shares acquired upon exercise of his outstanding options, then owned beneficially or of record by him and his affiliates, as of the record date for such meeting or consent, in such proportion as reflects the manner in which the shares owned by our stockholders other than Mr. Fertitta and his affiliates are actually voted (with abstentions counted as “no” votes for purposes of calculating how such shares of Mr. Fertitta and his affiliates are voted), with respect to (1) the adoption of the merger agreement and the approval of the merger and any actions required in furtherance thereof, as the merger agreement may be modified or amended from time to time, and (2) any Acquisition Proposal that results in the termination of the merger agreement. As of the record date, Mr. Fertitta owned 8,894,155 shares of our common stock, including 775,000 shares of restricted stock that have not yet vested. Under the terms of his restricted stock agreements, Mr. Fertitta is entitled to vote all of his unvested shares of restricted stock. Mr. Fertitta has indicated that he intends to vote “FOR” the adjournment of the meeting to a later date, if necessary, to solicit additional proxies if there are insufficient votes at the time of the special meeting to approve the merger agreement, which will ensure that the adjournment proposal is approved.

 

Q: How do I vote?

 

A: After carefully reading and considering the information contained in this proxy statement, and whether or not you plan to attend the special meeting in person, please complete, sign, date and return your proxy card in the enclosed return envelope as soon as possible so that your shares will be represented and voted at the special meeting. In addition, you may deliver your proxy via telephone or via the Internet in accordance with the instructions on the enclosed proxy card or the voting instruction form received from any broker, bank or other nominee that may hold shares of our common stock on your behalf. If you sign your proxy and do not indicate how you want to vote, your shares will be voted “FOR” the approval and adoption of the merger agreement, “FOR” the adjournment of the special meeting, if necessary, to solicit additional proxies, and in accordance with the recommendations of our board of directors on any other matters properly brought before the special meeting for a vote. Please remember that if you fail to vote on the merger agreement, the effect will be the same as a vote against the approval and adoption of the merger agreement for purposes of calculating whether a majority of the outstanding shares have voted to approve the merger agreement and the merger, but will have no effect for purposes of calculating whether the majority of the minority approval has been obtained.

 

Q: If my shares are held in “street name” by my broker, banker or other nominee will my broker or banker vote my shares for me?

 

A: Your broker, banker or other nominee will not vote your shares of our common stock without specific instructions from you. You should instruct your broker, banker or other nominee to vote your shares of our common stock by following the instructions provided to you by such firm. Failure to instruct your broker to vote your shares will have the effect of voting against approval and adoption of the merger agreement for purposes of calculating whether a majority of the outstanding shares have voted to approve the merger agreement and the merger, but will have no effect for purposes of calculating whether the majority of the minority approval has been obtained.

 

Q: What does it mean if I receive more than one proxy card?

 

A: This means you own shares of common stock that are registered under different names. For example, you may own some shares directly as a stockholder of record and other shares through a broker or you may own shares through more than one broker. In these situations, you will receive multiple sets of proxy materials. You must complete, sign, date and return all of the proxy cards or follow the instructions for any alternative voting procedure on each of the proxy cards that you receive in order to vote all of the shares you own. Each proxy card you receive comes with its own prepaid return envelope; if you vote by mail, make sure you return each proxy card in the return envelope that accompanies that proxy card.

 

17


Table of Contents
Q: May I change my vote?

 

A: Yes. You may change your vote at any time before your proxy is voted at the special meeting. You may do this by (i) delivering prior to the special meeting a written notice of revocation addressed to our Secretary at the address under “Other Important Information Regarding Us” beginning on page , (ii) completing and submitting prior to the special meeting a new proxy card bearing a later date, (iii) submitting a later-dated proxy using the telephone or Internet voting procedures on the proxy card prior to the deadline of 11:59 p.m., Houston time, on , 2010 or (iv) attending the special meeting and voting in person. Simply attending the special meeting, without voting in person, will not revoke your proxy. If your shares are held in “street name” and you have instructed a broker to vote your shares, you must follow directions received from your broker to change your vote or to vote at the special meeting.

 

Q: How are votes counted?

 

A: For the proposal to approve and adopt the merger agreement, you may vote “FOR”, “AGAINST” or “ABSTAIN”. If you abstain or fail to vote, it will have the same effect as if you voted against the approval and adoption of the merger agreement for purposes of calculating whether a majority of the outstanding shares have voted to approve the merger agreement and the merger, but will have no effect for purposes of calculating whether the majority of the minority approval has been obtained. If your shares are held in the name of a broker, bank or other nominee, your broker, bank or other nominee will not be entitled to vote your shares in the absence of specific instructions, which, if not given, will have the effect of a vote against approval and adoption of the merger agreement for purposes of calculating whether a majority of the outstanding shares have voted to approve the merger agreement and the merger, but will have no effect for purposes of calculating whether the majority of the minority approval has been obtained. Mr. Fertitta will vote, or cause to be voted, 3,162,674 shares, plus up to 500,000 shares acquired upon exercise of his outstanding options (to the extent such shares are acquired subsequent to the exercise of options by Mr. Fertitta to acquire 300,000 shares), then owned beneficially or of record by him and his affiliates, as of the record date for the special meeting, with respect to the adoption of the merger agreement in such proportion as reflects the manner in which the shares owned by our stockholders other than Mr. Fertitta and his affiliates are actually voted. Abstentions will be counted as “no” votes for purposes of calculating how such shares of Mr. Fertitta and his affiliates are voted.

Additionally, subject to the terms and conditions of their voting agreements, the Pershing Square Group has agreed, for so long as the voting agreements have not been terminated, to vote the common stock beneficially owned by it, which represents 21.9% of the voting power for purposes of the majority of the minority approval, for the merger agreement. See “The Merger Agreement—Pershing Square Group Voting Agreements.”

For the proposal to adjourn the special meeting, if necessary, to solicit additional proxies, you may vote “FOR”, “AGAINST” or “ABSTAIN”. Abstentions will count for the purpose of determining whether a quorum is present, but will have the same effect as a vote against the proposal to adjourn the meeting, which requires the vote of the holders of a majority of the shares of our common stock present or represented by proxy at the meeting and entitled to vote on the matter. Mr. Fertitta has indicated that he intends to vote “FOR” the adjournment of the meeting to a later date, if necessary, to solicit additional proxies if there are insufficient votes at the time of the special meeting to approve the merger agreement, which will ensure that the adjournment proposal is approved.

If you sign your proxy card without indicating your vote, your shares will be voted “FOR” the approval and adoption of the merger agreement and “FOR” the adjournment of the special meeting, if necessary, to solicit additional proxies, and in accordance with the recommendations of our board of directors on any other matters properly brought before the special meeting for a vote.

 

Q: Should I send in my stock certificates now?

 

A:

No. Promptly after completion of the merger, each stockholder entitled to receive his, her or its portion of the merger consideration will receive a transmittal letter and instructions specifying the procedures to be

 

18


Table of Contents
  followed for surrendering stock certificates in exchange for payment of the merger consideration. PLEASE DO NOT SEND YOUR CERTIFICATES IN NOW.

 

Q: When can I expect to receive the merger consideration for my shares?

 

A: If the merger is consummated and you have submitted your properly completed letter of transmittal, stock certificates and other required documents to the paying agent, the paying agent will send you the merger consideration payable with respect to your shares.

 

Q: I do not know where my stock certificate is. How will I get my cash?

 

A: The materials the paying agent will send you after completion of the merger will include the procedures that you must follow if you cannot locate your stock certificate. This will include an affidavit that you will need to sign attesting to the loss of your certificate. You may also be required to provide a bond to us in order to cover any potential loss.

 

Q: When do you expect the merger to be completed?

 

A: We are working toward completing the merger promptly after the special meeting.

 

Q: What are the material U.S. federal income tax consequences of the merger to stockholders?

 

A: In general, your receipt of cash in exchange for shares of our common stock pursuant to the merger will be a taxable sale transaction for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Since the tax consequences of the merger to you will depend on your particular circumstances, you should consult your tax advisor for a full understanding of the U.S. federal, state, local and non-U.S. tax consequences of the merger to you.

 

Q: Do stockholders have appraisal rights?

 

A: Yes. As a holder of our common stock, you are entitled to exercise appraisal rights under Delaware law in connection with the merger. If you do not vote in favor of the merger and it is completed, you may seek payment of the fair value of your shares under Delaware law. To do so, however, you must strictly comply with all of the procedures Delaware law requires. See “Special Factors—Appraisal Rights of Stockholders” and Annex E attached to this proxy statement.

 

Q: Who is soliciting my vote?

 

A: This proxy solicitation is being made and paid for by us. In addition, we have retained Mackenzie Partners, Inc. to assist in the solicitation. We will pay Mackenzie Partners, Inc. approximately $30,000 plus out-of-pocket expenses for its assistance. Our directors, officers and employees may also solicit proxies by personal interview, mail, e-mail, telephone, facsimile or by other means of communication. These persons will not be paid additional remuneration for their efforts. We will also request brokers and other fiduciaries to forward proxy solicitation material to the beneficial owners of shares of our common stock that the brokers and fiduciaries hold of record. We will reimburse them for their reasonable out-of-pocket expenses.

 

Q: What should I do now?

 

A: We urge you to read this proxy statement carefully, including its annexes and the documents referenced under “Where You Can Find More Information” beginning on page , and to consider how the transaction affects you as a stockholder. Then simply mark, sign, date and promptly mail the enclosed proxy card in the postage-paid envelope provided. Should you prefer, you may deliver your proxy via telephone or via the Internet in accordance with the instructions on the enclosed proxy card or the voting instruction form received from any broker, bank or other nominee that may hold shares of our common stock on your behalf. Please act as soon as possible so that your shares of our common stock will be voted at the special meeting.

 

19


Table of Contents
Q: Who can help answer my questions?

 

A: If you have any questions about the merger or if you need additional copies of this proxy statement or the enclosed proxy card, you should contact MacKenzie Partners, Inc., which is acting as the proxy solicitation agent in connection with the merger, at the following address.

105 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016

 

 

20


Table of Contents

SPECIAL FACTORS

Background of the Merger

We operate primarily in the restaurant, hospitality and gaming industries, which are particularly affected by trends and fluctuations in demand and are highly competitive industries. Both the restaurant and gaming industries in the United States have been severely challenged since the beginning of 2008, and the current economic conditions in the United States have continued to have a negative impact on our results of operations during 2009 and 2010. A decline in discretionary spending attributable to tighter credit markets, increased unemployment, increased home foreclosures, the decline in the financial markets and other factors have impacted our customer’s level of spending on dining out, gaming, and tourism in general. Because we operate in such highly competitive and ever-fluctuating industries, our board of directors has from time to time held discussions on strategic alternatives focused on exploring ways to enhance stockholder value.

The 2008 Proposed Transaction

On February 28, 2007, our board of directors convened to discuss, among other things, additional potential strategic alternatives for us to enhance stockholder value, including the potential (a) sale of our Saltgrass Steak House restaurant concept chain or our Rainforest Café restaurant concept chain and (b) restructuring of our indebtedness to allow us to pursue strategic acquisitions of third parties or renew our open market repurchase program with respect to shares of our common stock, which we initially commenced in November 1998 and subsequently renewed in April 2000, October 2002, September 2003, October 2004, March 2005 and May 2005. After such discussions, our board of directors determined that a sale of either our Saltgrass Steak House restaurant concept chain or our Rainforest Café restaurant concept chain would likely not enhance stockholder value because it was unlikely that either chain could be sold at a high enough multiple of EBITDA to overcome the considerable tax liabilities associated therewith. Each concept previously had been marketed to a selection of financial and strategic buyers in late 2006 with no indication of interest sufficient to enhance stockholder value net of the tax liability. Therefore, our board of directors instead determined to restructure our indebtedness to allow us to renew our open market repurchase program with respect to shares of our common stock and provide funding for the expansion of the Golden Nugget Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas. In March, July and November 2007, our board of directors authorized an additional $50.0 million, $75.0 million and $1.5 million, respectively, of open market repurchases of our common stock.

We then continued to focus on this then-current business plan through the end of 2007, which resulted in us obtaining on June 14, 2007 approximately $545.0 million of indebtedness on the Golden Nugget Hotel & Casino and repurchasing on and thereafter during 2007 approximately 5.5 million shares of our common stock.

On July 24, 2007, we were notified by the trustee under the indenture covering our $400.0 million 7.5% senior notes, that as a result of not filing with the SEC and delivering to the trustee our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 within the time frame set forth in the rules and regulations of the SEC, the trustee, upon direction of a majority of the note holders, declared the unpaid principal and interest on the 7.5% senior notes due and payable immediately. On August 29, 2007, we entered into a Stipulation of Settlement with U.S. Bank, National Association, the indenture trustee under our $400.0 million 7.5% senior notes, and certain note holders, whereby the previous acceleration of the 7.5% senior notes was rescinded and annulled. In connection with the settlement, we agreed to commence an exchange offering on or before October 1, 2007 to exchange the 7.5% senior notes for 9.5% senior exchange notes, with an option for us to redeem the 9.5% senior notes at 1% above par from October 29, 2007 to February 28, 2009 and an option for the note holders to require us to redeem the 9.5% senior notes at 1% above par from February 28, 2009 to December 15, 2011, both options requiring at least 30 but not more than 60 days notice. The exchange offer was completed on October 31, 2007 with all but $4.3 million of the 7.5% senior notes being exchanged. We also agreed to pay certain fees and costs and dismissed the pending litigation we had previously instituted against the trustee and certain note holders. As a result of the exchange, we recorded charges during the third quarter of 2007 of $7.9 million, included in interest expense, for deferred loan costs previously being amortized over the term of the 7.5% notes and $3.0 million,

 

21


Table of Contents

included in other income/expense, related to the payment of a consent fee. In connection with issuing the 9.5% senior notes, we amended our existing bank credit facility to provide for an accelerated maturity should the 9.5% senior notes be redeemed by the note holders, revised certain financial covenants to reflect the impact of the exchange offer and redeemed our outstanding term loan balance.

On December 20, 2007, Mr. Fertitta, our chairman of the board, chief executive officer and president, discussed with representatives of Jefferies & Co. (“Jefferies”) the possibility of pursuing a going-private transaction. Jefferies expressed the belief that high transportation costs, economic turmoil and an apparent credit crunch were factors which could depress stockholder value for some time and advised that a going-private transaction would be the best way to enhance stockholder value.

On January 5, 2008, our board of directors held a meeting, with Richard Liem, our chief financial officer, also participating. During this meeting, our board of directors again discussed strategic alternatives for us, as well as issues surrounding, among other things, our reduced growth opportunities resulting from lower consumer spending, the impact on us of disruptions to the credit market and our need to refinance our long-term debt during 2008, our increased costs of operating as a public company, our reduced analyst coverage, the volatile industry and market conditions in which we were then operating and their negative impact on our business, including how short-term stock price fluctuations affect perceptions about our long-term prospects. Mr. Fertitta expressed to our board of directors that he had an interest in exploring a going-private transaction with us and desired, among other things, to focus on long-range value building strategies, which strategy Mr. Fertitta believed was better suited for a non-public company. After discussion, our board of directors unanimously determined that it was advisable, advantageous and in our best interest to allow Mr. Fertitta to access and utilize our personnel and incidental corporate resources to explore a going-private transaction to enhance stockholder value. In preparing his proposal, Mr. Fertitta utilized certain of our executive management, accounting staff, secretarial staff and computer system.

On January 27, 2008, our board of directors held a telephonic meeting, with Mr. Liem, and a representative of Haynes and Boone, LLP, our outside counsel (“Haynes and Boone”), also participating. During this meeting, Mr. Fertitta delivered to our board of directors a letter in which Mr. Fertitta, acting on his own behalf, proposed to acquire, through an acquisition vehicle he would form, all of our outstanding common stock for $23.50 per share in cash by way of a merger transaction (as subsequently modified, the “2008 proposed transaction”). Mr. Fertitta stated in the proposal letter that he had spoken with potential financing sources for the proposed transaction and he was confident that he could obtain the necessary debt financing to fund the proposed transaction given that he would be contributing all our common stock that he owns and substantial additional equity in the form of cash to his acquisition company. The letter stated that it did not constitute a binding commitment by Mr. Fertitta and that a binding commitment would be subject to the execution and delivery of definitive agreements by all appropriate parties and the approval of our board of directors and a committee of our board of directors comprised of independent directors.

After discussing Mr. Fertitta’s proposal, our board of directors discussed the advisability of forming a special committee to evaluate Mr. Fertitta’s proposal. Our board of directors unanimously resolved (without Mr. Fertitta voting) to establish a special committee of three of our independent directors and delegated to the special committee the exclusive power and authority to, among other things, (a) perform a strategic alternatives analysis for us in order to determine the best strategy to enhance value to our stockholders, (b) receive, review, evaluate and study the strategic alternatives resulting from such analysis, (c) receive, review, evaluate and study Mr. Fertitta’s proposal and any other alternative proposals or strategic alternatives, (d) negotiate on our behalf, if appropriate, the terms and conditions of Mr. Fertitta’s proposal or any other alternative proposals or strategic alternatives with the applicable parties and (e) make a recommendation to our board of directors at the appropriate time as to Mr. Fertitta’s proposal or any other alternative proposal or strategic alternative. The resolutions also empowered the special committee to retain legal, financial and other advisors to assist the special committee in the fulfillment of its duties. After discussion, our board of directors appointed Michael Chadwick, Kenneth Brimmer and Michael Richmond to serve on the special committee.

 

22


Table of Contents

On January 28, 2008, we issued a press release announcing our receipt of Mr. Fertitta’s proposal letter. The press release also announced the establishment of the special committee.

On February 7, 2008, the special committee met with a representative of King & Spalding LLP (“K&S”) to discuss K&S serving as counsel to the special committee. The special committee interviewed the K&S representative with respect to the firm’s experience in mergers and acquisitions transactions, particularly in the restaurant industry, and its experience in representing special committees in considering acquisition proposals made by directors, officers or stockholders. The K&S representative also answered questions from the special committee regarding the firm’s relationships with us, Mr. Fertitta, members of the special committee and others that might pose potential conflicts or affect the ability of K&S to act as independent counsel to the special committee. The K&S representative confirmed that the firm had no prior relationships with us, Mr. Fertitta, any member of the special committee or any other person that might pose such a conflict and that the firm’s only prior involvement with us was the firm’s representation of our special litigation committee in connection with a previous stockholder derivative lawsuit (the “Derivative Suit”). The special committee discussed the significance of K&S’s prior representation of our special litigation committee in the Derivative Suit and concluded that this representation did not affect the ability of K&S to serve as independent counsel to the special committee.

On February 11, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. The special committee elected Mr. Chadwick to serve as chairman of the special committee. The special committee continued its discussions regarding the selection of a law firm to represent the special committee as its legal counsel. The special committee reviewed the qualifications of an additional law firm. After discussion, the special committee excluded the other law firm from consideration to serve as the special committee’s counsel due to such law firm having a conflict of interest. At the request of the special committee, a representative of K&S joined the meeting. The special committee asked additional questions of the K&S representative at the meeting with respect to the law firm’s qualifications to serve as legal counsel for the special committee. After discussion, the special committee determined to retain K&S as its legal counsel. The special committee made its decision to retain K&S based on a number of factors, including the reputation and experience of K&S in mergers and acquisitions transactions, particularly in the restaurant industry, and its experience in representing special committees in considering acquisition proposals made by directors, officers or stockholders. The special committee also took into consideration the fact that K&S had represented our special litigation committee in the Derivative Suit. After being selected as counsel to the special committee, K&S reviewed with the special committee the terms of Mr. Fertitta’s proposal and the power and authority delegated to it by our board of directors. K&S also made recommendations as to actions to be taken by the special committee, including a review of the legal duties of the members of the special committee, a decision on the fees payable to members of the special committee, a review of the independence of each member of the special committee, and the selection of an independent financial advisor to the special committee.

The special committee then discussed the fees to be paid to each member in addition to any regular fees paid for each meeting of a board committee. K&S provided advice to the special committee on its understanding of customary fees arrangements for members of a special committee in similar transactions. After discussion, the special committee agreed that (a) the special committee members should be reimbursed for expenses incurred in connection with their work on the special committee and (b) the chairman should be paid a fee of $60,000, and the other members of the special committee should be paid a fee of $50,000, with such fees payable prior to commencement of work by the special committee. The special committee asked K&S to contact Haynes and Boone and request that our board of directors approve these fee and expense arrangements. The special committee also asked K&S to present to the special committee at its next meeting a form of indemnification agreement between us and each member of the special committee, which would require us to indemnify each special committee member for liabilities arising out of his service on the special committee and advance each special committee member expenses related to actions or suits arising out of his service on the special committee.

On February 14, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. During this meeting, K&S reviewed with the special committee the legal duties of members of the special committee in evaluating our strategic alternatives, including a going private transaction. K&S also reviewed with the special committee the

 

23


Table of Contents

requirements for each member of the special committee to be independent and disinterested in any strategic transaction considered by the special committee, including in a sale to Mr. Fertitta. The special committee requested that K&S conduct further one-on-one interviews with each member of the special committee with regard to the independence issues. K&S also reviewed with the special committee a form of an indemnification agreement between us and each special committee member. After discussion, the special committee determined that we should enter into an indemnification agreement with each member of the special committee. The special committee also discussed the lawsuits that had been filed with regard to Mr. Fertitta’s proposal and the need for the special committee to engage special litigation counsel for these lawsuits. The special committee discussed whether it should retain a separate law firm to represent the special committee in litigation. After discussion, the special committee authorized Mr. Chadwick to begin interviewing other law firms to serve as special litigation counsel to the special committee.

During this meeting, the special committee also reviewed a list of 24 investment banks identified by the special committee members as potential financial advisors to the special committee. The special committee discussed the criteria by which it would select an investment bank to serve as financial advisor to the special committee. After discussion, the special committee agreed that Mr. Chadwick would send a letter to each investment bank requesting that it send to the special committee a proposal to serve as financial advisor to the special committee, including information on its qualifications, experience in advising special committees, particularly in connection with going private transactions, its experience in strategic transactions in the restaurant and gaming industries, its initial view on Mr. Fertitta’s proposal, and its relationships with us, Mr. Fertitta and others that might pose potential conflicts or impair the ability of the investment bank to serve as an independent advisor to the committee. Mr. Chadwick sent the request for proposal letters to each of the identified investment banks on February 15, 2008.

On February 22, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. Mr. Chadwick reported to the special committee on his discussions with law firms to serve as special litigation counsel to the special committee. Mr. Chadwick informed the special committee that, among others, he interviewed a representative of Porter & Hedges LLP (“Porter & Hedges”) with respect to the firm’s experience in representing special committees in litigation related to mergers and acquisitions transactions. Mr. Chadwick also informed the special committee that he had asked the Porter & Hedges representative questions regarding the firm’s relationships with us, Mr. Fertitta, members of the special committee and others that might pose potential conflicts or affect the ability of Porter & Hedges to act as independent special litigation counsel to the special committee and that the Porter & Hedges representative had confirmed that the firm had no prior relationships with us, Mr. Fertitta, any member of the special committee or any other person that might pose potential conflicts or affect the ability of Porter & Hedges to act as special litigation counsel to the special committee. After discussion, the special committee agreed to engage Porter & Hedges as its special litigation counsel.

The special committee then discussed the selection of a financial advisor and reviewed and discussed the materials and information received from the 24 investment banks to which Mr. Chadwick had sent a request for proposal. The special committee reviewed the materials against the criteria selected by the special committee for the selection of a financial advisor. The special committee determined that prior to selecting a financial advisor, the special committee would conduct in-person interviews in Houston, Texas with the leading candidates for the position. The special committee asked eight investment banks to participate in in-person interviews in Houston, Texas. The special committee also asked each of the eight investment banks to be prepared to discuss the terms of a proposed engagement with the special committee.

On February 26, 2008, the special committee met in Houston to conduct in-person interviews with the eight selected investment banks. The special committee first reviewed the selection criteria for its financial advisor and reviewed the qualifications of each investment bank as presented in its proposal to the special committee. After discussion, the special committee then interviewed representatives from five of the eight investment banks. These representatives discussed their respective qualifications, experience in advising special committees in connection with going private transactions, experience in and perspectives on the restaurant and gaming industries, and their initial views of Mr. Fertitta’s proposal. The special committee asked questions regarding, among other things,

 

24


Table of Contents

their firms’ qualifications and their relationships with us, Mr. Fertitta and others that might pose potential conflicts of interest or affect the ability of the firm to serve as independent financial advisor to the special committee. Each investment bank also made a proposal to the special committee regarding its fees and the other terms of its engagement.

On February 27, 2008, the special committee met again in Houston to complete the in-person interviews with the remaining three investment banks selected for in-person interviews. At this meeting, the special committee interviewed representatives from the three remaining investment banks. These representatives discussed their respective qualifications, experience in advising special committees in connection with going-private transactions, experience in and perspectives on the restaurant and gaming industries, and their initial views of Mr. Fertitta’s proposal. They also answered questions from the special committee regarding, among other things, their firms’ qualifications and their relationships with us, Mr. Fertitta and others that might pose potential conflicts of interest or affect their ability to serve as independent financial advisor to the special committee. Each investment bank also made a proposal to the special committee regarding its fees and the other terms of its engagement.

On February 29, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting during which it discussed the investment bank interviews it had conducted earlier in the week, including the qualifications of each investment bank and the proposed terms of its engagement. The special committee directed K&S to discuss with three of the eight investment banks their respective fee proposals and determine if they would be willing to modify their fee proposals if they were selected to serve as financial advisor to the special committee.

On March 3, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. During that meeting, K&S reviewed with the special committee the discussions between K&S and Haynes and Boone regarding the terms of the proposed indemnification agreement between us and each member of the special committee. After discussion, the special committee determined that it would request that our board of directors approve the indemnification agreement with each member of the special committee at the board’s next meeting.

During that meeting, the special committee also discussed engaging a financial advisor. The special committee reviewed the results of its interviews with the eight investment banks during the prior week, and K&S briefed the special committee on discussions with three of the investment banks on their fee proposals. After discussion, the special committee agreed that Mr. Chadwick should have further discussions with representatives of Cowen and Company, LLC (“Cowen”) and two of the other investment banks for the purposes of improving the fee proposals of these investment banks. Over the next few days, Mr. Chadwick and K&S had discussions with Cowen and two of the other investment banks regarding the terms of their engagement. After these discussions, Mr. Chadwick asked representatives of Cowen to meet with the special committee on March 7, 2008.

On March 6, 2008, our board of directors held a telephonic meeting during which the directors (other than Mr. Fertitta) adopted a resolution approving (a) the reimbursement of the special committee members for expenses they incur in connection with their work on the special committee and (b) the payment to the chairman of the special committee of a fee of $60,000 and the payment to each other special committee member of a fee of $50,000, as fees for serving on the special committee. Additionally, our board of directors unanimously adopted a resolution approving the indemnification agreement proposed by the special committee. We paid the fees to the members of the special committee on March 11, 2008. We and each member of the special committee executed an indemnification agreement in the form approved by our board of directors on March 6, 2008.

On March 7, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. During that meeting, Mr. Chadwick reviewed with the special committee his discussions with Cowen and the two of the other investment banks regarding their fee proposals. At the request of the special committee, representatives of Cowen then joined the meeting. The special committee further interviewed the representatives of Cowen with respect to Cowen’s qualifications to serve as financial advisor to the special committee. The special committee also questioned Cowen again on the firm’s relationships with us, Mr. Fertitta and others that might pose potential conflicts of

 

25


Table of Contents

interest or affect the ability of Cowen to serve as an independent advisor to the special committee. The Cowen representatives confirmed that Cowen had no prior relationships with us, Mr. Fertitta or any member of the special committee or their businesses. The special committee discussed with Cowen recent coverage by a Cowen analyst of Mr. Fertitta’s proposal and its effect on Cowen’s serving as financial advisor to the special committee. After discussion, the special committee determined that such coverage would not impair Cowen’s ability to serve as the special committee’s financial advisor. The Cowen representatives also discussed the terms of Cowen’s proposed engagement by the special committee to act as its financial advisor. After discussion, the special committee determined that it would need to further consider the terms of Cowen’s proposed engagement, but would like to meet with Cowen in person in Houston to continue to discuss Cowen’s selection as financial advisor to the special committee. At the request of the special committee, K&S confirmed in conversations with Haynes and Boone that Cowen did not have any prior relationships with us, Mr. Fertitta or others that might pose any conflicts of interest.

On March 11, 2008, the special committee held a meeting in the Houston office of K&S. At the request of the special committee, representatives of Cowen attended the meeting. K&S summarized for the special committee the proposed fees and other terms of Cowen’s engagement as the special committee’s financial advisor and the outstanding issues under Cowen’s proposed engagement letter. The special committee discussed with Cowen the proposed terms of its engagement, including the outstanding issues. Cowen and the special committee were unable to resolve all outstanding issues under the Cowen engagement letter at this meeting. The special committee directed K&S to negotiate further the terms of Cowen’s engagement to serve as the special committee’s financial advisor. Cowen then reviewed with the special committee generally the process that it would recommend with respect to performing a strategic alternatives analysis of us and discussed some of the issues that Cowen believed the special committee would have to address in considering the proposal from Mr. Fertitta. On March 12, 2008, Cowen provided the special committee with a preliminary list of the initial financial due diligence materials of us, including any valuations of our real property assets, that Cowen would need to review in order to begin its strategic alternatives analysis of us.

On March 18, 2008, we informed the special committee that we had engaged North Point Advisors LLC (“North Point”) to assist in the due diligence and other collateral matters in connection with the proposed transaction.

On March 24, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. K&S briefed the special committee on its negotiations with Cowen over the past two weeks regarding the terms of its engagement to serve as the special committee’s financial advisor. The special committee discussed the structure of the fees that would be paid to Cowen and the potential impact of the structure on Cowen’s independence as financial advisor to the special committee. K&S summarized for the special committee the proposed final terms of Cowen’s engagement, which, among other things, provided that Cowen would be paid a fee for its strategic alternatives analysis of us and a fee for delivering its fairness opinion in connection with the special committee’s consideration of a transaction, in each case regardless of whether or not the special committee decided to move forward with a transaction and whether or not a transaction was ultimately consummated, and both of which would be credited against the transaction fee payable to Cowen if a transaction was ultimately consummated. After discussion, the special committee unanimously agreed to engage Cowen as its financial advisor and approved the form of Cowen’s engagement letter with the special committee. In determining to engage Cowen as its financial advisor, the special committee considered Cowen’s substantial experience in the restaurant industry, the commitment of Cowen’s senior investment bankers to be involved personally in Cowen’s representation of the special committee, Cowen’s fee arrangements and the absence of any potential conflict of interest that would impair Cowen’s ability to render a fairness opinion or to act as the special committee’s independent financial advisor. Mr. Chadwick executed Cowen’s engagement letter with the special committee on March 25, 2008, which we then executed and returned to Cowen on March 31, 2008.

On March 25, 2008, Olshan Grundman Frome Rosenzweig & Wolosky LLP, legal counsel for Mr. Fertitta (“Olshan”), delivered to K&S a draft of the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement with respect to

 

26


Table of Contents

Mr. Fertitta’s proposal. K&S distributed copies of the draft of the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement to the members of the special committee. At the direction of Mr. Chadwick, K&S informed Olshan that the special committee would not respond to Mr. Fertitta’s draft of the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement or engage in any negotiations with respect to Mr. Fertitta’s proposal until Cowen completed its strategic alternatives analysis of us.

On March 28, 2008, Cowen began its financial due diligence investigation of us by providing the special committee with an updated draft of the preliminary financial due diligence request list that was discussed at the special committee’s March 11, 2008 meeting. After reviewing the list, the special committee forwarded the list to our senior management for response.

On April 2, 2008, we issued a press release announcing the special committee’s retention of Cowen as its financial advisor. The following day, Cowen began receiving from us and North Point the due diligence information Cowen had requested in order to commence its strategic alternatives analysis of us.

On April 4, 2008, Mr. Fertitta submitted a revised proposal letter to the special committee in which Mr. Fertitta reduced his per share offer price from $23.50 to $21.00. Mr. Fertitta indicated in his letter to the special committee that the reduced per share offer price was a result of the following occurrences since the date of his initial offer: (i) the credit market conditions worsening significantly, which was making it far more costly to obtain the debt financing required to consummate his proposed transaction, (ii) the economy had continued its downward trend, (iii) there was a risk of continued deterioration in the credit markets and (iv) our results of operations and our stock price had declined. Mr. Fertitta’s letter further provided that he was prepared to proceed with his proposed transaction at the revised offer price of $21.00 per share. Mr. Fertitta also provided to the special committee a letter from Jefferies indicating that it was highly confident in its ability to consummate the debt financing required to complete Mr. Fertitta’s proposed transaction. Also on April 4, 2008, we issued a press release summarizing Mr. Fertitta’s revised proposal.

On April 7, 2008, Cowen met with North Point to discuss the process by which we and North Point would continue to provide the due diligence information necessary for Cowen to conduct its strategic alternatives analysis of us. On April 8, 2008, Cowen provided North Point with a comprehensive due diligence list of documents and requested responses to topics that Cowen required to perform its strategic alternatives analysis.

On April 8, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. During this meeting, the special committee discussed with K&S and Cowen the revised proposal letter the special committee had received from Mr. Fertitta. Representatives of Cowen then updated the special committee on the progress of Cowen’s due diligence investigation of us and the discussions among Cowen, North Point and us regarding Cowen’s access to additional diligence information that Cowen had requested. Cowen also advised the special committee that Cowen had not yet received all the information that it had requested. The Cowen representatives also reported that they had informed us and North Point that Cowen would like to conduct interviews in Houston with certain members of our senior management as part of Cowen’s due diligence. K&S then gave the special committee a general overview of the terms of the draft of the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement that it had received from Olshan. After discussion, the special committee determined that it would not negotiate the terms of the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement with Mr. Fertitta until after Cowen presented to the special committee Cowen’s strategic alternatives analysis of us and the special committee determined whether or not a potential sale of us to Mr. Fertitta or a third party was in the best interest of us and our stockholders. At the request of the special committee, K&S then provided a general overview of the timeline, process and other considerations for a potential sale of us if the special committee concluded after considering Cowen’s strategic alternatives analysis that a sale of us was in the best interest of us and our stockholders.

On April 15, 2008, Cowen organized a telephone conference to discuss the status of Cowen’s financial due diligence investigation of us. The following individuals participated in the call: Messrs. Tilman J. Fertitta, Steven L. Scheinthal, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Secretary and a Director, and Richard H. Liem,

 

27


Table of Contents

Executive Vice President and our Chief Financial Officer; a representative of Olshan; a representative of North Point; representatives of K&S; and representatives of Cowen. Representatives of Cowen reviewed with the participants certain diligence materials that we had provided to Cowen and described the additional due diligence materials that Cowen previously requested but had not yet received that it required in order to complete its strategic alternatives analysis of us. After discussion, the members of our senior management team participating in the call agreed to provide the requested information promptly after the conclusion of the telephone conference.

Later that day, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. During this meeting, Cowen updated the special committee on the progress of Cowen’s financial due diligence investigation of us since the last special committee meeting, including the progress that was made during the telephone conference with members of our senior management team earlier that day. Cowen informed the special committee that upon its receipt of the remaining outstanding information requested by Cowen during the telephone call earlier that day, Cowen would be in a position to complete its strategic alternatives analysis of us. The special committee then directed Cowen to meet with our senior management in person in Houston to expedite the due diligence process, to review our business and operations and to discuss the financial projections previously provided by our senior management.

On April 16, 2008 Cowen received a substantial portion of the diligence materials that it had previously requested.

On April 17 and 18, 2008, representatives of Cowen and K&S met in Houston with representatives of North Point and members of our senior management team, including Mr. Liem, Mr. Scheinthal, Ms. Sunny Moore, Mr. Terry Turney and Mr. Keith Beitler (our Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel, Director of Operations Analysis, Senior Vice President—Saltgrass Steak House and Senior Vice President—Rainforest Café, respectively) to review our business and operations, management’s financial projections and other information that Cowen deemed relevant in preparing a strategic alternatives analysis. At these meetings, members of management answered questions from the special committee’s advisors and provided additional information requested by Cowen. Mr. Fertitta did not participate in these meetings. During these meetings, North Point informed Cowen that we had engaged the services of Snyder Valuation (“Snyder”) to perform a formal valuation of certain of our real property assets in connection with an anticipated refinancing of certain outstanding debt, and that we would provide Cowen with a copy of Snyder’s valuation. In selecting Snyder, we considered, among other things, the fact that Snyder is a nationally recognized real estate services firm with substantial experience in advising companies in the restaurant and casino industries in particular. During the prior two years, no material relationship has existed between Snyder and us. Snyder was paid $38,500 for its report.

On April 21, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting with K&S and Cowen. During this meeting, representatives of Cowen updated the special committee on the progress of their financial due diligence investigation of us and the results of their interviews with members of our senior management team that took place in Houston, Texas during the prior week. The Cowen representatives also updated the special committee on Cowen’s progress in preparing its strategic alternatives analysis and briefed the special committee on the additional information to be provided by us to Cowen to complete its financial due diligence investigation of us. The Cowen representatives discussed with the special committee the valuation information to be received on certain of our real property assets.

On April 28, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting with K&S and Cowen. During this meeting, Cowen updated the special committee on the progress of Cowen’s financial due diligence and preparation of Cowen’s strategic alternatives analysis of us. The Cowen representatives informed the special committee that they had requested but not yet received all information necessary to complete its review of strategic alternatives.

On May 5, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. During this meeting, Cowen updated the special committee on the progress of Cowen’s financial due diligence investigation of us since the last special committee meeting. Cowen then informed the special committee that Cowen had received most of the financial

 

28


Table of Contents

information requested from our senior management but was still awaiting some additional financial information and delivery by Snyder of a detailed valuation report of certain of the real property assets. Cowen further informed the special committee that, upon receiving the Snyder valuation report and the additional information requested, Cowen expected that it would be in a position to complete and present to the special committee its strategic alternatives analysis.

On May 8, 2008, Cowen notified the special committee that it had received Snyder’s valuation report of various restaurant properties, including properties for Saltgrass, Landry’s Restaurants and Chart House, and our specialty properties, including hotels, marina, and amusement and retail facilities, and the additional information requested by Cowen. In its April 2008 valuation report, Snyder valued the properties as if they were being sold to a single buyer. We did not impose any conditions or limitations on the scope of Snyder’s investigation or the methods and procedures to be followed in preparing the valuation. The values provided were appraised values of the land holdings, as the valuation report was performed by a licensed appraiser in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. In evaluating the land holdings, Snyder considered sales, leases and other data of similar property types. The properties were not individually inspected and Snyder did not consider area or neighborhood characteristics affecting the properties. In conducting the evaluation, Snyder assumed that all buildings were well maintained and operated to typical Company standards, that the properties have been built to code and are legal conforming uses, and all properties were owned by us in fee simple.

Snyder used the cost approach, the sales comparison approach and the income approach to arrive at an appraised value of what we would likely expect to receive should we decide to market and sell the properties in the current real estate market to a single buyer.

The cost approach is based upon the principle that an informed purchaser would pay no more than the cost to produce a substitute property with the same utility as the subject property. It is particularly applicable when the property being appraised involves relatively new improvements.

The sales comparison approach utilizes prices paid in actual market transactions of similar properties to estimate the value of the subject property. This appraisal technique is dependent upon analyzing comparable sales.

The income approach is widely applied in appraising income producing properties. Anticipated net operating income is converted to a present worth through the capitalization process.

The analysis indicated the market value of the properties was $320,640,000.

The foregoing summary of the Snyder report does not purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the copy of such report attached as Exhibit 99.1(c)(10) to the Schedule 13E-3 filed with the SEC in connection with the 2008 proposed transaction.

On May 11, 2008, after analyzing this report and the additional information provided by us, Cowen notified the special committee that it was in a position to present to the special committee Cowen’s strategic alternatives analysis of us.

On May 12, 2008, the special committee held a meeting in Houston. At this meeting, the special committee first reviewed and discussed the Snyder valuation report. After discussion, the special committee determined that it was appropriate for Cowen to rely on the Snyder valuation report for the purpose of its strategic alternatives analysis. Cowen then reviewed with the special committee its strategic alternatives analysis of us. Cowen’s presentation included, among other things, a review of the following information:

 

   

current trends in the restaurant and gaming industries;

 

   

our business, operations and financial results by division and concept;

 

29


Table of Contents
   

an analysis of our debt compared to the leverage levels of certain of our peer companies;

 

   

an overview of our real estate holdings;

 

   

the trading history of our stock and valuation trading trends for other restaurant companies and gaming companies; and

 

   

our industry position and a comparison of our financial and operating information with that of other restaurant companies and other gaming companies.

Cowen then reviewed with the special committee its valuation analysis of us. Cowen described the financial projections that were used by Cowen to perform its valuation analysis, including the assumptions underlying the projections, which assumptions and projections were provided by our senior management. Cowen then described how the public markets valued us on an enterprise value basis based on our publicly available information. Cowen then described how Cowen had calculated our enterprise value and our earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, which we refer to as EBITDA, based on our publicly available information, adjusted for certain non-recurring or atypical expenses discussed with our senior management, such as non-recurring litigation costs and settlement amounts, discontinued operations, excess real estate and leap year adjustments. Cowen answered questions from the special committee about the financial projections provided by our senior management, the assumptions underlying the projections, and the adjustments made by Cowen to its estimated enterprise value and EBITDA of us. After discussion, the special committee concluded that the financial projections and valuation (as adjusted) presented by Cowen provided a reasonable basis for Cowen’s valuation analysis of us.

Cowen then reviewed with the special committee its preliminary valuation analyses which estimated the implied equity value ranges per share of our common stock. The valuation methodologies used by Cowen included (i) a comparable public companies analysis, (ii) a comparable selected transactions analysis and (iii) a discounted cash flow analysis.

In addition, Cowen performed a premiums paid analysis to estimate the implied equity value ranges of the Company’s common stock. Cowen reviewed the premiums paid in all completed acquisition transactions of public companies with equity values between $250 million and $1 billion since 2007. Cowen calculated the premium per share paid by the acquirer compared to the share price of the target company prevailing one day, one week, one month and three months prior to the announcement of the transaction. Cowen reviewed the premiums for all the selected transactions and summarized the results reflected as a percentage of the 1-day, 1-week, 1-month and 3-month spot prices of the target companies’ common stock. Cowen applied this range of premiums, summarized in the “1st Quartile” and “3rd Quartile” columns in the table below, to the Company’s share price prevailing during the corresponding periods prior to each of May 8, 2008 and January 28, 2008, which was the date of announcement of Mr. Fertitta’s initial offer of $23.50 per share. Applying the range of premiums paid in the selected transactions, Cowen calculated the implied equity value per share range of the Company’s common stock set forth in the table below as compared to the per share offer price of $21.00. Cowen noted that the Company’s stock had been trading on an affected basis following Mr. Fertitta’s offer on January 28, 2008 and revised offer on April 4, 2008 and therefore did not consider this analysis material to its fairness consideration or determination.

 

     1st
Quartile
    3rd
Quartile
    Implied Value per
Share of the
Company’s
Common Stock

Spot Prices Prior to May 8, 2008

      

1-Day

   10.5   35.6   $ 17.45 – $21.40

1-Week

   13.1   37.8   $ 18.21 – $22.18

1-Month

   14.0   39.5   $ 18.36 – $22.48

3-Months

   12.5   41.6   $ 22.95 – $28.88

 

30


Table of Contents
     1st
Quartile
    3rd
Quartile
    Implied Value per
Share of the
Company’s
Common Stock

Spot Prices Prior to January 28, 2008

      

1-Day

   10.5   35.6   $ 18.42 – $22.60

1-Week

   13.1   37.8   $ 16.73 – $20.38

1-Month

   14.0   39.5   $ 22.65 – $27.72

3-Months

   12.5   41.6   $ 31.22 – $39.28

After discussion, Cowen then reviewed with the special committee various strategic alternatives that the special committee could consider when determining how best to maximize value to our stockholders. Among the strategic alternatives the special committee considered were:

 

   

the continuation of our operations as a public company and execution of our current growth plan, which would include refinancing approximately $464.0 million of our indebtedness;

 

   

the divestiture of one or more of our concepts or divisions, or a public spin-off of one of our concepts;

 

   

a sale and leaseback of certain of our real estate assets; and

 

   

a sale of us.

A copy of the full presentation dated May 12, 2008 that Cowen prepared for the special committee is filed as Exhibit 99.1(c)(3) to the Schedule 13E-3 filed with the SEC in connection with the 2008 proposed transaction and is available for inspection and copying at our principal executive offices during our regular business hours by an interested equity security holder or a representative who has been so designated in writing. The special committee discussed the advantages and disadvantages of each strategic alternative. In its discussion about the strategic alternative of continuing to operate as a public company and executing our current growth plan, the special committee considered the substantial execution risk related thereto, in particular the present constraints on our operations resulting from a highly leveraged capital structure, the high risk of us being required to refinance approximately $400.0 million of our 9.5% senior notes and our revolving credit facility during a period of credit market disruption and uncertainty, the slowdown in the general economy and general downward trends in the restaurant and gaming industries, the substantial cost of expansion of our restaurant concepts as compared to the low immediate returns that could be realized as a result of expansion and the diverse nature of our business which has resulted in the lack of analyst coverage. In its discussion about the strategic alternative of divesting one of our concepts, the special committee considered the substantial tax burden that would result from a sale of certain assets with a low tax basis, the recent substantial slow down in private equity buyer activity resulting from the depressed credit markets, the size of each concept and whether the loss of a concept would allow us to continue as a stand-alone public company, the recent flat performance of the gaming division, same store sales and the poor performance of recently opened stores, including the poor performance of recently opened Saltgrass Steak House restaurants outside of the primary Texas market. In its discussion about the strategic alternative of selling and leasing back certain of our real estate assets, the special committee considered the substantial tax burden that would likely result from this transaction, whether we would obtain adequate value for our real estate assets in this transaction based on the current national, regional and local real estate markets and the loss of operational control and increased cost of occupancy that would result from a sale and leaseback of certain of our real estate assets.

The special committee then discussed the strategic alternative of a sale of us. After discussion, the special committee determined that, when considered in relation to other strategic alternatives available to us, it was in the best interest of us and our stockholders to pursue a sale of us at this time. In making this determination, the special committee considered, among other things, our recent and projected financial performance, our current business plan, our stock price as it related to the estimated range of valuations provided by Cowen in its strategic alternatives analysis compared to Mr. Fertitta’s current offer price of $21.00, the condition of the restaurant industry and gaming industry and the special committee’s belief that the performance of these industries would

 

31


Table of Contents

likely not improve in the near-term, and the substantial risks associated with other strategic alternatives considered by the special committee.

K&S then briefed the special committee on the legal duties of the members of the special committee in connection with a potential sale of us. The special committee then discussed with Cowen the price at which the special committee should commence negotiations. After discussion, the special committee directed Cowen to commence negotiations with Mr. Fertitta’s financial advisors regarding the price at which he proposed to acquire us in his offer.

The special committee then discussed the process by which it would conduct a potential sale of us, including, among other things, the benefits and risks of soliciting competing offers for us from third parties prior to entering into negotiations with Mr. Fertitta over the terms of a merger agreement or, if the special committee was able to reach agreement with Mr. Fertitta on the sale of us, after executing a merger agreement with Mr. Fertitta. The special committee noted the risk that if a pre-signing market check were carried out Mr. Fertitta might withdraw his offer to acquire us, the risk that no bidder would come forward in this process and the risk that this process could significantly disrupt us and our operations. The special committee also discussed with Cowen the absence of any unsolicited indications of interest from other potential bidders since the announcement of Mr. Fertitta’s offer. As part of this discussion, representatives of Cowen indicated that a third party might not be willing to make a competing bid for us because of (a) Mr. Fertitta’s ownership of approximately 35% of our outstanding common stock, excluding shares of common stock issuable upon his exercise of stock options, (b) his ability to vote his shares of our common stock against a competing offer for us, (c) his severance package payable if his employment is terminated under certain circumstances after a change of control transaction with a third party, and (d) the fact that substantially all of our approximately $880 million of indebtedness may have to be refinanced if a third party acquired control of us. After discussion, the special committee concluded that if the special committee was able to reach agreement with Mr. Fertitta on the sale of us, we could effectively obtain the highest price for us by utilizing a post-signing market check, which would allow us to solicit competing offers from third parties after signing a merger agreement. The special committee discussed various ways of structuring a transaction with Mr. Fertitta in view of these factors, including potentially adjusting Mr. Fertitta’s severance compensation and “neutralizing” Mr. Fertitta’s voting rights with respect to his shares of our common stock so that he would be required to vote his shares of our common stock for or against any proposed sale of us in the same proportion as our other stockholders vote their shares of our common stock. The special committee directed K&S to engage in discussions with Olshan regarding the special committee’s process for a potential sale of us.

At the direction of the special committee, K&S contacted Olshan on May 13, 2008 to discuss the special committee’s process for a potential sale of us. K&S advised Olshan that the special committee was considering various ways of structuring a transaction with Mr. Fertitta in view of the factors discussed above, including seeking an adjustment to Mr. Fertitta’s severance compensation and “neutralizing” Mr. Fertitta’s voting rights with respect to his shares of our common stock. K&S also advised Olshan that the special committee was considering conducting a pre-signing market check for the sale of us. In a subsequent call, Olshan advised K&S that Mr. Fertitta would withdraw his offer to acquire us if the special committee determined to conduct a pre-signing market check of us prior to negotiating and entering into a merger agreement with him. In addition, Olshan advised K&S that Mr. Fertitta would not agree to adjust his severance package under his employment agreement, which had been previously negotiated and approved by the board of directors, or “neutralize” his voting rights with respect to his shares of our common stock. K&S and Olshan discussed whether Delaware law required that Mr. Fertitta agree to “neutralize” his voting rights with respect to his shares of our common stock. K&S and Olshan also discussed the possibility that the special committee may require that the sale of us to Mr. Fertitta be approved by a majority of the outstanding shares of common stock not owned by Mr. Fertitta and his affiliates (a so-called approval by a “majority of disinterested shares”).

On May 14, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. During this meeting, Cowen reported on its conversations with Jefferies regarding the offer price of Mr. Fertitta. K&S then reported to the special committee on conversations with Olshan on the process for the sale of us. K&S then provided the special

 

32


Table of Contents

committee with an updated presentation on the special committee’s legal duties in connection with a sale of us to Mr. Fertitta. After discussion, the K&S representatives recommended that the special committee engage special Delaware counsel to advise the special committee further on its legal duties under Delaware law and to engage in discussions with Mr. Fertitta’s Delaware counsel. The special committee authorized K&S to engage the law firm of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (“Morris Nichols”) to serve as the special committee’s special Delaware counsel. On May 15, 2008, K&S retained Morris Nichols as special Delaware counsel to the special committee and K&S consulted with Morris Nichols on the special committee’s legal duties.

On May 16, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. During this meeting, K&S discussed with the special committee the material terms of the draft of the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement provided by Olshan and recommended that the special committee request certain changes to the draft of the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement. Cowen then discussed with the special committee the status of Cowen’s discussions with Jefferies concerning the per share price offered by Mr. Fertitta. After discussion, the special committee gave K&S guidance on the material terms of the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and authorized Cowen to continue to discuss Mr. Fertitta’s offer price with Jefferies. Between May 16 and May 19, 2008, K&S engaged in discussions with Olshan regarding the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement.

On May 20, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. K&S updated the special committee on the discussions between K&S and Olshan regarding certain key issues under the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement. K&S informed the special committee that, among other things, Olshan reiterated that Mr. Fertitta would not agree to “neutralize” his voting rights, or to a condition requiring that a majority of the disinterested shares approve the 2008 proposed transaction. The special committee discussed the key open issues under the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement. After discussion, the special committee gave K&S guidance on how to resolve the open issues. The key open issues were as follows: (i) the issue of whether to “neutralize” Mr. Fertitta’s voting rights with respect to the 2008 proposed transaction; (ii) whether we would pay Fertitta Holdings, Inc. (“Fertitta Holdings”), Mr. Fertitta’s parent company, a termination fee if we terminated the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement to pursue a superior proposal and, if we were to pay a termination fee, the amount of the termination fee, (iii) whether Fertitta Holdings would pay us a reverse termination fee if Fertitta Holdings could not pay the 2008 proposed transaction consideration at closing and, if Fertitta Holdings were to pay us a reverse termination fee, the amount of the reverse termination fee, (iv) whether to conform the definition of “material adverse effect” in the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement to the definition of such term in the debt commitment letter, (v) whether to condition the stockholder approval of the 2008 proposed transaction on the approval of a majority of the disinterested shares, (vi) the removal of the condition to Fertitta Holdings’ obligation to close the 2008 proposed transaction that we obtain the approval of all gaming authorities and all other third-party consents to the 2008 proposed transaction, (vii) the removal of the condition to Fertitta Holdings’ obligation to close the 2008 proposed transaction that no more than 5% of our stockholders exercise their appraisal rights with respect to the 2008 proposed transaction, (viii) the special committee’s request that Mr. Fertitta personally guarantee certain payment obligations of Fertitta Holdings under the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement, (ix) the special committee’s request that Fertitta Holdings and Fertitta Acquisition Co. (“Fertitta Acquisition”), the merger subsidiary, make a significant number of additional representations and warranties in the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement, (x) the special committee’s request that the conduct of business covenants applicable to us between signing and closing be substantially reduced, (xi) an extension of the length of the post-signing 30-day go-shop period during which the special committee would be permitted to solicit competing bids for the sale of us, and (xii) the removal of the condition to Fertitta Holdings’ obligation to close the 2008 proposed transaction that all conditions to the debt financing be satisfied.

During this meeting, the Cowen representatives updated the special committee on their discussions with Jefferies regarding Mr. Fertitta’s offer price and the status of Mr. Fertitta’s debt financing for the proposed transaction. Cowen also reviewed with the special committee Fertitta Holdings’ preliminary sources and uses of funds related to Fertitta Holdings’ transaction financing, which Cowen had just received from Jefferies.

On May 22, 2008, K&S provided a revised draft of the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement to Olshan, which reflected the special committee’s positions on the key outstanding issues. On May 27, 2008,

 

33


Table of Contents

Olshan distributed a revised draft of the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement to K&S. Negotiations between K&S and Olshan on the draft of the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement continued on May 29, 2008.

On May 29, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. K&S reviewed with the special committee the revised draft of the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement distributed by Olshan. K&S noted that Olshan had made the following material changes to the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement: (a) Fertitta Holdings and Fertitta Acquisition made a significant number of additional representations and warranties in the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement; (b) Fertitta Holdings would pay us a reverse termination fee if the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement is terminated as a result of Fertitta Holdings’ breach; (c) Mr. Fertitta agreed to vote in favor of the transaction and to guarantee Fertitta Holdings’ payment of the reverse termination fee to us; (d) any action taken by any of our executive officers at the direction of Mr. Fertitta would not be deemed a breach of the conduct of business covenants; (e) Fertitta Holdings proposed a 45-day go-shop period; (f) the amount of the proposed termination fee payable by us was reduced; and (g) it would be a mutual closing condition that all gaming authority approvals be obtained, instead of only Fertitta Holdings’ closing condition. K&S described the remaining outstanding issues under the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement, including (i) the issue of whether to “neutralize” Mr. Fertitta’s voting rights with respect to the 2008 proposed transaction; (ii) whether we would pay Fertitta Holdings a termination fee if we terminated the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement to pursue a superior proposal and, if we were to pay a termination fee, the amount of the termination fee, (iii) the triggers for Fertitta Holdings’ requirement to pay us a reverse termination fee (other than for an incurable breach) and, if Fertitta Holdings were to pay a reverse termination fee, the amount of the reverse termination fee, (iv) whether to conform the definition of “material adverse effect” in the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement to the definition of such term in the debt commitment letter, (v) whether to condition the stockholder approval of the 2008 proposed transaction on the approval of a majority of the disinterested shares, (vi) removal of the condition to Fertitta Holdings’ obligation to close the 2008 proposed transaction that we obtain all permits and other third-party consents to the 2008 proposed transaction, (vii) removal of the condition to Fertitta Holdings’ obligation to close the 2008 proposed transaction that no more than 5% of our stockholders exercise their appraisal rights with respect to the 2008 proposed transaction, (viii) an extension of the length of the post-signing go-shop period during which the special committee would be permitted to solicit competing bids for the sale of us, and (ix) the removal of the condition to Fertitta Holdings’ obligation to close the 2008 proposed transaction that all conditions to the debt financing be satisfied. Cowen then updated the special committee on Cowen’s discussions with Jefferies regarding the current offer price and the status of the debt financing for the proposed transaction. Cowen informed the special committee that Cowen and Jefferies were still discussing Cowen’s valuation methodology and that Jefferies had not yet presented to Cowen its basis for the current offer price. Additionally, Cowen informed the special committee that Jefferies indicated that it would be in a position to deliver final debt commitment letters by the following week and would be willing to meet with Cowen to discuss Jefferies’ views on valuation. After discussion, the special committee directed K&S and Cowen to meet with Mr. Fertitta’s advisors in Houston the following week to discuss the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement, Jefferies’ views on valuation and Mr. Fertitta’s offer price. The special committee also instructed Cowen to indicate to Jefferies a per share offer price for us of $24.00 and to discuss with Jefferies the Cowen analyses supporting the special committee’s position on the offer price. The special committee gave K&S guidance on the resolution of the key outstanding issues under the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement.

On June 2, 2008, representatives of K&S and Cowen met with representatives of Olshan and Jefferies at the Houston office of K&S and discussed the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement, Jefferies’ views on valuation and Mr. Fertitta’s offer price. Cowen reviewed with Olshan and Jefferies Cowen’s analyses supporting a higher price from Mr. Fertitta.

Cowen’s presentation included, among other things, a discussion of the following information:

 

   

Cowen’s basis for its determination of our EBITDA and enterprise value;

 

34


Table of Contents
   

an analysis of our historical EBITDA multiples compared to the historical EBITDA multiples of certain restaurant companies and gaming companies;

 

   

our industry position and a comparison of certain of our financial and operating information, ratios and valuation multiples with those of certain other restaurant companies and other gaming companies;

 

   

multiples for certain change of control or business combination transactions involving certain restaurant companies and casino and gaming companies;

 

   

a discounted cash flow overview of us;

 

   

a valuation analysis of us at various share prices ranging from $21.00 to $24.00 per share of our common stock;

 

   

projected shareholder returns at certain adjusted EBITDA multiples based on projections provided by our management; and

 

   

a review of certain changes in restaurant valuations since January 28, 2008.

Following Cowen’s presentation, Olshan and Jefferies responded and advised Cowen and K&S that Mr. Fertitta would not increase his offer of $21.00 per share. Cowen and Jefferies then left the meeting and the K&S and Olshan representatives discussed the key outstanding issues under the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement, which included (a) whether we would pay Fertitta Holdings a termination fee if we terminated the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement to pursue a superior proposal and, if we were to pay a termination fee, the amount of the termination fee, (b) the triggers for Fertitta Holdings’ requirement to pay us a reverse termination fee (other than for an incurable breach) and, if Fertitta Holdings were to pay a reverse termination fee, the amount of the reverse termination fee, (c) whether to conform the definition of “material adverse effect” in the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement to the definition of such term in the debt commitment letter, (d) whether to condition the stockholder approval of the 2008 proposed transaction on the approval of a majority of the disinterested shares, (e) whether to remove the mutual closing condition that all gaming authority approvals be obtained, (f) the removal of the condition to Fertitta Holdings’ obligation to close the 2008 proposed transaction that we obtain all permits and other third-party consents to the 2008 proposed transaction, (g) the removal of the condition to Fertitta Holdings’ obligation to close the 2008 proposed transaction that no more than 5% of our stockholders exercise their appraisal rights with respect to the 2008 proposed transaction, (h) an extension of the length of the go-shop period and (i) the removal of the condition to Fertitta Holdings’ obligation to close the 2008 proposed transaction that all conditions to the debt financing be satisfied. On June 2, 2008, K&S continued its discussions with Olshan regarding the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement, and Cowen continued its discussions with Jefferies regarding Jefferies’ views on valuation and Mr. Fertitta’s offer price. A copy of the full presentation dated June 2, 2008 that Cowen prepared for its negotiations with Jefferies is filed as Exhibit 99.1(c)(8) to the Schedule 13E-3 filed with the SEC in connection with the 2008 proposed transaction and is available for inspection and copying at our principal executive offices during our regular business hours by an interested equity security holder or a representative who has been so designed in writing.

On June 3, 2008, the special committee held a meeting in the Houston office of K&S. Cowen updated the special committee on discussions it had with Jefferies on June 2, 2008 regarding Jefferies’ views on valuation, the basis for Mr. Fertitta’s offer price and Cowen’s analyses supporting a higher price from Mr. Fertitta. Among other things, Cowen discussed (a) current trends in the restaurant and gaming industries, (b) the trading history of our common stock and valuation trading trends for other restaurant companies and gaming companies and (c) our industry position and a comparison of our financial and operating information with that of other restaurant companies and other gaming companies. At the meeting, Cowen also provided to the special committee a copy of the presentation dated June 2, 2008 that Cowen prepared for its negotiation with Jefferies. The only difference between the two presentations is that the copy provided to the special committee includes a legend stating “For Negotiation Purposes Only.” A copy of the full presentation dated June 2, 2008 that was provided to the special committee is filed as Exhibit 99.1(c)(9) to the Schedule 13E-3 filed with the SEC in connection with the 2008

 

35


Table of Contents

proposed transaction and is available for inspection and copying at our principal executive offices during regular business hours by an interested equity security holder or a representative who has been so designated in writing.

Also during this meeting, K&S briefed the special committee on the terms of the draft debt commitment letter received from Mr. Fertitta’s prospective lenders for the transaction. K&S also updated the special committee on the discussions K&S had with representatives of Olshan on June 2, 2008 regarding the key outstanding issues under the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement. K&S reported that the parties had reached agreement that: (a) we would pay Fertitta Holdings a termination fee in an amount equal to 2% of our enterprise value if the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement is terminated in customary circumstances as a result of a superior proposal, but the amount of such termination fee would be reduced to only 1% of equity value, plus reimbursement of expenses up to $7.5 million in the aggregate, if the right to terminate the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement arises within 60 days after signing; (b) Fertitta Holdings would pay us a reverse termination fee in an amount equal to 2% of our enterprise value if the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement is terminated because of a breach by Fertitta Holdings or Fertitta Holdings’ failure to pay the 2008 proposed transaction consideration as a result of a breach by Fertitta Holdings or its lenders, but the amount of such termination fee would be reduced to only 1% of equity value, plus reimbursement of expenses up to $7.5 million in the aggregate, if the right to terminate the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement arises within 60 days after signing; (c) Fertitta Holdings agreed to the deletion of conditions to the 2008 proposed transaction relating to third party consents and permits; (d) any termination fee payable by us to Fertitta Holdings under the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement would be credited against any cash amount of any severance compensation payable to Mr. Fertitta under his employment agreement if we engage in a change of control transaction with a third party and his employment with us is subsequently terminated for certain reasons; and (e) a 45-day go-shop period. K&S also updated the special committee on the key outstanding issues under the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement. The special committee then discussed with Cowen and K&S the process for holding further discussions with Jefferies and Olshan regarding Mr. Fertitta’s proposal to acquire us and gave K&S guidance on how to resolve the key outstanding issues under the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement.

Later that same day, representatives of K&S and Cowen again met with representatives of Olshan and Jefferies at the Houston office of K&S and continued their discussions regarding the terms of the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and Mr. Fertitta’s offer price. In addition, the special committee met separately with Mr. Fertitta at the Houston office of K&S to discuss the terms of the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement, including Mr. Fertitta’s offer price of $21.00 and the special committee’s request that the 2008 proposed transaction be conditioned on the approval of the 2008 proposed transaction by a majority of the disinterested shares in addition to approval of a majority of our outstanding shares of common stock (including the shares owned by Mr. Fertitta).

After these meetings, the special committee met with K&S and Cowen to get an update on their respective discussions and negotiations with Mr. Fertitta’s advisors regarding his offer price and the draft of the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement. Cowen advised the special committee that Jefferies indicated that Mr. Fertitta would not increase his $21.00 per share offer. K&S then updated the special committee regarding the negotiations with Olshan on the draft of the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and discussed the key outstanding issues under the draft of the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement. The key outstanding issues included (a) whether to conform the definition of “material adverse effect” in the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement to the definition of such term in the debt commitment letter, (b) whether to condition the stockholder approval of the 2008 proposed transaction on the approval of a majority of the disinterested shares, (c) removal of the condition to all parties’ obligation to close the 2008 proposed transaction that they obtain all necessary gaming authority approvals to the 2008 proposed transaction; (d) the removal of the condition to all parties’ obligations to close the 2008 proposed transaction that no more than 7.5% (rather than 5%) of our stockholders exercise their appraisal rights with respect to the proposed transaction and (e) the removal of the condition to Fertitta Holdings’ obligation to close the 2008 proposed transaction that all conditions to the debt financing be satisfied. A representative of Morris Nichols then joined the meeting and

 

36


Table of Contents

provided the special committee with an updated presentation on its legal duties under Delaware law in connection with the sale of us. After discussion, the special committee gave K&S guidance on how to resolve the key outstanding issues under the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and directed K&S to continue its discussions with Olshan on the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement.

On June 5, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. During this meeting, K&S updated the special committee on the status of negotiations over the key outstanding issues under the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement. Cowen informed the special committee that Mr. Fertitta’s offer price continued to be $21.00 per share. K&S and Cowen then reviewed with the special committee the terms and conditions of the draft debt commitment letter from Mr. Fertitta’s prospective lenders. K&S informed the special committee that it had provided Olshan with suggested revisions to the draft debt commitment letter. K&S also reported that we were, with the assistance of Haynes and Boone, preparing a draft of our disclosure schedules to the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement. After discussion, the special committee directed K&S to continue its discussions with Olshan regarding the key outstanding issues under the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and gave K&S guidance as to how to resolve the key outstanding issues. After discussion, the K&S representatives recommended that the special committee engage the law firm of Jones Vargas LLP (“Jones Vargas”) to serve as special Nevada counsel to the special committee. After confirming that the firm had no prior relationships with us, Mr. Fertitta, any member of the special committee or any other person that might pose potential conflicts or affect the ability of Jones Vargas to act as Nevada counsel to the special committee, the special committee authorized K&S to discuss with Jones Vargas the gaming approval process under Nevada law with respect to change of control transactions and whether gaming authority approval would be required for a sale of us to Mr. Fertitta. The special committee ultimately approved the engagement letter with Jones Vargas on June 14, 2008.

On June 6, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. During this meeting, K&S updated the special committee on the status of negotiations over the key outstanding issues under the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement. Cowen informed the special committee that Mr. Fertitta’s offer price continued to be $21.00 per share. K&S informed the special committee that Olshan informed K&S that Mr. Fertitta was unwilling to increase his offer price of $21.00 per share. After discussion, the special committee instructed K&S to advise Olshan that the special committee was not inclined to move forward with Mr. Fertitta’s proposed transaction unless Mr. Fertitta increased his offer price and the condition that the 2008 proposed transaction be approved by a majority of the disinterested shares. As instructed, K&S so advised Olshan that the special committee would not engage in further negotiations until Mr. Fertitta responded to the special committee’s requests.

On June 8, 2008, Mr. Chadwick had a telephone call with Mr. Fertitta to discuss the special committee’s position on Mr. Fertitta’s offer price of $21.00 per share and the key outstanding issues under the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement. Mr. Fertitta reiterated to Mr. Chadwick that he was unwilling to increase his offer price and the reasons for his position. Mr. Fertitta also advised Mr. Chadwick that he would not agree to the special committee’s request that the 2008 proposed transaction be conditioned on the approval of the 2008 proposed transaction by a majority of the disinterested shares. Mr. Fertitta advised Mr. Chadwick that he would withdraw his offer to acquire us altogether if all outstanding issues in the proposed transaction were not resolved by June 13, 2008.

On June 10, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. Mr. Chadwick updated the special committee on his conversations with Mr. Fertitta on June 8, 2008. Mr. Chadwick expressed to the special committee that, based on his conversations with Mr. Fertitta, he did not believe that Mr. Fertitta would increase his current offer of $21.00 per share and, in fact, was more likely to withdraw his offer than to increase it. In addition, Mr. Chadwick informed the special committee that he did not believe that Mr. Fertitta would agree to condition the 2008 proposed transaction on the approval of the 2008 proposed transaction by a majority of the disinterested shares. K&S then updated the special committee on its discussions with Olshan in which Olshan expressed confidence that most of the outstanding issues under the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement could be resolved once the parties reached an agreement in principle on the offer price and that Olshan suggested that all parties meet in Houston that week to finish negotiations. K&S also updated the special committee on the

 

37


Table of Contents

discussions K&S had with Jones Vargas regarding gaming authority approval for a transaction with Mr. Fertitta and stated that Jones Vargas advised K&S that no gaming authority approval would be required in order to consummate a sale of us to Mr. Fertitta.

On June 11, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. The special committee reviewed Mr. Fertitta’s positions on his offer price and the key outstanding issues under the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement. After discussion, the special committee requested that K&S and Cowen meet with the special committee in Houston on June 12, 2008. The special committee agreed to determine after the June 12 meeting whether or not to proceed with the transaction with Mr. Fertitta. The special committee asked Cowen to provide the special committee at this meeting an update on our performance and the performance of our peers in the restaurant and gaming industries.

On June 12, 2008, the special committee held a meeting in the Houston office of K&S. At this meeting, K&S reviewed in detail and discussed with the special committee the key outstanding issues under the revised draft of the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement delivered by Olshan on June 10, 2008. The key outstanding issues included (a) whether to conform the definition of “material adverse effect” in the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement to the definition of the term in the debt commitment letter, (b) whether to condition the stockholder approval of the 2008 proposed transaction on the approval of a majority of the disinterested shares, (c) the removal of the condition to all parties’ obligation to close the 2008 proposed transaction that they obtain all necessary gaming authority approvals to the 2008 proposed transaction, (d) the removal of the condition to Fertitta Holdings’ obligation to close no more than 7.5% (rather than 5%) of our stockholders exercise their appraisal rights with respect to the 2008 proposed transaction, and (e) the removal of the condition to Fertitta Holdings’ obligation to close the 2008 proposed transaction that all conditions to the debt financing be satisfied. K&S also reviewed in detail and discussed with the special committee the proposed final version of the debt commitment letter and the draft of Mr. Fertitta’s equity commitment letter delivered by Olshan that day. K&S then responded to questions raised by the special committee members concerning the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and their legal duties under Delaware law. Later on this day, Haynes and Boone furnished to K&S and Olshan initial drafts of our disclosure schedules to the draft of the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement.

Cowen then joined this meeting by telephone. Cowen reviewed with the special committee recent stock price performances and valuation multiples for us and other restaurant companies and gaming companies and changes in those valuation multiples for those other companies since Mr. Fertitta announced his revised offer of $21.00 per share on April 4, 2008 and since Cowen’s presentation to the special committee on May 12, 2008. Among other things, Cowen discussed that the stock price and valuation multiples had declined since both April 4, 2008 and May 12, 2008 for the restaurant companies reviewed and had declined significantly for the gaming companies reviewed during the same periods. A copy of the full presentation dated June 12, 2008 that Cowen prepared for the special committee is filed as Exhibit 99.1(c)(4) to the Schedule 13E-3 filed with the SEC in connection with the 2008 proposed transaction and is available for inspection and copying at our principal executive offices during our regular business hours by an interested equity securities holder or a representative who has been so designated in writing. Cowen responded to a number of questions from the special committee members and advised the special committee that subject to completion of its fairness analysis and receipt of required internal approvals, Cowen could deliver an opinion to the special committee.

After discussion, the special committee concluded that in light of the Cowen presentation and subject to receiving a favorable fairness opinion from Cowen on the transaction with Mr. Fertitta at $21.00 per share and resolution of all outstanding issues under the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement, the special committee was willing to consider a sale of us to Mr. Fertitta at $21.00 per share due to, among other things, the recent general deterioration in both the restaurant and gaming industries and the special committee’s belief that such deterioration would continue in light of the general downturn in the economy, the fact that Mr. Fertitta’s offer price represented a premium of approximately 31% over the closing price of our common stock on June 11, 2008 and that Mr. Fertitta’s proposal represented a valuation of 6.4x EBITDA, which was approximately our ten-year average trading value. After discussion, the special committee directed K&S to continue negotiations with

 

38


Table of Contents

Olshan on the outstanding issues under the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and gave K&S guidance on how to resolve the outstanding issues. K&S then left the meeting to meet with Olshan to continue negotiations on the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement.

After discussions with Olshan, K&S reported to the special committee that K&S and Olshan had reached a proposed resolution of all outstanding issues under the draft of the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement. The parties had agreed that: (a) the definition of “material adverse effect” in the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement would be a definition that is customary for the type of transaction proposed by Mr. Fertitta instead of conforming to the definition in the debt commitment letter; (b) our obligation to close the 2008 proposed transaction would not be conditioned on approval of the 2008 proposed transaction by a majority of the disinterested shares; (c) all parties’ obligation to close the 2008 proposed transaction would be conditioned on obtaining approval of all gaming authorities (subject to Fertitta Holdings’ representations regarding Fertitta Holdings’ qualifications to obtain approvals of gaming authorities being true and correct); (d) Fertitta Holdings’ obligation to close the 2008 proposed transaction would be conditioned on no more than 10% (rather than 7.5%) of our stockholders exercising their appraisal rights with respect to the 2008 proposed transaction; (e) so long as Fertitta Holdings’ and Fertitta Acquisition’s conditions to consummate the 2008 proposed transaction have been satisfied or waived, Fertitta Holdings would be required to pay us the agreed upon reverse termination fee if it fails to pay the 2008 proposed transaction consideration for any reason; and (f) Fertitta Holdings’ obligation to close the 2008 proposed transaction would not be subject to all conditions to the debt financing being satisfied but would be conditioned on Fertitta Holdings satisfying, or its prospective lenders waiving, the conditions under the debt commitment letter requiring that (i) no “material adverse effect” (as defined in the debt commitment letter) occur between December 31, 2007 and the closing date of the 2008 proposed transaction and (ii) we must satisfy the “Financial Performance Condition” under the debt commitment letter, which requires, among other things, that our gaming division achieve no less than $58.5 million in EBITDA and that our restaurant division have pro forma consolidated EBITDA of no less than $127.5 million, in each case based on our most recent twelve-month period prior to the closing date of the 2008 proposed transaction with the restaurant EBITDA to be calculated in a manner to be agreed upon that takes into account credits such as pre-opening expenses, certain non-recurring litigation costs and private company savings. After discussion, the special committee instructed K&S to conclude negotiations with Olshan on the basis of the proposal presented to the special committee by K&S and directed K&S to continue working with Olshan to finalize the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement to appropriately reflect the agreed resolution of all outstanding issues.

On June 15, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. During this meeting, K&S reported that all outstanding issues under the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement had been resolved consistent with prior discussions with the special committee and provided a summary of the key terms of the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement to the special committee.

Cowen then joined this meeting by telephone and delivered to the special committee its financial analysis of the proposed transaction with Mr. Fertitta and responded to questions from the special committee. A copy of the full presentation dated June 15, 2008 that Cowen prepared for the special committee is filed as Exhibit 99.1(c)(5) to the Schedule 13E-3 filed with the SEC in connection with the 2008 proposed transaction and is available for inspection and copying at our principal executive offices during our regular business hours by an interested equity security holder or a representative who has been so designated in writing. After giving its presentation to the special committee, Cowen responded to questions from the special committee. After discussion, the special committee asked Cowen to deliver its fairness opinion. Cowen then delivered its oral opinion, subsequently confirmed in writing as of the same date, to the effect that and subject to the various assumptions set forth therein, as of June 15, 2008, the date of the opinion, the 2008 proposed transaction consideration of $21.00 per share to be received pursuant to the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement by the holders of our common stock was fair, from a financial point of view, to such holders, other than Mr. Fertitta and any other holders who will become affiliates of, or direct or indirect investors in, Fertitta Holdings or Fertitta Acquisition.

The special committee then discussed, among other things, Cowen’s presentation as well as the positive factors and potential benefits of the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement with Mr. Fertitta, and the risks

 

39


Table of Contents

and potentially negative factors relating to the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement. After further discussion, the special committee resolved unanimously that the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and the 2008 proposed transaction were fair to, advisable and in the best interests of us and our stockholders, other than Fertitta Holdings, Fertitta Acquisition, Mr. Fertitta and their respective affiliates. The special committee also unanimously recommended that our board of directors approve and adopt the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and the 2008 proposed transaction and that our board of directors recommend that our stockholders approve the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and the 2008 proposed transaction.

Following the special committee meeting, our board of directors held a telephonic meeting. At this meeting, Mr. Chadwick, as chairman of the special committee, reviewed the work and findings of the special committee and presented the special committee’s recommendation that our board of directors approve and adopt the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and the 2008 proposed transaction and that our board of directors recommend that our stockholders approve the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and the 2008 proposed transaction. After discussion, our board of directors, with Mr. Fertitta taking no part in the meeting discussion or vote, unanimously (i) determined that the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and the 2008 proposed transaction were fair to, advisable and in the best interest of us and our stockholders, other than Fertitta Holdings, Fertitta Acquisition, Mr. Fertitta and their respective affiliates, (ii) approved and adopted the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and the 2008 proposed transaction and (iii) recommended approval of the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement to our stockholders.

Shortly following the meeting, Fertitta Holdings delivered definitive equity and debt commitments to the special committee and its advisors, representatives of K&S and Olshan completed negotiations regarding certain minor details on the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement was executed (the “original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement”). We issued a press release announcing the transaction prior to the opening of trading on June 16, 2008.

On June 17, 2008, pursuant to the solicitation provisions set forth in the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement, at the direction of the special committee, Cowen began contacting parties that it had identified and discussed with the special committee as being potential acquirers of us. These potential acquirers were chosen on the basis of their perceived interest in participating in a transaction involving us, their ability to consummate such a transaction and/or their potential interest in the restaurant and gaming industries.

Prior to the commencement of the 45-day first 2008 proposed transaction go-shop period (the “2008 first go-shop period”), under the direction of the special committee, we prepared a form of confidentiality agreement and a confidential information memorandum for use in soliciting competing proposals from third parties for the acquisition of us during the 2008 first go-shop period. The special committee and its advisors, with the assistance of our senior management, also established an electronic due diligence data room prior to the commencement of the 2008 first go-shop period, which contained certain confidential due diligence materials.

As part of the “go-shop” process, the special committee established a protocol by which it retained active oversight of the solicitation process and the activities of its advisors in connection therewith. Contacts with potential acquirers were coordinated solely through the special committee’s advisors. Potential acquirers were required to enter in a confidentiality agreement with us prior to receiving our confidential information memorandum. After reviewing our confidential information memorandum and submitting an indication of interest to the special committee, potential acquirers would be granted access to the electronic due diligence data room and have the opportunity to meet with our senior management and the special committee’s advisors.

During the 2008 first go-shop period, Cowen contacted on behalf of the special committee a total of 47 parties, consisting of 38 financial sponsors and 9 potential strategic acquirers. Seven of the parties contacted requested a draft confidentiality agreement for purposes of receiving our confidential information memorandum, and of those, six parties ultimately executed a confidentiality agreement with us. The other parties contacted declined to participate further in an evaluation of us or otherwise pursue a transaction with us. We promptly

 

40


Table of Contents

made available our confidential information memorandum to the six parties that executed confidentiality agreements. At the direction of the special committee, Cowen followed up with each of these six parties during the 2008 first go-shop period to determine whether any of the parties required any additional information from us in order to submit an indication of interest.

Prior to the end of the 2008 first go-shop period, all six parties that received our confidential information memorandum withdrew their interest and terminated discussions without submitting to the special committee an indication of interest in making a competing proposal to acquire us. Certain parties contacted expressed that the $21.00 per share offer price and the current macroeconomic environment for restaurants and casinos were major factors in determining not to submit an indication of interest or otherwise participate in the “go-shop” process. The 2008 first go-shop period ended at 11:59 p.m. (New York time) on July 31, 2008 and, at that time, the special committee was not engaged in ongoing discussions with any parties with respect to a competing proposal to acquire us.

On August 1, 2008, we issued a press release announcing that the 2008 first go-shop period had ended and no proposals were received from any other parties.

During the 2008 first go-shop period, the special committee met three times to discuss the solicitation process and related matters. At each of these meetings, the special committee’s advisors were present. In addition, the special committee’s advisors and members of the special committee had periodic discussions throughout the 2008 first go-shop period regarding the solicitation process.

Following the end of the 2008 first go-shop period, no party approached the special committee or us expressing an interest in pursuing a transaction to acquire us.

On August 29, 2008, the record date to determine the shareholders entitled to vote on the 2008 proposed transaction and the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement was set at September 9, 2008.

On September 13, 2008, Hurricane Ike caused substantial damage to certain of our properties in Kemah and Galveston, Texas. On September 15, 2008, our management provided our board of directors with management’s initial assessment of the damage to our properties caused by Hurricane Ike.

On September 15, 2008, Mr. Fertitta notified his prospective lenders for the 2008 proposed transaction, Jefferies Funding LLC, Jefferies & Company, Inc., Jefferies Finance LLC (collectively, “Jefferies”), and Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC (formerly known as Wells Fargo Foothill, LLC) (“WFF”), of the damage to our properties caused by Hurricane Ike.

The Kemah and Galveston properties have been a significant driver of our overall results of operations for fiscal 2008. As a result of the damage to these significant properties, our overall projected financial results of operations were significantly impacted for both the short- and long-term.

On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers Holdings, a major U.S. investment banking firm, announced it was filing for bankruptcy. That same day, the Dow Jones dropped over 500 points, the largest single-day drop since the days following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

On September 15, 2008, the closing price of our stock was $14.09, a decrease of $2.36 from the closing price on September 12, 2008, the preceding trading day. On September 15, 2008, the board approved Mr. Fertitta buying our stock on his own behalf.

On September 17, 2008, we issued a press release announcing that 14 of our restaurants in the Houston area were closed as a result of Hurricane Ike and would re-open as soon as electricity was restored to each of the units. The press release also reported that all of our restaurants in Kemah and Galveston, Texas were closed and that one restaurant in Galveston sustained particularly significant damage, as did two restaurants at the Kemah

 

41


Table of Contents

Boardwalk. Finally, the press release reported that (a) the amusement rides, the boardwalk itself and some infrastructure at the Kemah Boardwalk incurred significant damage, (b) once power and water were restored in Galveston, the majority of our Galveston restaurants were anticipated to re-open and (c) the majority of the property losses and cash flow were expected to be covered by property and business interruption insurance.

On that same day, Mr. Fertitta contacted Mr. Chadwick and updated him on the damage Hurricane Ike caused to certain of our properties. Mr. Fertitta also provided his views to Mr. Chadwick on the impact on us and our businesses arising out of the hurricane, the continued worsening of general economic conditions and the turmoil in the financial and credit markets. Mr. Fertitta also informed Mr. Chadwick that he had provided notice to Jefferies and WFF of the damage caused by Hurricane Ike and that Jefferies and WFF had requested information concerning the impact on us and our businesses arising out of Hurricane Ike. Also that same day, K&S discussed with Olshan the potential impact that the hurricane damage and its aftermath, the turmoil in the credit markets and the continued worsening of general economic conditions could have on the 2008 proposed transaction. Olshan expressed to K&S that, because of these factors and recent communications with Jefferies, Mr. Fertitta was concerned that Jefferies and WFF would not close the acquisition financing contemplated by their debt commitment letter issued in connection with the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement.

On September 18, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. During this meeting, Mr. Chadwick briefed the special committee on his September 17th conversation with Mr. Fertitta and K&S briefed the special committee on its September 17th conversations with Olshan. The members of the special committee reviewed the information they had received from us regarding the damage to our properties due to Hurricane Ike. The special committee discussed the deepening crisis in the domestic and international financial and credit markets, including the failure of Lehman Brothers, the sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America, and the proposed $40 billion loan, which ultimately was $85 billion, from the Federal Reserve to American International Group to avoid its collapse. Mr. Chadwick advised the special committee that, based on his conversation with Mr. Fertitta, the damage arising out of Hurricane Ike, the financial crisis and the continued economic downturn, he believed that the completion of the 2008 proposed transaction under the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement may be in jeopardy. The special committee then discussed the potential impact of these developments on our ability to refinance up to $400.0 million of our indebtedness that may come due beginning on February 28, 2009 if the holders of our 9.5% senior notes exercise their right to require us to redeem the notes at 101% of the principal amount thereof. The special committee directed K&S to continue to emphasize to Mr. Fertitta and his advisors the importance of our having a plan to refinance this $400.0 million of indebtedness in the event that the 2008 proposed transaction did not close.

Also at this meeting, Cowen reviewed with the special committee the general status of the restaurant and gaming industries since the date of the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement. After discussion, the special committee directed Cowen to obtain from our senior management updated financial information, including any changes in our financial projections arising out of Hurricane Ike, the turmoil in the financial and credit markets, the worsening general economic conditions and the downturn in the results of our restaurant and gaming businesses.

Later that day, the special committee received a letter from Mr. Fertitta advising the special committee that, due to (a) the damage to our properties in Galveston, Kemah and Houston arising out of Hurricane Ike, (b) the turmoil in the credit markets and (c) continued worsening of general economic conditions, he believed that Jefferies and WFF would likely determine that a material adverse effect, as defined in their debt commitment letter issued to Mr. Fertitta, had occurred, which would result in Jefferies and WFF withdrawing the debt commitment letter for the acquisition financing for the 2008 proposed transaction. Mr. Fertitta also advised the special committee in his letter that, if Jefferies and WFF withdrew their debt commitment letter because of a material adverse effect, Mr. Fertitta may have no choice but to exercise his right to terminate the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement. Mr. Fertitta pointed out in his letter that the Kemah and Galveston properties had been a significant driver of our overall performance in 2008 and that the damage to the Kemah and Galveston properties was expected to adversely affect both our business and near- and long-term prospects. Mr. Fertitta also advised the special committee in his letter that the cost to rebuild the Kemah and Galveston properties was likely to exceed our insurance recovery. Further, Mr. Fertitta stated in his letter his belief that there was a risk that Kemah and Galveston would face a

 

42


Table of Contents

permanent loss of population. Because of these factors and the turmoil in the credit markets, Mr. Fertitta expressed in his letter concern about the willingness of Jefferies and WFF to provide any financing absent a reduction in leverage in the debt financing. Mr. Fertitta further stated in his letter that he believed that he could persuade Jefferies and WFF to move forward with debt financing if Mr. Fertitta revised his offer to reflect our reduced value, which he believed at such time was $17.00 per share. Mr. Fertitta further stated his concern that failure to consummate a merger could result in a depressed stock price for an extended period of time.

On September 19, 2008, K&S discussed with Olshan Mr. Fertitta’s September 18th letter, including Mr. Fertitta’s claim that a material adverse effect may have occurred under the Jefferies and WFF debt commitment letter and his ability to terminate the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement if Jefferies and WFF withdrew their debt commitment letter because of a material adverse effect. K&S requested Olshan to provide (a) information concerning the events and circumstances that caused Mr. Fertitta to believe that a material adverse effect may have occurred under the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and/or the Jefferies and WFF debt commitment letter and (b) all communications between Mr. Fertitta and Jefferies and WFF regarding their willingness to close the debt financing under their debt commitment letter.

Later on September 19, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. During this meeting, the special committee discussed Mr. Fertitta’s September 18th letter. The special committee also discussed the new information that it had received from our senior management team regarding the damage Hurricane Ike caused to our properties and our potential recovery under our insurance policies for such damage. The special committee also discussed the President’s recently announced “bailout” plan for the financial industry, the turmoil in the financial and credit markets, including the resulting credit “freeze”, and the impact of all of these events on our business and prospects and the 2008 proposed transaction. Finally, the special committee discussed the importance of our refinancing up to $400.0 million of our indebtedness that may come due beginning on February 28, 2009 and the impact of the uncertainty about the Jefferies and WFF financing on our ability to refinance our 9.5% senior notes.

During this meeting, the special committee discussed Mr. Fertitta’s responsibilities under the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement, including (a) Fertitta Holdings’ and Fertitta Acquisition’s best efforts obligations to close the acquisition financing with Jefferies and WFF and their reasonable best efforts obligations to secure alternative financing if the acquisition financing under the Jefferies and WFF debt commitment letter became unavailable, (b) the definition of a “material adverse effect” under the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement, (c) the possibility that the damage to our properties and business arising out of Hurricane Ike or the turmoil in the financial and credit markets might constitute a material adverse effect under the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement, and (d) the effect of the occurrence of a material adverse effect on Fertitta Holdings’ and Fertitta Acquisition’s obligations to close the 2008 proposed transaction. The special committee also discussed the conditions precedent to the obligations of Jefferies and WFF to provide to Fertitta Holdings and Fertitta Acquisition acquisition financing for the 2008 proposed transaction under their debt commitment letter, including the condition that no material adverse effect occur since December 31, 2007 and the condition that our EBITDA for our restaurant business and our EBITDA for our gaming business for the 12-month period prior to the closing date meet or exceed certain target amounts specified in the debt commitment letter. The special committee discussed the remedies available to us upon a breach by Fertitta Holdings or Fertitta Acquisition of their respective obligations under the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement, including, under certain circumstances, Fertitta Holdings’ obligation to pay to us a reverse termination fee.

Also during this meeting, the special committee discussed the following issues with respect to the Jefferies and WFF debt commitment letter: (a) the methodology for calculating our pro forma EBITDA after giving effect to the 2008 proposed transaction was not entirely certain; (b) our EBITDA would be calculated based on financial statements for the latest 12-month period for which financial statements were available; (c) the requirement that Fertitta Holdings deliver to Jefferies and WFF certain of our financial statements 45 days prior to the 2008 proposed transaction’s closing date; (d) the special committee’s request that Fertitta Holdings deliver to Jefferies and WFF

 

43


Table of Contents

such financial statements in sufficient time such that our EBITDA would be calculated based on the financial statements for the 12-month period ended August 31, 2008; and (e) whether the calculation of our EBITDA from our restaurant business would include the insurance proceeds we ultimately recover for damages to our properties caused by Hurricane Ike. Finally, the special committee directed Cowen to contact a representative of Jefferies with respect to certain provisions of the Jefferies and WFF debt commitment letter in order to clarify Jefferies’ and WFF’s position on such provisions. The special committee also directed Cowen to request from our senior management financial information needed by Cowen to advise the special committee on the financial impact arising out of Hurricane Ike on us, to request from our senior management information needed by Cowen to update its valuation analysis of us, and to continue to engage in conversations with Jefferies regarding Jefferies’ and WFF’s intentions to provide the acquisition financing under their debt commitment letter.

Finally, during this meeting the special committee discussed Mr. Fertitta’s filing of an amended Schedule 13D with the SEC on September 19, 2008 reflecting his open market purchases of an aggregate of 400,000 shares of our common stock on September 17, 18 and 19, 2008, for an aggregate price of approximately $4,925,722 at per share prices ranging from $11.83 to $14.11. Mr. Fertitta decided to purchase these shares as well as additional shares acquired after the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement was amended because the shares were trading below the price he was offering for shares of our common stock and he felt this would help demonstrate to the market his belief that the transaction was likely to be consummated. The special committee discussed the potential impact on the 2008 proposed transaction of Mr. Fertitta’s open market purchases of our common stock. The special committee reviewed the provisions of the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement that could be affected by Mr. Fertitta’s open market purchases of our common stock.

On September 19, 2008, we received requests from Jefferies and WFF for additional information concerning the impact of Hurricane Ike on our business, properties and prospects, and on the same date Mr. Liem provided responses to those requests.

On September 20, 2008, on behalf of the special committee, K&S discussed with Olshan the special committee’s reaction to Mr. Fertitta’s assertion in his September 18th letter that a material adverse effect may have occurred under the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement. K&S and Olshan also discussed Mr. Fertitta’s rights and obligations under the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement with respect to the financing for the 2008 proposed transaction. K&S also discussed with Olshan (a) the special committee’s desire to obtain additional information on Mr. Fertitta’s efforts to close the Jefferies and WFF debt financing, (b) the steps Mr. Fertitta had taken and would take to secure alternative debt financing if Jefferies and WFF terminated their debt commitment letter, and (c) in the event the 2008 proposed transaction is not consummated, the plans of our management team to refinance up to $400.0 million of our indebtedness that may come due beginning on February 28, 2009 if the holders of our 9.5% senior notes exercise their right to require us to redeem the notes at 101% of the principal amount thereof. On behalf of the special committee, K&S also discussed with Olshan Mr. Fertitta’s recent open market purchase of shares of our common stock.

Later that same day and on September 21 and 22, 2008, the special committee held telephonic meetings. During these meetings, K&S and Cowen provided the special committee with updates on their discussions with Mr. Fertitta’s advisors and members of our senior management regarding (a) the status of the Jefferies and WFF debt commitment, (b) our senior management’s views on our recent results of operations and (c) our senior management’s views as to the impact that Hurricane Ike, the turmoil in the financial and credit markets, the worsening general economic conditions and the downturn in the results of our restaurant and gaming businesses could have on our future financial performance, including our ability to satisfy the EBITDA conditions under the Jefferies and WFF debt commitment letter. The special committee continued to review our rights and obligations under the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and their fiduciary duties in evaluating recent developments affecting us. The special committee directed Cowen to continue to request from our senior management any financial information needed by Cowen to update the special committee on our financial results and prospects, including our senior management’s assessment of the impact the damage to our Kemah and Galveston properties would have on our short- and long-term results of operations and to complete its work as promptly as possible.

 

44


Table of Contents

On September 22, 2008, Messrs. Fertitta, Liem and Scheinthal, the special committee, Olshan, K&S and Cowen participated in a telephone conference in which they discussed the special committee’s previous information requests, the status of the financing for the 2008 proposed transaction, the availability of alternative financing and our business and prospects. On that day, Jefferies and WFF participated in a call with our representatives and our insurance broker to discuss insurance coverage for damage incurred from Hurricane Ike.

On September 23, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. K&S discussed with the special committee its conversations with Olshan regarding the status of the Jefferies and WFF debt commitment letter, Mr. Fertitta’s ability to obtain alternative financing for the 2008 proposed transaction if Jefferies and WFF terminated their debt commitment letter and the possibility of Mr. Fertitta submitting a formal proposal for an alternative transaction to acquire us at a reduced price per share. The special committee then discussed how to respond to Mr. Fertitta’s assertion in his September 18th letter that a material adverse effect may have occurred under the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement. The special committee discussed the definition of “material adverse effect” in the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and the need to communicate to Mr. Fertitta that it would not be in a position to determine whether he had a right to terminate the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement until it received additional information from him that would allow it to make such a determination. Additionally, on September 23, 2008 representatives of Jefferies and WFF toured our properties in Kemah and Galveston, Texas with Mr. Fertitta to assess the damages to those properties caused by Hurricane Ike.

On September 24, 2008, K&S sent a letter on behalf of the special committee to Olshan in response to Mr. Fertitta’s September 18th letter. K&S advised Olshan in the letter that the special committee considered the refinancing of up to $400.0 million of our indebtedness that may come due beginning on February 28, 2009 to be critically important to us and urged Mr. Fertitta to pursue a plan simultaneously with the 2008 proposed transaction to refinance this indebtedness in the event that the 2008 proposed transaction does not close. K&S also requested in the letter that Mr. Fertitta and senior management keep the special committee informed as to: (a) management’s plan, if the 2008 proposed transaction is not consummated, to refinance our indebtedness that may come due beginning on February 28, 2009; and (b) Mr. Fertitta’s plans and efforts to close the Jefferies and WFF debt financing for the 2008 proposed transaction or obtain alternative financing if Jefferies and WFF terminated their debt commitment letter. The letter also requested that Mr. Fertitta make every effort to confirm as quickly as possible whether Jefferies and WFF intended to close the debt financing for the 2008 proposed transaction under their commitment letter and noted that, in the event Jefferies and WFF did not provide the debt financing, Mr. Fertitta had a reasonable best efforts obligation under the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement to secure alternative financing for the 2008 proposed transaction. K&S further stated in the letter that, if Mr. Fertitta desired for the special committee to consider a revised offer from Mr. Fertitta to acquire us at a revised price, then the special committee would require a formal proposal from Mr. Fertitta that would include, among other things, the proposed price per share and information on the proposed go-shop period and the closing conditions. K&S also provided in the letter that, before the special committee would make any formal decision on any revised offer, it would have to receive a revised equity commitment letter from Mr. Fertitta and a revised debt commitment letter from Jefferies and WFF with revised closing conditions that would increase the certainty of closing. K&S provided in the letter that the special committee would not take any formal action with respect to any revised proposal unless it received a satisfactory fairness opinion from Cowen regarding the revised proposal. K&S stated in the letter that if the special committee is provided with this information, then it would proceed as promptly as practicable to review and evaluate any revised offer made by Mr. Fertitta and would provide its response as soon as practicable.

On September 25, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. During this meeting, the special committee discussed the status of the Jefferies and WFF acquisition financing based on further discussions among K&S, Cowen and Mr. Fertitta’s advisors, in light of Mr. Fertitta’s September 18th letter and the September 24th response letter sent by K&S on behalf of the special committee. Cowen advised the special committee that Cowen was working with our senior management to obtain and evaluate the financial information that Cowen had requested. The special committee asked Cowen to complete its work as soon as practicable once

 

45


Table of Contents

it received all of the information it needed to do so. The special committee also discussed new developments with respect to the deepening crisis in the financial and credit markets and the potential impact of the crisis on the 2008 proposed transaction and our prospects for refinancing up to $400.0 million of our indebtedness that may come due beginning on February 28, 2009 if the 2008 proposed transaction did not close.

Later that day, the special committee received a letter from Mr. Fertitta in response to the September 24th letter sent by K&S on behalf of the special committee. Mr. Fertitta stated in his letter, among other things, that he had spoken to a number of financial institutions about financing a going private transaction before entering into the Jefferies and WFF debt commitment letter. He also pointed out in his letter that he had assisted Jefferies and WFF in efforts to syndicate the acquisition financing under their debt commitment letter by contacting members of our existing bank group as well as other financial institutions to determine their interest in the debt syndication. Mr. Fertitta’s letter stated further that, in the face of the rapidly deteriorating credit markets and casual dining and gaming industries, no financial institution that he approached expressed any significant interest in providing him any level of debt financing or participating in any acquisition financing in connection with a going private transaction. Mr. Fertitta’s letter also expressed his view that, based on the reactions of these financial institutions and the current turmoil in the credit markets, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to close the 2008 proposed transaction at the current per share price of $21.00 or to refinance our indebtedness that may come due in February 2009, and that a going private transaction supported by the Jefferies and WFF debt financing at a price per share that reflected our substantially reduced value would be the best alternative for our stockholders.

Mr. Fertitta also noted in his September 25th letter that he continued to provide Jefferies and WFF with all information requested by them and advised them that he was committed to close the acquisition financing contemplated by the Jefferies and WFF debt commitment letter. Mr. Fertitta attached to his September 25th letter a letter that he sent to Jefferies and WFF on September 24, 2008, which informed them that, among other things, he was ready, willing and able to proceed with the acquisition financing contemplated by their debt commitment letter, and requested that Jefferies and WFF schedule a bank meeting by October 1, 2008 and start the road show for discussions with the bond market thereafter. Jefferies and WFF responded to Mr. Fertitta’s September 24th letter on September 25, 2008 with a letter which Mr. Fertitta also attached to his September 25th letter to the special committee. In the letter, Jefferies advised Mr. Fertitta that, in view of the substantial damage and other adverse effects of Hurricane Ike, Jefferies and WFF believed that Fertitta Holdings and Fertitta Acquisition may not be able to satisfy the conditions precedent in the debt commitment letter. The Jefferies letter indicated a willingness to work with Fertitta Holdings and Fertitta Acquisition to find an acceptable result and to discuss a reduction in the overall leverage contemplated by the debt commitment letter and an increase in the pricing for the acquisition financing.

Mr. Fertitta’s September 25th letter concluded by stating that, despite his best efforts, he did not believe that Jefferies and WFF would close the acquisition financing for the 2008 proposed transaction contemplated by their debt commitment letter. Mr. Fertitta finally noted in his letter that he was confident that Jefferies and WFF would commit to finance a revised transaction involving lower leverage and higher interest rates (including a waiver of any existing material adverse effect) and believed that an acquisition financing satisfying these requirements could be accomplished with a revised cash purchase price of $17.00 per share.

On September 26, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. During this meeting, the special committee discussed Mr. Fertitta’s September 25th letter. The special committee reviewed the relevant terms of the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and the Jefferies and WFF debt commitment letter. Cowen also updated the special committee on its financial due diligence of our business, including Cowen’s discussions with our senior management regarding the updated financial projections Cowen had received to date. Cowen also briefed the special committee on its conversations with Jefferies regarding Jefferies’ and WFF’s position under their debt commitment letter, and Jefferies’ and WFF’s potential willingness to finance a revised transaction with lower leverage or at a higher interest rate. Cowen also informed the special committee that Jefferies had informed Cowen that Jefferies and WFF were unwilling to refinance our indebtedness that may come due in February 2009 except in connection with a potential going-private transaction.

 

46


Table of Contents

The special committee then discussed Mr. Fertitta’s statements in his letter regarding his efforts to close the Jefferies and WFF financing under the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement, including his efforts to help Jefferies and WFF syndicate the debt, and to secure alternative financing for the 2008 proposed transaction if Jefferies and WFF terminated their debt commitment letter. During this meeting, the special committee also discussed developments in the deepening crisis in the financial and credit markets, including the recent announcement that the FDIC had seized Washington Mutual and sold its banking assets to JP Morgan Chase for $1.9 billion.

Later that day, K&S responded in writing to Mr. Fertitta’s September 25th letter on behalf of the special committee and advised Olshan and Mr. Fertitta that (a) the special committee did not view the correspondence from Jefferies and WFF to Mr. Fertitta as a termination of their debt commitment letter nor did the correspondence specify the conditions which Jefferies and WFF believed that Fertitta Holdings and Fertitta Acquisition would be unable to satisfy, (b) Mr. Fertitta did not indicate in his September 25th letter whether or not he agreed with Jefferies’ and WFF’s assertion that Fertitta Holdings and Fertitta Acquisition may be unable to satisfy the conditions under the debt commitment letter, and (c) the special committee must receive this information in order to assess the statements in Mr. Fertitta’s letter regarding his ability to close the 2008 proposed transaction and evaluate Mr. Fertitta’s obligations under the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement. The letter also requested that Mr. Fertitta (i) confirm that he has provided to Jefferies and WFF certain information required by their debt commitment letter, (ii) provide information as to whether he had consulted any financial advisor to assist him regarding potential alternative sources of debt financing and (iii) provide any information with respect to discussions with Jefferies and WFF regarding reducing the leverage in the debt financing contemplated by their debt commitment letter by adding additional equity to the overall acquisition financing. The letter also again expressed the special committee’s concern about management’s plan to refinance our indebtedness that may mature in February 2009 and the fact that the special committee had not received any information that would lead it to believe that a material adverse effect under the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement had occurred. The special committee’s letter concluded by expressing the special committee’s preparedness to work with Mr. Fertitta and his advisors to evaluate an alternative transaction proposed by Mr. Fertitta while it continued to assess our alternatives under the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement.

Later that day, K&S received a letter from Olshan responding to the letter sent earlier in the day by K&S on behalf of the special committee. In this letter, Olshan stated, among other things, that Mr. Fertitta had made every effort to confirm Jefferies’ and WFF’s position under their debt commitment letter, to provide Jefferies and WFF with all information required by the commitment letter or separately requested by them, and to urge Jefferies and WFF to move forward with the acquisition financing under their debt commitment letter. The letter also stated that Mr. Fertitta was aware of his obligations under the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and that, if Jefferies and WFF were to terminate their debt commitment letter, he would use all required efforts to seek alternative debt financing; however, Mr. Fertitta stated that he had spoken with a number of prominent financial institutions and, based on the current credit market and industry conditions and the substantial damage to our Kemah and Galveston properties, these banks had no interest in providing the necessary debt financing for the 2008 proposed transaction or for the refinancing of up to $400.0 million of our indebtedness that may come due beginning on February 28, 2009.

The letter further stated that Mr. Fertitta believed that a merger with revised terms that he believed would provide certainty and liquidity to our stockholders, including merger consideration of $17.00 per share, would be better for our stockholders than a failed merger at $21.00 per share, which Mr. Fertitta believed would result in a substantial drop in our stock price and expose us to the risk of being unable to refinance our indebtedness that may come due in February 2009. Attached to the letter was a proposed amendment of the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and a proposed amendment to the Jefferies and WFF debt commitment letter. The proposed amendment to the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement proposed the following key revisions: (a) per share merger consideration of $17.00 instead of $21.00; (b) a revised definition of “material adverse effect” to exclude all facts actually known by Fertitta Holdings and us as of the date of the amendment; (c) a new 15-day go-shop period; (d) Fertitta Holdings’ obligation to close the 2008 proposed transaction would

 

47


Table of Contents

be conditioned on no more than 12%, instead of 10%, of our stockholders exercising their appraisal rights with respect to the 2008 proposed transaction; and (e) reduction in the termination fee to $15.0 million, from $24.0 million. The proposed amendment to the Jefferies and WFF debt commitment letter proposed the following key revisions to their debt commitment letter: (v) the drop-dead date would be December 31, 2008 instead of November 15, 2008; (w) Jefferies and WFF would waive the “no material adverse effect” closing condition with respect to facts actually known by them as of the amendment date; (x) the aggregate financing offered by Jefferies and WFF would be reduced by $75.0 million; (y) the applicable interest rates would be increased; and (z) Fertitta Holdings would be required to deliver to Jefferies and WFF our financial statements for the 9 and 12 months ended September 30, 2008 prior to closing, which must satisfy the existing EBITDA conditions in the debt commitment letter. As a result of the tremendous instability in the credit markets, the potential terms of any revised acquisition financing were subject to change as the credit markets continuously tightened and it was becoming apparent that obtaining debt financing for a going private transaction was becoming increasingly difficult if not impossible.

On September 27, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. During this meeting, the special committee reviewed Mr. Fertitta’s September 26th proposal to revise the terms of the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement.

On September 28th, K&S, on behalf of the special committee, sent a letter informing Olshan of the following: (a) the special committee would begin its review of Mr. Fertitta’s proposal, but before it could make any decisions with respect to his proposal, it would need additional information from Mr. Fertitta, including the facts that Mr. Fertitta believed would support his right to terminate the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and additional information regarding Mr. Fertitta’s best efforts to close the acquisition financing contemplated by the Jefferies and WFF debt commitment letter; (b) the special committee needed additional information on why Mr. Fertitta believed that, if the 2008 proposed transaction did not close, we would be unable to refinance our indebtedness that may come due in February 2009; (c) the special committee’s view that its consideration of a revised merger transaction at a price lower than $21.00 per share was intertwined with the issues of whether Mr. Fertitta had the right to terminate the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and whether he had satisfied his obligation to use best efforts to close the acquisition financing under the Jefferies and WFF debt commitment letter and, if the Jefferies and WFF debt commitment were terminated, to use reasonable best efforts to secure alternative acquisition financing for the 2008 proposed transaction from other sources; and (d) the special committee needed clarification as to why Mr. Fertitta believed that Jefferies and WFF would be willing to provide acquisition financing for a revised merger transaction but would be unwilling to refinance our indebtedness that may mature in February 2009. In this meeting, Cowen also briefed the special committee on the financial information that it had received from our senior management and senior management’s view on the financial effects on us arising out of Hurricane Ike, the turmoil in the financial and credit markets, the worsening economic conditions and the downturn in our restaurant and gaming businesses.

K&S requested Olshan to schedule a conference call among Mr. Fertitta and his advisors, the special committee and its advisors and our senior management to discuss the issues that the special committee raised in the September 28th letter. Olshan agreed and scheduled the call.

On September 28, 2008, our senior lender, Wachovia, announced the sale of its banking operations to Citigroup in order to avoid a possible failure of the bank. On that same day, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. During this meeting, the special committee discussed the potential impact on us of Wachovia’s sale and the current state of the crisis in the financial and credit markets, given the fact that Wachovia was not only our agent bank on our debt for the Golden Nugget, but also held approximately 20% of our revolver, 40% of the Golden Nugget’s revolver and $6.0 million of our construction loan for improvements at the Golden Nugget. The special committee also discussed with K&S matters to be addressed in the conference call scheduled for later that day with Mr. Fertitta and his advisors.

Later that day, the special committee and its advisors participated in a conference call with Mr. Fertitta and his advisors and with Mr. Liem and Mr. Scheinthal, our Chief Financial Officer and our General Counsel,

 

48


Table of Contents

respectively. During the conference call, the special committee and its advisors questioned Mr. Fertitta and his advisors about (a) the status of the Jefferies and WFF acquisition financing, including Fertitta Holdings’ ability to satisfy the current conditions in the debt commitment letter, (b) the basis for Jefferies and WFF reducing certain portions of the acquisition financing yet maintaining the required levels of EBITDA for the 12-month period prior to closing as a closing condition in its proposed amendment to their debt commitment letter, (c) potential means of reducing the leverage contemplated by the Jefferies and WFF debt commitment letter while maintaining the $21.00 per share 2008 proposed transaction consideration, (d) Mr. Fertitta’s efforts to seek alternative acquisition financing for the 2008 proposed transaction from sources other than Jefferies and WFF, (e) our business and prospects and (f) the challenges we would face in attempting to refinance up to $400.0 million of our indebtedness that may come due beginning on February 28, 2009. The special committee also discussed with Mr. Fertitta the potential impact that the sale of Wachovia’s banking operations to Citigroup could have on us. Messrs. Fertitta, Scheinthal and Liem identified nine sources of financing that they had contacted and spoken with regarding participating in a going-private transaction with us prior to entering into the Jefferies and WFF debt commitment letter. Messrs. Fertitta, Scheinthal and Liem noted that since the crisis in the financial and credit markets had set in, none of those sources had reached out to them and none of those sources would respond to telephone calls from Mr. Fertitta, Mr. Scheinthal or Mr. Liem. Mr. Fertitta also noted that our senior management had been informed by a representative of certain holders of our 9.5% senior notes that the noteholders would more than likely exercise their right to require us to redeem the notes in February 2009. Mr. Fertitta stated that, unless we can retire our 9.5% senior notes with proceeds from the Jefferies and WFF acquisition financing for the 2008 proposed transaction, we could potentially be facing bankruptcy. Messrs. Fertitta, Scheinthal and Liem stated further that, due to the prevailing extraordinary conditions in the financial and credit markets, they believed that we had no alternative prospects available to us, other than pursuant to the 2008 proposed transaction, to refinance our outstanding senior notes.

On September 29, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. During this meeting, the special committee discussed the information they had received from Mr. Fertitta and his advisors and our senior management during the September 28th conference call. Mr. Chadwick advised the special committee that he had spoken to a representative of certain holders of our 9.5% senior notes who confirmed Mr. Fertitta’s belief that the noteholders would more than likely require us to redeem the notes in February 2009.

The special committee then discussed with K&S and Cowen the information regarding the status of the Jefferies and WFF acquisition financing and the information concerning our recent and projected results of operations discussed during the September 28th conference call. The special committee also discussed the letter Olshan sent to K&S dated September 29, 2008 asserting that Mr. Fertitta and his advisors had answered all of the special committee’s questions during the September 28th conference call.

The special committee then discussed the options available to it regarding the proposed going private transaction, including the option of seeking to enforce the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement, the option of considering Mr. Fertitta’s revised offer at $17.00 per share, and the option of postponing any consideration of a going private transaction until the conditions for a sale of us may be more favorable. In connection with discussing the option of seeking to enforce the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement, the special committee considered Fertitta Holdings’ and Mr. Fertitta’s obligations under the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement. The special committee concluded that it should take all steps to keep open the possibility of a closing under the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement. The special committee discussed the fact that seeking to enforce the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement would likely result in litigation between us and Fertitta Holdings and possibly Mr. Fertitta, and between them and Jefferies and WFF, and considered the potential impact of such litigation on our business and our ability to refinance up to $400.0 million of our indebtedness that may mature in February 2009.

The special committee also discussed that the financial and credit markets may not improve for quite some time and that there was a significant risk that the financial and credit crisis would not subside in time to permit us to refinance our indebtedness that may mature in February 2009. The special committee’s advisors were told that the outstanding $300 million Wachovia credit facility could not be used to redeem the 9.5% senior notes.

 

49


Table of Contents

The special committee then discussed the option of considering Mr. Fertitta’s revised offer at $17.00 per share. The special committee evaluated whether, as part of its consideration of Mr. Fertitta’s proposed revised offer, it should take into consideration the possibility that we might be unable to refinance the $400.0 million of indebtedness that may mature in February 2009 if the 2008 proposed transaction is not closed.

Also during this meeting, Cowen updated the special committee on the status of our senior management’s delivery of certain financial information under the debt commitment letter. The special committee requested that Cowen (i) follow up with Jefferies regarding its and WFF’s debt commitment and the proposed amendments to the debt commitment letter and (ii) continue its review of the financial information it had received and to also update its valuation analysis of us in light of Mr. Fertitta’s proposal to revise the terms of the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement to provide for a per share merger consideration of $17.00. Finally, the special committee discussed the dramatic drop in the stock market during the day, which concluded with the Dow Jones falling 777 points, the largest one-day drop in history.

On September 29, 2008, on behalf of the special committee, K&S spoke with Olshan and confirmed that the conference call on September 28, 2008 was informative, and that the special committee requested additional information regarding (a) whether Fertitta Holdings has delivered to Jefferies and WFF all of the information Fertitta Holdings was required under the debt commitment letter to deliver no later than 45 days prior to the closing, (b) whether Fertitta Holdings, Jefferies and WFF have begun preparing and negotiating definitive documents for the debt financing, and (c) whether Jefferies and WFF had agreed to reduce the amounts of the required EBITDA for the 12-month period prior to closing that were currently a closing condition to the acquisition financing.

On September 30, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. During this meeting, K&S provided an update on its discussions with Olshan regarding the status of the 2008 proposed transaction and the Jefferies and WFF acquisition financing. Cowen briefed the special committee on its recent call with Jefferies regarding the Jefferies and WFF debt commitment letter, including that Jefferies stated that (a) it would not be willing to refinance our indebtedness that may mature in February 2009 except in connection with the 2008 proposed transaction, (b) it intended to reduce the amounts of the EBITDA thresholds in the financial performance closing condition and (c) Jefferies and WFF had required that Mr. Fertitta reduce the overall leverage in the acquisition financing. The special committee then discussed with Cowen the proposed amendments to the projected sources and uses of funds for Mr. Fertitta’s alternative $17.00 transaction and potential adjustments that could be made to support a higher offer. Cowen also updated the special committee on its conversations with our senior management regarding the status of our delivery of certain information and documents to Jefferies as required under the debt commitment letter. After discussion, the special committee requested that Cowen continue its review of the financial information received from our senior management to assess the financial effects on us arising out of Hurricane Ike, the turmoil in the financial and credit markets and the worsening economic conditions and to update Cowen’s valuation analysis of us. In light of the deepening crisis in the financial and credit markets and the worsening economic conditions, the special committee directed Cowen to complete its work as soon as practicable after it received all the information it needed. Cowen discussed with the special committee recent stock price performances and valuation multiples for us and other restaurant companies and gaming companies and changes in those valuation multiples for those other companies since Cowen’s presentation to the special committee on June 15, 2008. Cowen also discussed with the special committee the current state of the gaming and restaurant industries, the information Cowen received from our senior management regarding our recent results of operations, and certain metrics relating to our overall valuation. There was no written presentation made at this meeting. The Cowen representatives then exited the meeting.

The special committee and counsel reviewed the special committee’s fiduciary duties in considering any proposal to revise the price per share to be paid by Mr. Fertitta in the 2008 proposed transaction, as well as the terms of the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and the Jefferies and WFF debt commitment letter. The special committee then discussed (a) Mr. Fertitta’s efforts to close the debt financing under the Jefferies and WFF debt commitment letter and whether Mr. Fertitta had satisfied his obligation to use best efforts

 

50


Table of Contents

to close the Jefferies and WFF debt financing as contemplated under the debt commitment letter; (b) Mr. Fertitta’s ability to secure alternative debt financing should Jefferies and WFF terminate their debt commitment letter; (c) the conditions precedent to the Jefferies and WFF debt financing under the debt commitment letter, including whether a material adverse effect had occurred and whether we would be able to satisfy the EBITDA conditions in the debt commitment letter; and (d) the uncertainty surrounding how our EBITDA would be calculated and the exact financial period to be used in the EBITDA calculation.

The special committee then discussed the options available to it with regard to the proposed going private transaction with Mr. Fertitta, including seeking to enforce the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement, evaluating Mr. Fertitta’s revised offer at $17.00 per share, and postponing any consideration of a going private transaction with Mr. Fertitta until the conditions for a sale of us may be more favorable. The special committee again discussed the advantages and disadvantages of each of these options. The special committee concluded that there was a significant risk of litigation among us, Fertitta Holdings, Jefferies and WFF if the special committee sought to enforce the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement. The special committee then discussed our prospects of succeeding in litigation against Fertitta Holdings over the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and considered the potential impact of litigation among us, Fertitta Holdings, Jefferies and WFF on our ability to refinance the $400.0 million of indebtedness that may mature in February 2009.

The special committee then discussed the option of postponing any consideration of a going private transaction at this time. The special committee discussed the potential benefits of delaying the consideration of a going private transaction. The special committee also discussed the risk that if a going private transaction is not closed, we might be unable to refinance the $400.0 million of our indebtedness that may mature in February 2009 and the potential impact on us of a failure to refinance the indebtedness. The special committee discussed the fact that the Jefferies and WFF debt commitment letter would expire on November 15, 2008 and the steps that had to be taken by Fertitta Holdings and us to close the acquisition financing for the 2008 proposed transaction under the debt commitment letter before the November 15, 2008 expiration date or to secure alternative financing for the 2008 proposed transaction.

The special committee considered the information it had discussed with Cowen and discussed the possible responses to Mr. Fertitta on a revised merger transaction. The special committee expressed concern about the closing risks associated with any going private transaction because of the conditions precedent in the Jefferies and WFF debt commitment letter and discussed the ways in which the debt commitment letter could be revised to increase the certainty of closing. The special committee discussed the $17.00 per share offer price and the fact that $17.00 fell within the lower range of values of us presented by Cowen on June 15, 2008. The special committee discussed its obligation to negotiate the highest per share price possible. The special committee also discussed possible responses to the proposed amendment to the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and the proposed amendment to the debt commitment letter to address the special committee’s concerns.

Following this meeting, on behalf of the special committee, K&S advised Olshan that the special committee had concluded that given the turmoil in the financial and credit markets and financial industry generally, the current credit “freeze” and worsening general economic and industry conditions, we faced significant challenges in refinancing our indebtedness that may come due in February 2009 and that litigation over the failure of the current merger transaction would make it more difficult for us to refinance our indebtedness, and the special committee was willing to discuss with Mr. Fertitta the terms of a revised merger transaction at a lower price per share with increased certainty of closing, but that the special committee reserved its rights to seek to enforce Fertitta Holdings’ obligation to close the 2008 proposed transaction under the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement. K&S advised Olshan that the special committee would not negotiate the terms of a revised merger transaction until it and Mr. Fertitta had reached an agreement in principle on the merger consideration and Mr. Fertitta provided a revised debt commitment letter from Jefferies and WFF that increased the certainty of a closing of the acquisition financing for the revised transaction. For negotiation purposes, K&S advised Olshan that the special committee did not believe that it could approve a revised merger transaction at $17.00 per share

 

51


Table of Contents

but that it would likely be able to approve a revised merger transaction at $19.00 per share subject to receiving further information from Cowen, including a satisfactory fairness opinion, and successful resolution of other issues. K&S further advised Olshan that the special committee would not take formal action on any revised merger transaction unless Jefferies and WFF agreed to make changes in the debt commitment letter that would increase the certainty of a closing of the debt financing. On October 1, 2008, K&S delivered to Olshan its proposed revisions to the Jefferies and WFF debt commitment letter.

On October 1, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. During this meeting, K&S updated the special committee on its continued discussions with Olshan regarding the revised merger transaction proposed by Mr. Fertitta, including Olshan’s request that there be an “all-hands” meeting in Houston on Friday, October 3, 2008 to negotiate the price and other terms of a revised merger transaction. The special committee then discussed the process for initiating negotiations with Mr. Fertitta and his advisors with respect to his proposed revised merger transaction. On behalf of the special committee, K&S advised Olshan on October 2, 2008 that the special committee would negotiate by telephone until it had received Cowen’s updated formal valuation, the parties had reached an agreement in principle on price and Mr. Fertitta had provided to the special committee a revised debt commitment letter from Jefferies and WFF for a revised merger transaction that provided greater certainty of closing of the debt financing for the revised transaction.

On October 2, 2008, Olshan reported to K&S that Olshan expected to receive comments from Jefferies and WFF on the proposed changes to the debt commitment letter and requested that the special committee and its advisors meet in Houston with Mr. Fertitta and his advisors to finalize an amendment to the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement. After discussions with the special committee, K&S advised Olshan that the special committee and its advisors would negotiate by telephone until Mr. Fertitta and the special committee reached an agreement in principle on price for the proposed merger transaction and Mr. Fertitta and his advisors delivered to the special committee a revised debt commitment letter from Jefferies and WFF providing greater certainty of closing of the acquisition financing for an alternative transaction.

On October 6, 2008, the special committee received a letter from Mr. Fertitta, which stated, among other things, that he believed Jefferies and WFF would declare that a material adverse effect had occurred under their debt commitment letter rather than proceed with the acquisition financing as contemplated by the debt commitment letter, despite his best efforts to compel them to move forward. The letter further stated that, nonetheless, Mr. Fertitta was continuing to work with Jefferies and WFF in the hope that a transaction could be consummated. Mr. Fertitta committed in his letter to provide the special committee additional financial information that evidenced our lower than expected results of operations for September and further downward trends in October. Our senior management subsequently provided this information to Cowen and Jefferies on October 9, 2008.

On October 7, 2008, having concluded that the acquisition financing under the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement was likely not feasible despite vigorous efforts by Fertitta Holdings to maintain the Jefferies and WFF debt commitment letter, we issued a press release announcing that, in view of the closing of our Kemah and Galveston properties, the instability in the credit markets, and the deterioration in the casual dining and gaming industries, the debt financing required to complete the 2008 proposed transaction was in jeopardy at the current $21.00 per share price. The press release also reported that Mr. Fertitta was in negotiations with Jefferies about the financing for a transaction at a substantially reduced price. The press release concluded by stating that the special committee and Mr. Fertitta had not yet agreed upon the terms of a new transaction. That day the closing price of our common stock was $10.76 compared to the closing price of our common stock on October 6, 2008 of $13.11.

Later that same day, Mr. Chadwick discussed with the special committee’s advisors the letter the special committee had received from Mr. Fertitta the previous day, which the special committee responded to on October 8, 2008, and related conversations he had with Mr. Fertitta and other members of our senior management earlier in the day regarding the status of the Jefferies and WFF acquisition financing and our senior

 

52


Table of Contents

management’s plans to refinance up to $400.0 million of our indebtedness that may come due beginning on February 28, 2009 if the holders of our 9.5% senior notes exercise their right to require us to redeem the notes at 101% of the principal amount thereof.

After the discussion, on behalf of the special committee, K&S contacted Olshan to discuss the status of the Jefferies and WFF debt financing. Olshan informed K&S that Jefferies and WFF had indicated to Mr. Fertitta that they were willing to provide an amended debt commitment letter to him with the following revised terms: (a) aggregate funded indebtedness of $520.0 million; (b) a drop-dead date of February 15, 2009; (c) revised financial performance conditions of $126.5 million of EBITDA for the restaurant division and $57.5 million in EBITDA for the gaming division, in each case for the 12-month period ended November 30, 2008; and (d) if the 2008 proposed transaction is not consummated and EBITDA for our restaurant division for the 12-month period ended November 30, 2008 is no less than $117.5 million, then Jefferies and WFF would commit to refinance our current revolving credit facility and our outstanding 7.5% and 9.5% senior notes. On October 8, 2008, K&S received a letter from Olshan confirming the proposed debt financing Mr. Fertitta would receive from Jefferies and WFF. The letter indicated that the proposal was subject to change due to the rapid deterioration of the credit markets, industry conditions and our business. The letter explained that, under the terms of the proposed debt financing, any reduction in the transaction price would result in the lenders reducing the aggregate amount of debt they would fund to finance the 2008 proposed transaction, and would not permit Mr. Fertitta to reduce the aggregate amount of cash and equity he previously agreed to contribute to Fertitta Holdings under his original equity commitment letter. The letter also stated that Mr. Fertitta had negotiated the refinancing proposal on our behalf based on the special committee’s request that our management pursue a plan to refinance our indebtedness in the event the going-private transaction is not consummated. The letter concluded by stating that this refinancing proposal would allow our stockholders voting on a revised merger transaction to make a decision that is not influenced by concerns about our ability to refinance our indebtedness.

On October 9, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. Cowen advised the special committee that senior management had delivered to Cowen revised six-year financial projections for our business on the prior day. Cowen explained to the special committee that the revised projections reflected a materially more negative outlook for our business over the next five years as compared to the six-year projections which had been previously provided by senior management and which Cowen and the special committee discussed on September 30, 2008. Cowen advised the special committee that our senior management had expressed to Cowen that the revisions to the projections reflected primarily management’s latest view of the impact on our projected financial results of the worsening economic conditions and the downturn in our restaurant and gaming businesses, including the dramatic downturn in the gaming industry in Las Vegas. Cowen advised the special committee that it had not yet had an opportunity to review the revised projections with our senior management but would discuss the revised projections with our senior management. Representatives of Cowen discussed the revised projections with Mr. Liem later that day.

The special committee discussed the revised financial projections prepared by our senior management and the implications of the revised projections for the going private transaction. The special committee discussed whether the revised projections would affect Mr. Fertitta’s willingness to proceed with the 2008 proposed transaction at a price of $17.00 per share. The special committee then discussed the unprecedented collapse of the financial and credit markets, the potential failure of other large financial institutions, and the possible impact of these developments on us and our business. The special committee considered whether the revised projections would affect the willingness or ability of Jefferies and WFF to provide acquisition financing for the 2008 proposed transaction and how such projections coupled with the collapse of the financial and credit markets would affect our ability to refinance our indebtedness that may mature in February 2009 in the event that the 2008 proposed transaction does not close as described in the letter received by K&S from Olshan on October 8, 2008. The special committee concluded that urgent discussions were needed with Mr. Fertitta and Jefferies so that the special committee could better evaluate the impact of these developments on the prospects for the 2008 proposed transaction, the acquisition financing and the commitment from Jefferies and WFF to refinance our indebtedness that may mature in February 2009. The special committee agreed to participate in an all-hands

 

53


Table of Contents

meeting in Houston the following day with Mr. Fertitta, his advisors, members of our senior management and representatives from Jefferies to conduct these discussions.

On October 10, 2008, the special committee held an in-person meeting in the Houston office of K&S. The special committee reviewed the various options that the special committee had considered in moving forward with a transaction with Mr. Fertitta, including: (a) seeking to enforce the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement; (b) revising the terms of the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement to provide for a merger at a lower price per share; or (c) postponing any further consideration of a going private transaction until the conditions for a sale of us may become more favorable. The special committee discussed the advantages and disadvantages of each option but deferred making a decision until it received an update from Cowen regarding the revised financial projections it had received from our senior management on October 9, 2008 and had a discussion with our senior management regarding the recent changes to our projections. The special committee then discussed the potential willingness of Jefferies and WFF to refinance our indebtedness that may come due in February 2009 if the 2008 proposed transaction was not consummated. The special committee stated that it intended to discuss the proposed back-stop commitment of Jefferies and WFF with certain members of our senior management and with representatives of Jefferies who were invited to join the meeting later in the day.

Later that same day, the special committee and its advisors met with Mr. Fertitta and his advisors and certain members of our senior management in the Houston office of K&S to discuss developments with respect to our recent results of operations and the most recent revised financial projections delivered to the special committee. Mr. Fertitta presented to the special committee his views with respect to the unprecedented crisis in the financial and credit markets and its impact on us. Mr. Fertitta also expressed concern about deterioration in the economy generally and our recent results of operations. Mr. Fertitta stated that our senior management had substantially reduced our projections for our financial performance for the next five years due to the dramatic deterioration in the economy generally and the restaurant and gaming industries particularly, and the likely recession in the U.S. economy that is expected to affect us adversely for the foreseeable future, particularly our gaming business in Las Vegas. Mr. Fertitta noted, in particular, our recent poor results at the Golden Nugget and at one of our key icon restaurant properties, and stated that he expected the downward trend to continue at both locations for the foreseeable future. Mr. Fertitta also noted that we might have to revise our plans of expanding the Golden Nugget due in large part to poor economic conditions which he expected would continue throughout 2009 and the increased competition in Las Vegas that is expected to arrive in late 2009 and early 2010 from the completion of new hotel and casino projects. Mr. Fertitta then informed the special committee that, based on his views of our current financial condition, our revised financial projections and our substantially decreased near- and long-term business prospects, he was willing to acquire us at a revised price of $13.00 per share. The special committee and Cowen then asked Mr. Fertitta various questions regarding his views on our recent results of operations and our revised financial projections, the terms of the acquisition financing for his revised offer and the proposed back-stop commitment from Jefferies and WFF to refinance our indebtedness that may mature in February 2009 in the event that the 2008 proposed transaction does not close. The special committee also asked Mr. Fertitta whether he would increase the amount of the cash equity he had agreed to contribute to the acquisition financing to support a higher per share price in the 2008 proposed transaction. Mr. Fertitta indicated that he would not contribute additional cash equity due to the substantial additional costs associated with the revised acquisition financing that he would bear. After discussion, Mr. Fertitta, representatives from Olshan and Mr. Scheinthal exited the meeting.

The special committee and Cowen then discussed with Mr. Liem the most recent revised financial projections he had prepared. Mr. Liem stated that the material changes in the most recent financial projections reflect our recent lower than expected results of operations at the Golden Nugget and the general downturn in the restaurant industry and declining results of operations of our restaurant division, and the continued downward trend observed in the first weekend of October. Mr. Liem then informed the special committee that he had revised the earlier projections prepared by our senior management based on (i) these downward trends, (ii) the continued downturn in the restaurant and gaming industries, (iii) the worsening general economic conditions and expected recession and (iv) the expected increase in competition in Las Vegas in late 2009 and early 2010,

 

54


Table of Contents

including as a result of aggressive discounting of room rates. The special committee and Cowen then discussed with Mr. Liem the terms of the revised debt financing commitment from Jefferies and WFF to Mr. Fertitta, including the revised financial performance conditions expected to be included in the revised debt financing commitment. The special committee asked Mr. Liem, among other things, about the requirement for delivery of financial information and whether he believed we could meet the financial performance targets Jefferies and WFF set as conditions to their obligation to provide Mr. Fertitta the acquisition financing for the revised offer. Mr. Liem told the special committee that he would work with Jefferies to clarify the requirements for delivery of financial information under the revised debt commitment letter. Mr. Liem also advised the special committee that he believed that we would satisfy the revised financial conditions. The special committee then asked Mr. Liem whether he believed that we could, within the coming months, negotiate an extension of the required redemption date for our 9.5% senior notes or otherwise refinance the $400.0 million of indebtedness that may come due in February 2009 if the holders of our 9.5% senior notes require us to redeem the notes. Mr. Liem stated that he had recently discussed with a representative of certain holders of our 9.5% senior notes the possibility of extending the redemption date for the notes, but that the representative believed that the noteholders would only consider such an extension if the interest rate for the notes was increased to at least 22.0% and that the noteholders would likely require warrants that could potentially dilute substantially the ownership interest of the holders of our common stock. Mr. Liem stated further that, due to the prevailing extraordinary conditions in the financial and credit markets, he did not believe that we had alternative prospects available to us, other than pursuant to the transactions contemplated by the amended 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement, to refinance our indebtedness that may come due in February 2009. After further discussion, Mr. Liem exited the meeting.

Later that same day, representatives from Jefferies met with the special committee and its advisors, Mr. Fertitta and his advisors and members of our senior management team. The Jefferies representatives described to the special committee the terms of the proposed amended debt financing commitment that Jefferies and WFF were currently willing to provide for the revised offer, which included, among other things, (a) $500.0 million of funded debt financing, instead of $520.0 million, (b) revised financial performance targets with respect to our EBITDA for the 12-month period ended November 30, 2008, (c) an extended drop dead date of February 15, 2009 and (d) in the event the 2008 proposed transaction is not consummated, to refinance our revolving credit facility and outstanding 9.5% and 7.5% senior notes. The special committee asked the Jefferies representatives numerous questions regarding the terms and conditions of the proposed revised debt financing commitment, including whether Jefferies and WFF would consider refinancing our revolving credit facility and outstanding 9.5% and 7.5% senior notes if there was not currently pending a going-private transaction with Mr. Fertitta. The Jefferies representatives responded by stating that Jefferies and WFF would not be interested in refinancing our revolving credit facility and outstanding 9.5% and 7.5% senior notes outside the context of a possible going-private transaction with Mr. Fertitta. The special committee expressed its concern about certainty of closing and Jefferies confirmed that Jefferies and WFF would be willing to modify the terms of the amended debt commitment letter to provide additional closing certainty. Jefferies advised the special committee that, as a result of the tremendous instability in the credit markets, the proposal of Jefferies and WFF to provide the acquisition financing for the revised offer from Mr. Fertitta and to provide a back-stop commitment to refinance our indebtedness that may mature in February 2009 would expire unless the parties reached an agreement in principle on a revised transaction by the end of the business day. After further discussion, the Jefferies representatives, the Olshan representatives and Messrs. Fertitta, Scheinthal and Liem exited the meeting.

After the meeting with the Jefferies representatives and Mr. Fertitta and his advisors, the special committee, K&S and Cowen discussed the information presented to it by Messrs. Fertitta and Liem and the Jefferies representatives. Cowen also discussed with the special committee the projected sources and uses of funds in connection with Mr. Fertitta’s revised offer, including the funds to be provided under the revised Jefferies and WFF debt financing commitment of $500.0 million of funded indebtedness. The special committee discussed the fact that Mr. Fertitta had said he was unable and unwilling to provide additional equity to support a transaction at a higher price. The special committee then discussed the key issues presented in the draft amendment to the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement delivered by Mr. Fertitta and how to resolve the open issues. The key open issues discussed included: (a) whether to further revise the definition of “material adverse

 

55


Table of Contents

effect” in the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement to exclude specific events known by the parties that had occurred; (b) whether to extend the go-shop period to 30 days from the 15 days initially proposed by Fertitta Holdings; (c) whether to require Mr. Fertitta to agree not to purchase shares of our common stock in the open market; (d) whether to condition the stockholder approval of the amended 2008 proposed transaction on the approval of a majority of the disinterested shares; and (e) whether to remove the condition to Mr. Fertitta’s obligation to close the amended 2008 proposed transaction that the financial performance conditions to the debt financing be satisfied or waived. The Cowen representatives then exited the meeting

The special committee then reviewed again the options under consideration. The special committee discussed the unprecedented crisis in the financial and credit markets and the potential impact of the crisis on us generally and the potential impact of the crisis on our ability to refinance our indebtedness that may mature in February 2009 in the event that the 2008 proposed transaction did not close. The special committee reviewed again the information provided by Mr. Fertitta and his advisors on Mr. Fertitta’s efforts to close the acquisition financing under the Jefferies and WFF debt commitment letter for the 2008 proposed transaction under the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and his efforts to secure alternative financing for the 2008 proposed transaction under the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement. The special committee reviewed again the definition of “material adverse effect” in the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and Mr. Fertitta’s belief that Jefferies and WFF would claim that a material adverse effect had occurred which would excuse Jefferies and WFF from closing the acquisition financing for the 2008 proposed transaction under the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and permit Mr. Fertitta to terminate the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement. The special committee also discussed: (a) the fact that, in light of prevailing credit market conditions, Jefferies and WFF had not proceeded to finalize with Mr. Fertitta the credit documentation for the acquisition financing under the initial Jefferies and WFF debt commitment letter for the 2008 proposed transaction under the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement; (b) the fact that the existing debt commitment letter of Jefferies and WFF for the 2008 proposed transaction under the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement contains a number of closing conditions and that we may be unable to satisfy all of them, which would excuse Jefferies and WFF from funding the acquisition financing for the 2008 proposed transaction under the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement; (c) whether Mr. Fertitta would be required to pay us a termination fee in the event of a termination of the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and, if so, the prospects of efforts to enforce the termination fee in the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and the effects of a lawsuit to recover that fee from Fertitta Holdings or Mr. Fertitta in light of the other significant challenges we faced; and (d) the information obtained by Mr. Chadwick that holders of our 9.5% senior notes would likely exercise their right to require us to redeem the notes in February 2009. The special committee noted the $8.44 per share closing price of our common stock on October 9th and that Mr. Fertitta’s $13.00 per share offer represented a premium of approximately 54% over that price. The special committee also discussed the comments from representatives of Jefferies that the offer of Jefferies and WFF to provide acquisition financing for the revised offer from Mr. Fertitta would expire at the end of the day.

After further discussion, the special committee concluded that it was in the best interests of us and our unaffiliated stockholders to amend the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement to provide for a 2008 proposed transaction at a revised offer price. In doing so, the special committee took into account its duty with respect to the price per share to be paid for us and discussed the process by which it would negotiate with Mr. Fertitta to increase his offer price.

Later that same day, representatives of K&S met with representatives of Olshan to discuss the terms of the amendment to the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement, and the special committee met with Mr. Fertitta to discuss Mr. Fertitta’s revised offer price of $13.00 per share. After meeting with Mr. Fertitta, the special committee met with the Jefferies representatives to discuss further the terms of the revised debt commitment letter of Jefferies and WFF.

After these meetings, the special committee met to discuss the negotiations with Olshan and Mr. Fertitta regarding the revised offer price and the draft amendment to the original 2008 proposed transaction merger

 

56


Table of Contents

agreement. The special committee advised that it had demanded Mr. Fertitta to increase his revised offer price to $14.00 per share and, after negotiation with Mr. Fertitta, he agreed to increase his revised offer price to $13.50 per share and that the Jefferies representatives had stated that they would continue to work with Mr. Fertitta to deliver a revised debt commitment letter to support a transaction at this price. K&S then updated the special committee regarding the negotiations with Olshan on the draft amendment to the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and informed the special committee that Mr. Fertitta would not agree to refrain from purchasing shares of our common stock in the open market. K&S and the special committee then discussed the key outstanding issues under the draft amendment to the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement, including: (a) whether to conform the revised definition of “material adverse effect” in the amendment to the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement to the definition of such term in the revised debt commitment letter; (b) whether to condition the stockholder approval of the amended 2008 proposed transaction on the approval of a majority of the disinterested shares; (c) whether to reduce the $24.0 million reverse termination fee Fertitta Holdings would be required to pay us if all of Fertitta Holdings’ and Fertitta Acquisition’s conditions to consummate the amended 2008 proposed transaction have been satisfied or waived and Fertitta Holdings fails to pay the amended 2008 proposed transaction consideration; and (d) whether to remove the condition to Fertitta Holdings’ obligation to close the amended 2008 proposed transaction that the financial performance conditions to the amended debt commitment letter be satisfied or waived. The special committee discussed how to resolve the key outstanding issues under the amendment to the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and K&S continued negotiations with Olshan on the amendment to the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement.

After negotiations with Olshan, K&S reported to the special committee a proposed resolution of all outstanding issues under the draft amendment to the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement, as follows: (a) the revised definition of “material adverse effect” in the amendment to the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement would be conformed to the revised definition of such term in the amended Jefferies and WFF debt commitment letter; (b) the stockholder approval of the amended 2008 proposed transaction would not be conditioned on the approval of a majority of the disinterested shares; (c) the additional go-shop period would be 30 days; (d) the $24.0 million reverse termination fee payable by Fertitta Holdings to us would be reduced to $15.0 million, reflecting the reduced transaction price and termination fee payable by us; (e) Fertitta Holdings’ obligation to close the amended 2008 proposed transaction would be conditioned on the satisfaction or waiver of the financial performance conditions to the amended debt commitment letter so long as the debt commitment letter was revised as discussed to increase closing certainty; (f) shares of our common stock acquired by Mr. Fertitta after June 16, 2008 will be counted towards determining the presence of a quorum at the stockholders meeting called for the purpose of considering the 2008 proposed transaction, but will not be counted towards determining whether the 2008 proposed transaction has been adopted by the required stockholder vote; and (g) if the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement is terminated so that we may pursue a competing acquisition proposal, then the special committee may vote all shares of our common stock acquired by Mr. Fertitta after June 16, 2008 in favor of such competing acquisition proposal at the stockholders meeting called for the purpose of considering such competing acquisition proposal.

On October 13, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting in anticipation that the amendment to the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and the amended debt commitment letter would be finalized that day. Cowen then delivered to the special committee its financial analysis of the proposed transaction with Mr. Fertitta and responded to questions from the special committee. A copy of the full presentation dated October 13, 2008 that Cowen prepared for the special committee is filed as Exhibit 99.1(c)(6) to the Schedule 13E-3 filed with the SEC in connection with the 2008 proposed transaction and is available for inspection and copying at our principal executive offices during our regular business hours by an interested equity security holder or a representative who has been so designated in writing. After discussion, the special committee asked Cowen to deliver its fairness opinion. Cowen then delivered its oral opinion, subsequently confirmed in writing as of the same date, to the effect that and subject to the various assumptions set forth therein, as of October 13, 2008, the date of the opinion, the merger consideration of $13.50 per share to be received pursuant to the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement by the holders of our common stock was

 

57


Table of Contents

fair, from a financial point of view, to such holders, other than Mr. Fertitta and any other holders who will become affiliates of, or direct or indirect investors in, Fertitta Holdings or Fertitta Acquisition.

From October 13 through October 17, 2008, Mr. Fertitta and his advisors worked with Jefferies and WFF to finalize the amended debt commitment letter. On October 17, 2008, the amendment to the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement was finalized by conforming the definition of “material adverse effect” in the amendment to the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement to the definition of such term in the Jefferies and WFF amended debt commitment letter.

On October 18, 2008, the special committee held a telephonic meeting. During this meeting, K&S reported that all outstanding issues under the amendment to the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and the debt commitment letter had been resolved consistently with the discussions of the special committee and provided to the special committee a summary of the key terms of the amendment to the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and the amendment to the debt commitment letter. The special committee discussed the terms of the 2008 proposed transaction, including questions relating to the proposed changes to the amendment to the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and the amendment to the debt commitment letter to enhance the certainty of closing as previously discussed by the special committee. K&S confirmed that Mr. Fertitta, Jefferies and WFF had agreed to modify the definition of material adverse effect as directed by the special committee to exclude any facts known to Mr. Fertitta, Jefferies or WFF as of the effective date of the amendments to the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and the debt commitment letter. The amended debt commitment letter also provided that in the event that the 2008 proposed transaction was abandoned or terminated by February 2009, Jefferies would provide alternate financing necessary for us to refinance the 9.5% senior notes that may be redeemed at the end of February 2009. K&S also confirmed that the EBITDA conditions in the debt commitment letter had been revised as directed by the special committee so that as a condition to the lenders’ obligation to fund the acquisition financing for the going private transaction the EBITDA for our restaurant business and the gaming business for the twelve months ended September 30, 2008 would have to equal or exceed $127.5 million and $58.5 million, respectively, and the EBITDA for our restaurant business and the gaming business for the twelve months ended November 30, 2008 would have to equal or exceed $126.5 million and $57.5 million, respectively. K&S also confirmed that the EBITDA condition in the amended debt commitment letter for the back-stop refinancing of our indebtedness which may mature in February 2009 had been revised as discussed by the special committee so that, as a condition to the lenders’ obligation to refinance our indebtedness, the EBITDA for our restaurant business for the twelve months ended November 30, 2008 would have to equal or exceed $117.5 million.

Cowen then delivered to the special committee its updated financial analysis of the proposed transaction with Mr. Fertitta and responded to questions from the special committee. A copy of the full presentation dated October 18, 2008 that Cowen prepared for the special committee is filed as Exhibit 99.1(c)(7) to the Schedule 13E-3 filed with the SEC in connection with the 2008 proposed transaction and is available for inspection and copying at our principal executive offices during our regular business hours by an interested equity security holder or a representative who has been so designated in writing. After discussion, the special committee asked Cowen to deliver its fairness opinion. Cowen then delivered its oral opinion, subsequently confirmed in writing as of the same date, to the effect that and subject to the various assumptions set forth therein, as of October 18, 2008, the date of the opinion, the merger consideration of $13.50 per share to be received pursuant to the amended 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement by the holders of our common stock was fair, from a financial point of view, to such holders, other than Mr. Fertitta and any other holders who will become affiliates of, or direct or indirect investors in, Fertitta Holdings or Fertitta Acquisition. The Cowen representatives then exited the meeting.

The special committee then discussed, among other things, Cowen’s presentation as well as the positive factors and potential benefits of the amended 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement with Mr. Fertitta, and the risks and potentially negative factors relating to the amended 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement.

Mr. Chadwick then summarized for the special committee the options considered by the special committee in connection with the discussions with Mr. Fertitta about the original 2008 proposed transaction merger

 

58


Table of Contents

agreement and his proposal to revise its terms, including: (i) the option of seeking to enforce the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement; (ii) the option of revising the terms of the original 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement with Mr. Fertitta as discussed to provide for a merger at $13.50 per share; and (iii) the option of postponing further consideration of a going private transaction until conditions for a sale of us may be more favorable. The special committee again discussed the advantages and disadvantages of each option. The special committee concluded that taking into account all factors considered by the special committee, the special committee believed that it was in the best interests of our unaffiliated stockholders for the special committee to recommend to our board of directors a revised transaction with Mr. Fertitta at $13.50 per share.

Prior to taking any action, Mr. Chadwick asked each member of the special committee to confirm whether or not anything had occurred that might pose potential conflicts or that would cause the member to question whether he could act independently with respect to the proposed transaction with Mr. Fertitta. Each member of the special committee reported that nothing had occurred and that he did not have any conflict of interest and that he remained independent for purposes of serving on the special committee.

Mr. Chadwick then reviewed with the special committee the proposed resolutions to be adopted by the special committee in connection with the revised transaction with Mr. Fertitta. Each member confirmed that he had received and reviewed the resolutions. After discussion, the special committee agreed that prior to recommending a revised transaction with Mr. Fertitta at $13.50 per share, the special committee would ask Mr. Liem to confirm again in the meeting of our board of directors that, based on our most recent financial projections, he believed that we would satisfy the EBITDA conditions for the acquisition financing and for the refinancing set forth in the amended debt commitment letter of Jefferies and WFF.

After further discussion, the special committee resolved unanimously that, upon receiving Mr. Liem’s confirmation that he believes that we will meet the financial performance conditions under the amended Jefferies and WFF debt financing commitment letter, the amended 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and the 2008 proposed transaction were fair to, advisable and in the best interests of us and our stockholders, other than Fertitta Holdings, Fertitta Acquisition, Mr. Fertitta and their respective affiliates. The special committee also unanimously recommended, subject to receiving Mr. Liem’s confirmation, that our board of directors approve and adopt the amended 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and the amended 2008 proposed transaction and that our board of directors recommend that our stockholders approve the amended 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and the 2008 proposed transaction.

Following the special committee meeting, our board of directors held a telephonic meeting. At this meeting, Mr. Chadwick, as chairman of the special committee, reviewed the findings and recommendation of the special committee. Mr. Chadwick asked Mr. Liem, who was present at the meeting, whether he believed we would meet the financial performance conditions under the Jefferies and WFF amended debt financing commitment letter. Mr. Liem confirmed that he believed that we would. Mr. Chadwick then presented the special committee’s recommendation that our board of directors approve and adopt the amended 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and the 2008 proposed transaction and that our board of directors recommend that our stockholders approve the amended 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and the 2008 proposed transaction. After discussion, our board of directors, with Mr. Fertitta taking no part in the meeting discussion or vote, unanimously (i) determined that the amended 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and the 2008 proposed transaction were fair to, advisable and in the best interest of us and our stockholders, other than Fertitta Holdings, Fertitta Acquisition, Mr. Fertitta and their respective affiliates, (ii) approved and adopted the amended 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and the 2008 proposed transaction and (iii) recommended approval of the amended 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement to our stockholders.

Shortly following the meeting, Fertitta Holdings delivered definitive amended equity and debt commitments to the special committee and its advisors, representatives of K&S and Olshan completed negotiations regarding certain minor details on the amended 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement, and the amended 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement was executed. We issued a press release later that same day announcing the amended transaction.

 

59


Table of Contents

On October 20, 2008, pursuant to the solicitation provisions set forth in the amended 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement, Cowen, at the direction and on behalf of the special committee, began contacting the parties it had previously identified and discussed with the special committee during the 2008 first go-shop period as being potential acquirers of us.

The special committee conducted the second 2008 proposed transaction go-shop period (the “2008 second go-shop period”) using substantially the same process and protocol it used for the 2008 first go-shop period. During the 2008 second go-shop period, Cowen contacted, on behalf of the special committee, a total of 47 parties, which consisted of the same 38 potential financial sponsors and 9 potential strategic acquirers contacted during the 2008 first go-shop period. One of the parties contacted expressed a potential interest in acquiring only our restaurant division. The special committee discussed the possible sale of our restaurant division, including the potential advantages and disadvantages to us and our stockholders of such a transaction, and determined that a sale of our restaurant division in a separate transaction would not be in the best interest of our stockholders. None of the other parties contacted during the 2008 second go-shop period expressed an interest during this go-shop period in receiving our confidential information memorandum or submitted to the special committee an indication of interest in making a competing proposal to acquire us.

Certain parties contacted during the 2008 second go-shop period expressed that the $13.50 per share offer price, our capital structure and the current macroeconomic environment for restaurants and casinos were major factors in determining not to submit an indication of interest or otherwise participate in the go-shop process. The 2008 second go-shop period ended at 11:59 p.m. (New York time) on November 17, 2008 and, at that time, the special committee was not engaged in ongoing discussions with any parties with respect to a competing proposal to acquire us.

Throughout the 2008 second go-shop period, the special committee’s advisors and members of the special committee had periodic discussions regarding the solicitation process.

On December 4, 2008, the record date to determine the stockholders entitled to vote on the 2008 proposed transaction was set at December 15, 2008.

On January 11, 2009, the amended 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement among us, Fertitta Holdings and Fertitta Acquisition was terminated. In connection with the proxy statement required to be provided to our stockholders voting on the 2008 proposed transaction, the SEC requested that we disclose certain information from the amended debt financing commitment letter issued by Jefferies and Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC (formerly known as Wells Fargo Foothill) to Fertitta Holdings, Fertitta Acquisition and us about the proposed financing for the 2008 proposed transaction and for the alternative financing (in the event the 2008 proposed transaction did not occur). The commitment letter issued by Jefferies and Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC required that such information not be disclosed and be kept confidential. Jefferies and Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC advised Fertitta Holdings, Fertitta Acquisition and us that disclosure of the confidential information would be in violation of the terms of the commitment letter and would result in Jefferies and Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC terminating their commitments for both the 2008 proposed transaction and the alternative financing. If Jefferies and Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC had pulled their commitments, there would not have been financing available for the 2008 proposed transaction, and we would have lost our alternative financing commitment. However, if the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement was terminated, no proxy statement would be required to be distributed to stockholders, which would allow us to preserve the confidentiality of the terms of the alternative financing until the final terms were decided. Given the economic environment and our need to refinance our existing approximately $400 million in senior notes, we informed Mr. Fertitta that we were not prepared to risk losing our alternative financing commitment and were therefore unable to comply with a condition of the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement which required distribution of a proxy statement to our stockholders to vote on the adoption of the 2008 proposed transaction proposal. As a result of our inability to provide a proxy statement to our stockholders, we informed Mr. Fertitta that we would be unable to consummate the 2008 proposed transaction. Mr. Fertitta and the special committee

 

60


Table of Contents

met and agreed that due to the foregoing, it was in the best interests of us and our stockholders to terminate the 2008 proposed transaction. As a result of our decision to terminate the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement, neither Fertitta nor we were obligated to make any payments to each other.

On February 13, 2009, we announced the closing of a new $510 million financing, which included an offering of approximately $295.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 14% senior secured notes due 2011 and an approximately $215.0 million amended and restated senior secured credit facility consisting of a $50 million revolving credit line and a $165.6 million term loan. Gross proceeds from the 14% notes and senior credit facility, together with our cash on hand, were used to pay our former $400 million in senior notes as well as transaction fees and expenses. These notes and the credit facility were refinanced in November 2009.

The Current Transaction

On August 14, 2009, our board of directors held a telephonic meeting with a representative from Haynes and Boone also participating. During this meeting, Mr. Fertitta stated that in view of the market conditions relating to the casual dining and gaming industries he believed we should consider exploring strategic alternatives. He further stated that there was a possibility that he would propose a going-private transaction and for this reason he did not believe it was appropriate for him to be involved in any such discussion of strategic alternatives. Our board of directors (without Mr. Fertitta participating) then determined that a special committee should be formed to review strategic alternatives and such committee should be empowered to retain counsel, financial advisors and such other consultants as the special committee may deem appropriate or necessary in conducting a review of strategic alternatives. Our board of directors unanimously resolved (without Mr. Fertitta voting) to establish a special committee composed of two of our outside, non-employee directors and delegated to the special committee the exclusive power and authority to, among other things, (1) review and evaluate strategic alternatives for us and determine the advisability of entering into one or more transactions in connection therewith, which may include, but not be limited to: refinancing or restructuring our debt or the debt of one of our subsidiaries, the Golden Nugget, Inc.; selling various product lines or concepts; spinning off various product lines or concepts; or selling us entirely, (2) solicit proposals from third parties in connection therewith, (3) negotiate with third parties with respect to the terms and conditions of any proposed transaction, (4) should any new proposal be made by one of our affiliates, review, evaluate, negotiate and determine whether the terms and conditions of the proposed transaction are no less favorable to us than those that could be obtained in arm’s length dealings with a person who is not one of our affiliates, (5) determine whether any proposed transaction is fair to, and in the best interests of, us and all of our stockholders, and (6) recommend to the board of directors what action, if any, should be taken by us with respect to any proposal or strategic alternative. After discussion, our board of directors appointed Michael Chadwick and Kenneth Brimmer to serve on the special committee.

On August 18, 2009, the special committee met with representatives of several law firms, including Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP (“Cadwalader”), to discuss their serving as counsel to the special committee. After discussion, the special committee determined to retain Cadwalader as its legal counsel.

On August 20, 2009 and August 25, 2009, the special committee held a total of three telephonic meetings with a representative from Cadwalader in attendance at each of these meetings. During these meetings, the special committee interviewed representatives from three investment banks to discuss such investment banks serving as financial advisor to the special committee. The representatives from the investment banks discussed their respective qualifications, experience in advising special committees in connection with similar transactions and their experience in and perspectives on the restaurant and gaming industries. The special committee asked questions regarding, among other things, their firms’ qualifications and their relationships with us, Mr. Fertitta and others that might pose potential conflicts of interest or affect the ability of their firms to serve as independent financial advisor to the special committee. Each investment bank also made a proposal to the special committee regarding its fees and the other terms of its engagement.

On August 26, 2009, the special committee determined to retain Moelis as its financial advisor.

 

61


Table of Contents

On September 4, 2009, the special committee received a letter from Mr. Fertitta expressing his desire to enter into formal discussions with the special committee regarding a going-private transaction and a related tax-free split-off of our wholly-owned subsidiary, Saltgrass, Inc. (“Saltgrass”) in which Mr. Fertitta would acquire all of the shares of our common stock that he did not currently own and our stockholders, including Mr. Fertitta, would receive shares of Saltgrass in exchange for their shares of our common stock. In the transaction, our stockholders other than Mr. Fertitta would receive a greater percentage of shares of Saltgrass than would Mr. Fertitta. Mr. Fertitta’s letter stated that Saltgrass would be a reporting company under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and would be listed for trading on a national securities exchange as of the closing of the transaction. Mr. Fertitta further indicated that he would be willing to have approval of the transaction conditioned on the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of our common stock not owned by him. Mr. Fertitta also noted as part of the transaction that he anticipated we would refinance our outstanding debt and Saltgrass would have stand-alone debt at an appropriate level with terms supportive of higher unit growth.

On September 8, 2009, the special committee held a telephonic meeting with representatives from Cadwalader and Moelis in attendance. At the meeting, the special committee discussed the letter sent by Mr. Fertitta concerning the proposed going-private transaction and related tax-free split-off of Saltgrass. The participants agreed that it would be appropriate for the special committee to advise Mr. Fertitta that the special committee had received the letter and that the special committee would not be in a position to evaluate and make any recommendations regarding any transaction described in the letter until such time that it had had the opportunity to explore alternative proposals. The participants discussed the process of exploring strategic alternatives. The representatives from Moelis confirmed their plan to proceed with a review of our financial condition in order to assist the special committee in evaluating proposals for strategic alternatives.

On September 9, 2009, Mr. Brimmer sent a letter to Mr. Fertitta stating that the special committee would need more detailed information on his proposal and that the special committee would not make any recommendations regarding his proposal until such time as it has had the opportunity to explore alternative proposals and concluded that Mr. Fertitta’s proposal is superior to any other proposal and in the best interests of us and our stockholders.

On September 15, 2009, Mr. Fertitta provided additional material to the special committee concerning the proposed going-private transaction and related tax-free split-off of Saltgrass. Under the terms of the proposal, our common stock not held by Mr. Fertitta would be cancelled and converted into the right to receive 66.1% of the shares of Saltgrass. Our common stock held by Mr. Fertitta would be cancelled and converted into the right to receive 33.9% of the shares of Saltgrass. Mr. Fertitta would acquire sole control of us through the merger of us with and into a newly formed, wholly-owned entity of Mr. Fertitta. Saltgrass would be a reporting company under the Exchange Act and would be listed for trading on a national securities exchange as of the closing of the transaction. Saltgrass’ board of directors would consist of a majority of independent directors. We would provide Saltgrass with general, administrative and support services at an initial cost of 4% of revenue for a guaranteed period of at least three years. The merger agreement would require the approval of our stockholders and Mr. Fertitta indicated a willingness to have the merger conditioned on the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of our common stock not owned by him.

On September 16, 2009, the special committee held a telephonic meeting with representatives from Cadwalader and Moelis in attendance. At the meeting, the special committee and the representatives from Moelis discussed its process for exploring strategic alternatives, including any proposals from Mr. Fertitta. After discussion, the special committee determined that the review of all strategic alternatives should continue to be conducted concurrently with any discussions with Mr. Fertitta regarding a potential transaction.

On September 21, 2009, the special committee held a telephonic meeting with representatives from Cadwalader and Moelis in attendance. At the meeting, the representatives from Moelis discussed with the special

 

62


Table of Contents

committee Mr. Fertitta’s proposal. The special committee directed Moelis to begin the process of contacting third parties that might be interested in pursuing a transaction with us.

On September 29, 2009, Mr. Fertitta’s legal advisor, Olshan, sent to Cadwalader an initial draft of a merger agreement for the going-private transaction and related tax-free split-off of Saltgrass.

On October 7, 2009, the special committee held a meeting at Moelis’ New York offices with representatives from Cadwalader and Moelis in attendance. At the meeting, the special committee noted that Mr. Fertitta had requested a meeting that afternoon. It was agreed that the special committee and its advisors would meet with Mr. Fertitta and explain that the review of all strategic alternatives, including Mr. Fertitta’s proposal, was ongoing. The representatives from Moelis then discussed with the special committee various strategic alternatives for us. The representatives from Moelis reviewed with the special committee a list of over 80 potential buyers they were contacting as part of the strategic alternative process, which potential buyers included financial investors and strategic buyers as well as certain individual investors. The representatives from Moelis informed the special committee that initial contact had been made with 44 potential buyers. The representatives from Moelis then discussed with the special committee strategic alternatives we could pursue, which included maintaining the status quo, pursuing acquisitions, pursuing selected asset sales/spin offs, conducting a stand-alone restructuring of certain assets, engaging in a stock or cash merger with a strategic or financial party or pursuing Mr. Fertitta’s proposal. The representatives from Moelis responded to all questions raised by the special committee with respect to these potential alternatives.

In the afternoon of October 7, 2009, the special committee, together with representatives of Moelis and Cadwalader, met at Moelis’ New York offices with Mr. Fertitta and representatives from Jefferies & Company and Olshan. At the meeting, the special committee informed Mr. Fertitta that it was proceeding with its review of strategic alternatives and continuing in its review of Mr. Fertitta’s proposal, and that the special committee wanted to further review potential strategic alternatives before engaging in discussions regarding Mr. Fertitta’s proposal.

On October 15, 2009, the special committee held a telephonic meeting with representatives from Cadwalader and Moelis in attendance. At the meeting, the representatives from Moelis updated the special committee on discussions they had had with Jefferies & Company concerning Mr. Fertitta’s proposal, which discussions had included valuation, timing, financing and diligence topics. In addition, the representatives from Moelis informed the special committee that in connection with the review of strategic alternatives, six confidentiality agreements had been signed with potential buyers and an additional 10 confidentiality agreements had been delivered for execution to interested parties. A confidential information memorandum had been provided to each potential buyer that had signed a confidentiality agreement. The representatives from Moelis informed the special committee that they were continuing to contact potential buyers. A representative from Cadwalader informed the special committee that he had been in touch with Olshan regarding tax issues and that Cadwalader was preparing a mark-up of the Saltgrass merger agreement. It was agreed that the representatives from Moelis would follow up with Jefferies & Company and Mr. Fertitta on remaining diligence items and that Moelis would continue its discussions with Jefferies & Company regarding valuation.

On October 19, 2009, the special committee held a telephonic meeting with representatives from Cadwalader and Moelis in attendance. At the meeting, the representatives from Moelis updated the special committee on their diligence efforts and noted that additional information had been provided and that Mr. Fertitta and his advisors were in the process of gathering further requested information for them. The representatives from Moelis informed the special committee that in connection with the consideration of strategic alternatives, eight confidentiality agreements had been signed with potential buyers and an additional eight confidentiality agreements had been delivered for execution to interested parties. A confidential information memorandum had been provided to each potential buyer that had signed a confidentiality agreement. The representatives from Moelis stated that they would continue to contact potential buyers. A representative from Cadwalader noted that a mark-up of the Saltgrass merger agreement would be sent to Mr. Fertitta the following day. The special committee discussed next steps and agreed that the representatives from Moelis should contact Mr. Fertitta and

 

63


Table of Contents

his advisors and inform them that, based on the information provided to the special committee to date, the special committee believed that the proposal submitted on September 15, 2009 was not adequate.

On October 20, 2009, Cadwalader sent a mark-up of the Saltgrass merger agreement to Olshan.

On October 21, 2009, Moelis conveyed to Mr. Fertitta the special committee’s views as to why the Saltgrass proposal submitted on September 15, 2009 was inadequate, including: the transition services agreement for general, administrative and support expenses for Saltgrass at an initial cost of 4% of revenue was less than Saltgrass would have to pay an unaffiliated third party for these services and, accordingly, the expiration of this agreement could negatively impact Saltgrass’ shares; the identified CEO of Saltgrass did not have public company experience; a CFO had not yet been identified; the projected unit growth was uncertain given Saltgrass’ recent history; the proposed Saltgrass indebtedness could constrain future growth; and Saltgrass faced a difficult operating environment. Thereafter, on October 21, 2009, the special committee sent a letter to Mr. Fertitta rejecting the Saltgrass proposal as inadequate.

On October 22, 2009, the special committee received a letter from Mr. Fertitta regarding an all cash transaction at a price of $13.00 per share for each share of our common stock not owned by Mr. Fertitta. In his letter, Mr. Fertitta indicated that the all cash transaction was subject to obtaining necessary financing and that he was highly confident that such financing could be arranged. Mr. Fertitta made this proposal at this time so that all parties could benefit from the current favorable environment for debt financing and because, in the absence of this transaction, the current effects of the economy on the casual dining and gaming industries might inhibit us from accessing the public capital markets for the foreseeable future. Later that evening, Olshan sent to Cadwalader a revised merger agreement reflecting an all cash transaction.

On October 23, 2009, the special committee held a telephonic meeting with representatives from Cadwalader and Moelis in attendance. At the meeting, the representatives from Moelis discussed with the special committee Mr. Fertitta’s all cash proposal. The representatives from Moelis informed the special committee that in connection with the consideration of strategic alternatives, nine confidentiality agreements had been signed with interested parties and the special committee authorized the representatives from Moelis to distribute process letters to potential buyers the following week. It was agreed that the representatives from Moelis should continue their analysis of Mr. Fertitta’s all cash proposal.

On October 23, 2009, we received from Jefferies & Company a letter confirming that, subject to customary conditions, it was highly confident of its ability to arrange the debt financing necessary to refinance a portion of our existing indebtedness and consummate, together with an equity contribution from Mr. Fertitta, the proposed all-cash transaction.

On October 27, 2009, the special committee held a meeting at Moelis’ New York offices with representatives from Cadwalader and Moelis in attendance. The representatives from Moelis stated that they had reviewed and were continuing to review Mr. Fertitta’s proposed all cash transaction at a price of $13.00 per share. In addition, the representatives from Moelis noted that the special committee received the highly confident letter from Jefferies & Company on October 23, 2009. The representatives from Moelis informed the special committee that in connection with the consideration of strategic alternatives, 10 confidentiality agreements had been signed with interested parties and an additional 17 confidentiality agreements had been delivered for execution to interested parties. The representatives from Moelis also discussed with the special committee Mr. Fertitta’s all cash transaction at a price of $13.00 per share. The special committee noted that Mr. Fertitta had requested a meeting that afternoon. It was agreed that the members of the special committee and their advisors would meet with Mr. Fertitta to discuss Mr. Fertitta’s most recent proposal.

In the afternoon of October 27, 2009, the special committee, together with representatives of Moelis and Cadwalader, met at Moelis’ New York offices with Mr. Fertitta and representatives from Jefferies & Company

 

64


Table of Contents

and Olshan to discuss Mr. Fertitta’s all cash transaction at a price of $13.00 per share. The parties agreed to meet the next day to continue discussions.

In the morning of October 28, 2009, the special committee held a meeting at Moelis’ New York offices with representatives from Cadwalader and Moelis in attendance. At the meeting, the representatives from Moelis discussed with members of the special committee Mr. Fertitta’s all cash transaction at a price of $13.00 per share. After discussion, the special committee agreed that it should adjourn and meet again with Mr. Fertitta and reject Mr. Fertitta’s proposed $13.00 per share all cash transaction as inadequate.

Later in the morning of October 28, 2009, the special committee, together with representatives of Moelis and Cadwalader, met at Moelis’ New York offices with Mr. Fertitta and representatives from Jefferies & Company and Olshan. At the meeting, the special committee informed Mr. Fertitta that it was rejecting Mr. Fertitta’s proposed $13.00 per share all cash transaction as inadequate. In response to the special committee’s rejection of his $13.00 cash proposal, Mr. Fertitta offered to increase the all cash transaction to $13.75 per share. He also said he was prepared to move forward, as an alternative, with the Saltgrass transaction previously proposed with indebtedness of the Saltgrass entity reduced from $90 million to $80 million and Mr. Fertitta’s equity position in the Saltgrass entity reduced from 33.9% to 27.5%.

At midday on October 28, 2009, the special committee reconvened its meeting with representatives from Cadwalader and Moelis in attendance. The representatives from Moelis discussed with the special committee their preliminary view of Mr. Fertitta’s counteroffers and responded to several questions from the special committee. After discussion, the special committee determined to reject Mr. Fertitta’s revised proposal as inadequate. The special committee adjourned the meeting.

The representatives from Moelis then conveyed to Jefferies & Company that the special committee was rejecting Mr. Fertitta’s revised proposal as inadequate. In response to this rejection, Mr. Fertitta increased the price of his all cash transaction to $14.00 per share.

In the afternoon of October 28, 2009, the special committee reconvened its meeting with representatives from Cadwalader and Moelis in attendance. The representatives from Moelis discussed with the special committee their preliminary view of Mr. Fertitta’s counteroffer and responded to several questions from the special committee. After discussion, the special committee determined to reject Mr. Fertitta’s offer of an all cash transaction at $14.00 per share as inadequate. The special committee adjourned the meeting.

The special committee then conveyed to Mr. Fertitta that it was rejecting the all cash transaction at $14.00 per share as inadequate. In response to this rejection, Mr. Fertitta increased the price of his all cash transaction to $14.25 per share.

Later in the afternoon of October 28, 2009, the special committee reconvened its meeting with representatives from Cadwalader and Moelis in attendance. The representatives from Moelis discussed with the special committee their preliminary view of Mr. Fertitta’s counteroffer and responded to several questions from the special committee. After discussion, the special committee determined to reject Mr. Fertitta’s offer of an all cash transaction at $14.25 per share as inadequate. The special committee adjourned the meeting.

A representative from Cadwalader then met with Mr. Fertitta and informed Mr. Fertitta that the special committee was rejecting the all cash transaction at $14.25 per share as inadequate. Mr. Fertitta increased the amount of his proposed all cash transaction to $14.75 per share, which offer Mr. Fertitta indicated was his best and final offer.

In the early evening of October 28, 2009, the special committee reconvened its meeting with representatives from Cadwalader and Moelis in attendance. The representatives from Moelis discussed with the special

 

65


Table of Contents

committee their preliminary view of Mr. Fertitta’s counteroffer and responded to several questions from the special committee. The special committee agreed that Cadwalader should prepare and distribute to Olshan a revised merger agreement.

Later in the evening of October 28, 2009, Cadwalader sent a mark up of the merger agreement for the all cash transaction to Olshan, and between October 28, 2009 and November 3, 2009, Cadwalader, Olshan and the parties negotiated the terms of the merger agreement.

In the morning of November 3, 2009, the special committee met to discuss the proposed transaction and received a presentation from Moelis including financial analyses of the proposed transaction. The representatives from Moelis reviewed with the special committee the background of the transaction, including the negotiations that led to Mr. Fertitta’s best and final offer as well as the structure and significant terms of Mr. Fertitta’s proposal. The representatives from Moelis informed the special committee that in connection with the review of strategic alternatives a total of 70 potential buyers had been contacted, 13 confidentiality agreements had been signed and an additional eight confidentiality agreements had been delivered for execution to potential buyers. A confidential information memorandum had been provided to each potential buyer that had signed a confidentiality agreement. The representatives from Moelis informed the special committee that the parties that had signed confidentiality agreements would be informed of the go shop period if the proposed merger agreement was approved and that such parties would be notified that initial indications of interest with respect to us would be due in mid-November. The special committee then reviewed the terms of the proposed merger agreement. It was noted that the current market conditions could likely yield more favorable rates than we currently had with respect to our indebtedness and that the refinancing contemplated by the merger agreement was an opportunistic move by us in light of current market conditions even if the merger agreement did not require us to refinance our debt. It was further noted by the special committee that the proposed transaction enhanced value for our stockholders by providing them with liquidity, without the risk to them of our current business plan that is presently constrained by a highly leveraged capital structure and reflects a slowdown due to the general economy and pervasive downward trends in the restaurant and gaming industries. It was also noted that the merger agreement provided the special committee with an opportunity to conduct an affirmative market check through a post-signing go-shop period to ensure that third parties had the opportunity to make an offer for us. It was further noted that the termination fees payable to Parent if we were to enter into another acquisition proposal were $4.8 million (representing approximately 2% of the equity value of the transaction) or, if the acquisition proposal that resulted in the action or event that formed the basis for termination of the merger agreement arose no later than the end of the go-shop period, $2.4 million (representing approximately 1% of the equity value of the transaction) and that these low termination fees should not discourage potentially interested third parties. Moelis then delivered its oral opinion, subsequently confirmed in writing, to the effect that, based upon and subject to the limitations and qualifications set forth in the written opinion, the $14.75 per share merger consideration to be received by our stockholders in the merger was fair, from a financial point of view, to such stockholders other than the Excluded Persons. With the benefit of the presentation and after discussion, the special committee unanimously determined that the merger, the original merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby are advisable, fair to and in the best interests of us and our unaffiliated stockholders, approved the merger, the original merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby and recommended that our stockholders approve and adopt the original merger agreement. The special committee further recommended that our board of directors approve the proposed transaction, including the merger, the original merger agreement and the other transactions contemplated thereby, and recommend to our stockholders that they approve and adopt the original merger agreement.

Thereafter, also in the morning of November 3, 2009, our board of directors (other than Mr. Fertitta) met to receive and deliberate upon the report of the special committee. A representative of Haynes and Boone was present at the meeting. The special committee, together with Cadwalader and Moelis, reported to the board on the process undertaken by the special committee and the special committee’s review of the merger agreement, and unanimously recommended to our board of directors that the board accept the offer of $14.75 per share of our common stock held by our stockholders other than Mr. Fertitta and his affiliates and approve and adopt the

 

66


Table of Contents

merger, the original merger agreement and the other transactions contemplated thereby. After the presentation of the report, and responses to questions posed by various members of the board to the special committee and its advisors, our board of directors determined that the merger, the original merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby are advisable, fair to and in the best interests of us and our unaffiliated stockholders, approved the merger, the original merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby and recommended that our stockholders approve and adopt the original merger agreement. We then entered into a definitive agreement with Parent, Merger Sub and, for certain limited purposes, Mr. Fertitta, pursuant to which Parent agreed to acquire all of our outstanding common stock not owned by Mr. Fertitta for $14.75 per share in cash. The parties thereafter announced the proposed transaction on November 3, 2009.

On November 13, 2009 and November 20, 2009, the Pershing Square Group and certain of their affiliates made joint Schedule 13D filings with the SEC pursuant to which the Pershing Square Group and certain of their affiliates disclosed beneficial ownership of our common stock equal to an aggregate of 1,604,255 shares, representing approximately 9.9% of our outstanding common stock, and additional economic exposure to approximately 2,404,126 shares of our common stock under certain cash-settled total return swaps, which brought their total aggregate economic exposure to 4,008,381 shares, representing approximately 24.8% of our outstanding common stock at such dates. In their Schedule 13D filings, the members of the Pershing Square Group and certain of their affiliates indicated that they did not intend to support the proposed merger.

On November 13, 2009, our closing stock price was $16.18 and on November 16, 2009, the first trading day after the initial Schedule 13D filing by the Pershing Square Group and certain of their affiliates, our closing stock price increased to $19.10. On November 20, 2009 our closing stock price was $19.51 and on November 23, 2009, the first trading day after the amendment of the Schedule 13D filing by the Pershing Square Group and certain of their affiliates, our closing stock price increased to $21.79.

Also on November 13, 2010, LMPERS supplemented its complaint to add allegations challenging the $14.75 per share proposed merger transaction.

On November 17, 2009, subsequent to the special committee’s approval of the original merger agreement, the special committee received two non-binding preliminary indications of interest from third parties contacted as part of the strategic alternatives process. The first preliminary indication of interest contemplated the acquisition of 100% of our common stock at a purchase price between $17.00 to $18.00 per share. The second preliminary indication of interest contemplated the acquisition of all of our common stock not owned by insiders at a purchase price between $16.00 to $19.00 per share. Each of these preliminary indications of interest was subject to, among other things, confirmatory due diligence and satisfactory financing arrangements. Each of the potentially interested parties indicated its desire to work in partnership with Mr. Fertitta. Accordingly, the special committee provided these preliminary indications of interest to Mr. Fertitta on November 19, 2009. On November 20, 2009, the special committee received a letter from Mr. Fertitta indicating that at the present time he did not have any interest in engaging in discussions with either of the two potentially interested parties, as Mr. Fertitta did not desire to partner with a third party to acquire us. The special committee instructed management to permit each of the potentially interested parties to conduct a due diligence review of us. In addition, the special committee instructed management to provide management presentations to each party that had submitted an indication of interest and, on December 7 and December 8, 2009, management met with the potentially interested parties and provided management presentations to each of them. At each of these meetings, Mr. Fertitta reiterated that he did not have any interest in pursuing a transaction in partnership with either of the two potentially interested parties at that time.

On November 30, 2009, we announced the closing of a new $642.1 million financing, which included (i) the offering of $406.5 million aggregate principal amount of 11 5/8% Notes, which resulted in our receiving $400.1 million in net proceeds and (ii) a $235.6 million amended and restated senior secured credit facility consisting of a $75.0 million revolving credit facility and a $160.6 million term loan.

On December 1, 2009, Parent, Merger Sub, Mr. Fertitta and we made an initial filing of the Schedule 13E-3, and we made an initial filing of this proxy statement, with the SEC pursuant to the original merger agreement,

 

67


Table of Contents

which required the parties to proceed with these filings notwithstanding the status of any potentially interested party’s due diligence review.

In light of the Pershing Square Group’s economic interest in approximately 24.7% of our outstanding common stock and their announced intention not to support the proposed merger, the special committee invited representatives of the Pershing Square Group to meet on December 1, 2009 to understand and evaluate the Pershing Square Group’s concerns with the proposed merger and our alternatives with respect thereto. At the December 1, 2009 meeting, the representatives from the Pershing Square Group expressed their view that the Company’s value was well in excess of $14.75 per share and that the Pershing Square Group did not support the $14.75 per share merger price. The representatives from the Pershing Square Group expressed their view that our continuing as a public company and foregoing a take private transaction would be superior to the proposed transaction with Mr. Fertitta and stated that they believed third parties would likely be interested in acquiring the Company at a price in excess of $14.75 per share if the go-shop process had sufficiently robust procedures in place to encourage interested third parties to bid.

The first go-shop period ended at 11:59 p.m., New York City time, on December 17, 2009 and, in accordance with the terms of the original merger agreement, on December 18, 2009 the special committee informed Mr. Fertitta that the special committee had designated each of the two potentially interested parties that had submitted an indication of interest an “Excluded Party” for purposes of the original merger agreement. As an Excluded Party, subject to the terms and conditions of the original merger agreement, the special committee was permitted to continue to participate in discussions and negotiations with each potentially interested party concerning a potential transaction and to provide such party with information on the Company notwithstanding the expiration of the first go-shop period.

Subsequent to the meeting with representatives of the Pershing Square Group, the special committee encouraged Mr. Fertitta to request a meeting with representatives from the Pershing Square Group and, on December 22, 2009 and following a request by Mr. Fertitta to representatives of the Pershing Square Group, Mr. Fertitta met with representatives from the Pershing Square Group. At the meeting with Mr. Fertitta, the representatives from the Pershing Square Group reiterated that they did not support the original merger agreement and conveyed that they would be willing to support a transaction at a significantly higher price per share. Mr. Fertitta stated that he would not be willing to consider a transaction at a significantly higher price per share. On December 22, 2009, the closing price for our stock was $20.23.

On December 23, 2009, the special committee and representatives from Cadwalader met telephonically with Mr. Fertitta and representatives from Olshan. Mr. Fertitta discussed with the special committee his meeting with representatives from the Pershing Square Group and indicated to the special committee that he would not be willing to pursue a transaction at a significantly higher price per share. On December 23, 2009, the closing price of our stock was $20.55.

On December 31, 2009, Cadwalader received a letter from Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP (“Bernstein”, together with Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., “LMPERS’ Counsel”), counsel to Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System (“LMPERS”), concerning the Delaware Litigation. The letter indicated that if the special committee did not promptly take action to remedy alleged prior misconduct LMPERS would seek specific remedies related to the original merger agreement. The letter stated that the special committee had until January 8, 2010 to respond to the issues raised in the letter.

On January 8, 2010, the special committee held a telephonic meeting with representatives from Cadwalader in attendance. After discussion, the special committee determined that it would be appropriate for the special committee and its counsel to meet with the representatives from LMPERS’ Counsel in order to better understand LMPERS’ Counsel’s position as to the original merger agreement.

On January 13, 2010, the representatives from Cadwalader and two members of the special committee met in New York with representatives from LMPERS’ Counsel to discuss the Delaware Litigation as it related to the original merger agreement with Mr. Fertitta. The representatives from Cadwalader conveyed that it was the understanding of the special committee, based on recent discussions with Mr. Fertitta, that Mr. Fertitta would not

 

68


Table of Contents

be willing to increase the merger consideration above $14.75 unless the Pershing Square Group was supportive of the higher price and all of the Delaware Litigation was settled in connection with any increased offer. After discussion, it was agreed that Cadwalader would contact Mr. Fertitta’s counsel to discuss whether Mr. Fertitta would be amenable to a settlement of the Delaware Litigation that included an increase in the merger consideration. Cadwalader consulted with Mr. Fertitta and his counsel at Olshan, who indicated to Cadwalader that Mr. Fertitta would consider increasing the merger consideration if the Pershing Square Group was supportive of the higher price and all of the Delaware Litigation could be settled. The representatives from Cadwalader then met telephonically several times during the latter half of January with the representatives from LMPERS’ Counsel and Olshan to discuss further the Delaware Litigation as it related to the original merger agreement with Mr. Fertitta and to discuss the terms of a potential settlement of the Delaware Litigation and the Pershing Square Group’s support of a higher price. These discussions included discussion regarding a potential amendment to the merger agreement, which amendment would include an increased offer price and an enhanced go-shop process. During the course of the negotiations, the representatives of Cadwalader noted that they had been told by LMPERS’ Counsel that LMPERS’ Counsel had been in contact with the Pershing Square Group regarding the price and the terms of an appropriate go-shop process that would be required for the Pershing Square Group to support a merger.

On January 13, 2010, the closing price of our stock was $20.59.

On January 24, 2010, a representative from LMPERS’ Counsel contacted a representative from the Pershing Square Group seeking the Pershing Square Group’s input on the terms of a potential partial settlement of the Delaware Litigation that would include as part of the settlement a revised merger agreement with Mr. Fertitta.

On January 25, 2010, LMPERS’ Counsel delivered to Cadwalader a draft term sheet for the partial settlement of the Delaware Litigation, which included several open items. The term sheet sought increased merger consideration of $22.00 per share. The other terms proposed related to a new go-shop period, elimination of any termination fees payable to Mr. Fertitta and the voting of shares acquired by Mr. Fertitta on the open market after June 16, 2008 in proportion to how the minority actually votes on any proposed transaction.

On or about January 25, 2010, Mr. Fertitta’s counsel advised Cadwalader that Mr. Fertitta would be willing to increase the merger consideration to $21.00 per share. However, the Pershing Square Group would have to support that price, and acceptable partial settlement terms in the Delaware Litigation would have to be reached.

On January 28, 2010, LMPERS filed an Amended Verified Class Action and Derivative Complaint in the Delaware Litigation.

Throughout the remainder of January, during February, and through March 12, 2010, the representatives from Olshan, LMPERS’ Counsel and Cadwalader engaged in continuing discussions concerning the potential settlement of the Delaware Litigation as it related to the $14.75 merger consideration and original merger agreement. Also during this period, the parties to the Delaware Litigation and their respective counsel engaged in a mediation conducted by a retired federal judge. During this time period LMPERS’ Counsel informed Cadwalader that LMPERS’ Counsel had been in contact with the Pershing Square Group and that the Pershing Square Group indicated to LMPERS’ Counsel that the Pershing Square Group might be willing to consider a proposed settlement that contained appropriate go-shop process provisions and a sufficiently robust price.

For the remainder of March and April 2010, representatives from Olshan, LMPERS’ Counsel and Cadwalader engaged in continuing discussions concerning the potential settlement of the Delaware Litigation.

On March 9, 2010, Olshan sent an initial draft of an amendment to the merger agreement to Cadwalader. On March 12, 2010, Cadwalader sent a mark up of the amendment to the merger agreement to Olshan, and between March 12, 2010 and April 21, 2010, Cadwalader, Olshan and the parties negotiated the terms of the amendment to the merger agreement.

On April 21, 2010, the special committee held a meeting at Moelis’ New York offices with representatives from Cadwalader and Moelis in attendance. The representatives from Cadwalader provided the special committee with an update on the potential partial settlement of the Delaware Litigation as it related to the pending transaction

 

69


Table of Contents

with Mr. Fertitta. The representatives from Cadwalader discussed with the special committee the current terms of a proposed amendment to the merger agreement that had been negotiated among the special committee and its advisors, Mr. Fertitta and his advisors and the representatives from LMPERS’ Counsel in connection with a partial settlement of the Delaware Litigation. The representatives from Cadwalader noted that Mr. Fertitta had offered to increase the merger consideration to $21.00 per share and that plaintiff’s counsel had conditionally accepted the proposal and was willing to agree to the partial settlement of the Delaware Litigation at that price. Other terms of the proposed settlement included a new go-shop period, elimination of any termination fees payable to Mr. Fertitta and the voting of shares acquired by Mr. Fertitta on the open market after June 16, 2008 in proportion to how the minority actually votes on any proposed transaction. It was noted that the representatives from LMPERS’ Counsel were seeking to take this proposal to the Delaware Chancery Court for preliminary approval prior to public announcement of the transaction. The representatives from Moelis discussed with the special committee their preliminary view of a $21.00 per share offer price and responded to questions from the special committee. The representatives from Cadwalader noted that they had been told that LMPERS’ Counsel had been in contact with the Pershing Square Group and that the Pershing Square Group had previously indicated to LMPERS’ Counsel that if Mr. Fertitta proposed a significantly higher merger price and a more robust go-shop process that the Pershing Square Group would consider supporting such a transaction. The special committee agreed that it would meet again to review and consider the terms of the proposed settlement and amendment to the merger agreement once the terms of the settlement and the amendment had been presented to the Delaware Chancery Court for preliminary approval and the representatives from the Pershing Square Group had been consulted on the terms of the proposed amendment.

During trading on April 26, 2010, our stock price opened at $20.95 and reached a 52-week high of $25.35, closing up 19.3% from the previous day, amidst unusually heavy volume for our shares notwithstanding the only news reported by us was that we had priced an offering of an additional $47.0 million aggregate principal amount of our 11 5/8% Notes, a portion of the net proceeds of which would be used to finance our proposed acquisition of The Oceanaire, Inc.

On the evening of April 26, 2010, the special committee held a telephonic meeting with representatives from Cadwalader and Moelis in attendance. The representatives from Cadwalader said that they had been contacted by representatives from the Company and informed that the New York Stock Exchange had asked the Company to issue a press release before the market opened the following day in light of the trading in our stock on April 26, 2010. The special committee discussed Mr. Fertitta’s new offer of $21.00, as reflected in the terms set forth in the amendment to the merger agreement. The special committee had not been able to confirm that the Pershing Square Group would support the revised transaction. After discussion with its advisors regarding the lack of information as to the reason for the trading in our shares and the lack of understanding as to the position of the Pershing Square Group with respect to the revised transaction, the special committee determined that it was not prepared to recommend any transaction at that time.

On the evening of April 26, 2010, LMPERS’ Counsel contacted Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Delaware Chancery Court to seek preliminary approval to proceed with the partial settlement of the Delaware Litigation, and the terms of the partial settlement, including the amendment to the merger agreement, were delivered to the Vice Chancellor. The following morning, the Vice Chancellor notified counsel to the parties that he had no objection to the parties’ announcing the partial settlement and proceeding as contemplated by the term sheet. On April 27, 2010, we issued a press release stating that Mr. Fertitta had reached a tentative agreement with LMPERS to increase his offer to $21.00 per share in connection with the partial settlement of the Delaware Litigation. The press release stated that the offer was subject to, among other things, approval of the special committee and the special committee’s receipt of a fairness opinion.

On April 29, 2010, the special committee held a telephonic meeting with representatives from Cadwalader in attendance. The representatives from Cadwalader discussed with the special committee the status of the amendment to the merger agreement and the proposed Delaware Litigation settlement. The representatives from Cadwalader indicated that they had spoken to representatives from LMPERS’ Counsel and that LMPERS’ Counsel was soliciting the Pershing Square Group’s thoughts on the proposed settlement. The representatives from LMPERS’ Counsel had indicated that the Pershing Square Group was considering the proposed settlement terms.

 

70


Table of Contents

On the afternoon of May 13, 2010, Mr. Fertitta submitted a letter to the special committee noting that the outside date of May 31, 2010 contained in the original merger agreement was approaching and requesting a meeting on May 17, 2010 to finalize a revised transaction. In the letter, Mr. Fertitta stated that $21.00 per share in cash was his best and final offer and indicated that he would be prepared to allow the special committee to vote all of his shares in favor of any superior proposal arising out of a new go-shop period that is accepted by the special committee in return for the elimination of the majority of the minority condition.

Later in the afternoon of May 13, 2010, in response to a request from the special committee as to what would be required for the Pershing Square Group to support the proposed merger transaction, the Pershing Square Group provided the special committee with a term sheet that outlined, among other things, a request for an increased offer price of at least $24.00 per share and provisions for a more robust go-shop process.

On May 14, 2010, representatives from Olshan discussed with representatives from the Pershing Square Group the term sheet that had been received from the Pershing Square Group the previous day.

Later in the afternoon of May 14, 2010, the special committee held a telephonic meeting with representatives from Cadwalader and Moelis in attendance. The members of the special committee discussed with the representatives from Moelis and Cadwalader the letter they had received from Mr. Fertitta the previous day. The members of the special committee then discussed with the representatives from Moelis and Cadwalader the term sheet received from the Pershing Square Group subsequent to receipt of Mr. Fertitta’s letter. The representatives from Cadwalader indicated that it was their understanding that Mr. Fertitta and the Pershing Square Group were discussing the term sheet. It was agreed that the special committee would not take any action until a proposal was presented for its consideration.

On May 17, 2010, the special committee held a meeting at Cadwalader’s New York offices with representatives from Cadwalader, Moelis and its counsel in attendance. The special committee discussed with the representatives from Cadwalader and Moelis the term sheet received from the Pershing Square Group on May 13, 2010. The members of the special committee were informed that, while representatives from Olshan had discussed the term sheet with the Pershing Square Group on May 14, 2010, Olshan had not heard anything further from the Pershing Square Group following this discussion. It was suggested by Cadwalader and Moelis that the Pershing Square Group be engaged further.

Later in the afternoon of May 17, 2010, the special committee and its advisors met with Mr. Fertitta and his advisors. At the meeting, in response to the special committee’s refusal to accept the merger consideration of $21.00 per share to that point, Mr. Fertitta presented a revised offer increasing the merger consideration from $21.00 to $22.50 per share. The revised offer retained the majority of the minority condition and the provisions set forth in the proposed amendment from April 21, 2010, including the enhanced go-shop features and the voting of shares acquired by Mr. Fertitta on the open market after June 16, 2008 in proportion to how the minority actually votes on any proposed transaction.

In the evening of May 17, 2010, the special committee discussed Mr. Fertitta’s revised offer with the representatives from Cadwalader and Moelis. After discussion, it was agreed by the special committee that Mr. Fertitta’s offer at $22.50 was an improved offer and that such offer would be taken under consideration but that the special committee was unlikely to accept the offer unless increased. The special committee asked a representative from Cadwalader to relay this message to Mr. Fertitta’s counsel and the special committee meeting was adjourned. During the adjournment, the special committee received from the representatives from Olshan an electronic message that a member of the Pershing Square Group had sent to the representatives from Olshan that evening. In the electronic message, the representative from the Pershing Square Group stated that he did not believe a negotiated agreement with the Pershing Square Group could be reached.

Later in the evening of May 17, 2010, representatives from Cadwalader conveyed to representatives from Olshan that the special committee would be willing to consider a revised transaction at a price of $24.00 per share that retained the majority of the minority condition. Representatives from Cadwalader and Olshan discussed terms of a revised transaction at a price of $24.00 per share, including the voting of Mr. Fertitta’s shares and the majority of the minority condition. The special committee meeting was then reconvened. The special committee discussed

 

71


Table of Contents

with its advisors terms of a potential transaction at $24.00 per share. The special committee discussed next steps with its advisors in light of the position of the Pershing Square Group. It was agreed that, given the Pershing Square Group’s unwillingness to negotiate with Mr. Fertitta or indicate its support for a revised transaction, the special committee would review and consider a revised transaction at a price of $24.00 per share.

As a result of the discussions, also on May 17, 2010, Cadwalader contacted LMPERS’ Counsel regarding the possibility of a merger at a higher price and improved terms relating to the go-shop process.

On the morning of May 18, 2010, a representative from Olshan conveyed a revised proposal from Mr. Fertitta to the special committee. Under the proposal, the merger consideration would be $24.00 per share, the merger would be subject to approval by a majority of the Company’s minority stockholders that vote on the merger and all shares acquired by Mr. Fertitta after June 16, 2008 would be voted with respect to the merger agreement, or any acquisition proposal that results in the termination of the merger agreement, in the same proportion as those shares actually voted and not owned by Mr. Fertitta and his affiliates. The revised offer retained the other provisions set forth in the proposed amendment from April 21, 2010, including the enhanced go-shop features.

Between May 18 and 21, 2010, Cadwalader and Olshan engaged in negotiations with LMPERS’ Counsel regarding a revised merger.

On May 21, 2010, LMPERS filed a Second Amended Verified Class Action and Derivative Complaint in the Delaware Litigation.

Over the following days the details of an amended merger transaction, including the voting of any shares acquired by Mr. Fertitta upon the exercise of his outstanding options and the contours of the majority of the minority provision, were negotiated among the special committee and its advisors, Mr. Fertitta and his advisors and the representatives from LMPERS’ Counsel. Over the weekend of May 22, 2010, the representatives from Cadwalader, Olshan and LMPERS’ Counsel negotiated the final details of the amendment to the merger agreement and the partial settlement of the Delaware Litigation. In the early afternoon of May 23, 2010, the representatives from Olshan distributed to the representatives from Cadwalader and LMPERS’ Counsel an updated amendment to the merger agreement, and the representatives from LMPERS’ Counsel distributed to the representatives from Cadwalader and Olshan a memorandum of understanding for partial settlement of the Delaware Litigation, which reflected the discussions among the parties.

On the afternoon of May 23, 2010, the special committee held a telephonic meeting with representatives from Cadwalader and Moelis in attendance. The representatives from Cadwalader provided the special committee with an update on the terms of the amendment to the merger agreement, which contemplated a merger consideration of $24.00 per share. The representatives from Cadwalader noted that the current draft of the amendment to the merger agreement contained a majority of the minority provision that required the approval of the merger agreement by a majority of the shares actually voted by the minority stockholders rather than a majority of the outstanding shares owned by the minority stockholders. In addition, the minority stockholders in the current draft of the amendment to the merger agreement were narrowed to include only those stockholders other than the defendants in the Delaware Litigation and their affiliates rather than those stockholders other than Mr. Fertitta and his affiliates. Furthermore, the go-shop period had been extended from 30 to 45 days. The voting of the shares acquired by Mr. Fertitta subsequent to June 16, 2008 or pursuant to the exercise of his outstanding options was still under discussion among the parties. The special committee indicated that the negotiation of the amendment to the merger agreement should continue.

Later in the afternoon of May 23, 2010, the special committee held a telephonic meeting with representatives from Cadwalader and Moelis in attendance. The representatives from Cadwalader provided the special committee with an update on the amendment to the merger agreement and noted that the terms were substantially the same as the terms discussed at the special committee’s meeting earlier that afternoon. The representatives from Cadwalader indicated that requests that the majority of the minority condition be non-waivable and consist of a majority of the minority shares outstanding had not been accepted. Mr. Fertitta had indicated that he would not be willing to provide merger consideration of $24.00 per share on terms other than

 

72


Table of Contents

those proposed. The representatives from Cadwalader noted that all shares acquired by Mr. Fertitta after June 16, 2008, as well as up to 500,000 shares acquired upon the exercise of his outstanding options (to the extent such shares are acquired subsequent to the exercise of options by Mr. Fertitta to acquire 300,000 shares), would be voted proportionally for the transaction with Mr. Fertitta, and for any acquisition proposal that results in the termination of the merger agreement, in the same proportion as those shares actually voted and not owned by Mr. Fertitta and his affiliates. Mr. Fertitta would retain the right to vote all other shares owned by him as well as the first 300,000 shares acquired by him upon the exercise of his outstanding options. The representatives from Cadwalader informed the special committee that they had had discussions with LMPERS’ Counsel and that LMPERS’ Counsel had indicated its agreement to move forward with the $24.00 per share transaction on the terms reflected in the proposed partial settlement. The representatives from Moelis then reviewed with the special committee the background of the proposed transaction with Mr. Fertitta and the financial terms of the revised proposal. The representatives from Moelis then presented to the special committee the financial analysis summarized below under the heading “—Opinion of Moelis & Company”. The members of the special committee asked several questions all of which were answered. Moelis then delivered its oral opinion, subsequently confirmed in writing, to the effect that, based upon and subject to the limitations and qualifications set forth in the written opinion, the $24.00 per share merger consideration that was to be received by our stockholders in the merger was fair, from a financial point of view, to such stockholders other than the Excluded Persons. With the benefit of the presentation and after discussion, the special committee unanimously determined that the merger, the first amended merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby are advisable, fair to and in the best interests of us and our unaffiliated stockholders, approved the merger, the first amended merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby and recommended that our stockholders approve and adopt the first amended merger agreement. The special committee further recommended that our board of directors approve the proposed transaction, including the merger, the first amended merger agreement and the other transactions contemplated thereby, and recommend to our stockholders that they approve and adopt the first amended merger agreement. The special committee noted that its current intention was not to waive the majority of the minority provision contained in the first amended merger agreement.

Thereafter, in the evening of May 23, 2010, our board of directors (other than Mr. Fertitta) met to receive and deliberate upon the report of the special committee. After discussion, our board of directors determined that the merger, the first amended merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby are advisable, fair to and in the best interests of us and our unaffiliated stockholders, approved the merger, the first amended merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby and recommended that our stockholders approve and adopt the first amended merger agreement. We then entered into the first amended merger agreement with Parent, Merger Sub and, for certain limited purposes, Mr. Fertitta, pursuant to which Parent agreed to acquire all of our outstanding common stock not owned by Mr. Fertitta, Parent or Merger Sub for $24.00 per share in cash.

Later in the evening of May 23, 2010, the parties delivered a Memorandum of Understanding for Partial Settlement of the Delaware Litigation to the Vice Chancellor of the Delaware Chancery Court, which included therein a copy of the first amended merger agreement. After review, the Vice Chancellor indicated to the parties that he had no objection to the parties making a public announcement and proceeding with the partial settlement of the Delaware Litigation.

The parties announced the proposed transaction on May 24, 2010.

On May 30, 2010, pursuant to the solicitation provisions set forth in the first amended merger agreement, Moelis, at the direction and on behalf of the special committee, began contacting third parties to solicit interest in a potential transaction with us.

On June 4, 2010, a representative of the Pershing Square Group contacted a representative from Cadwalader and indicated that the Pershing Square Group would be willing to support a transaction with Mr. Fertitta if the merger consideration was increased to $24.50 per share. The Pershing Square Group further indicated that it would be willing to enter into a voting agreement pursuant to which it would agree to support such a transaction. After consultation with the members of the special committee, the representative from Cadwalader conveyed the

 

73


Table of Contents

Pershing Square Group’s willingness to support a transaction at $24.50 per share in cash, and the representatives from Olshan indicated that Mr. Fertitta would consider increasing the merger consideration to $24.50.

On June 5, 2010, the representatives from Cadwalader and Moelis discussed with the special committee the willingness of the Pershing Square Group to support a transaction at $24.50 per share in cash. The special committee asked several questions about the Pershing Square Group’s position. It was agreed that any voting agreement would need to terminate if the special committee approved a superior proposal.

On June 11, 2010, in response to Cadwalader’s request, counsel to the Pershing Square Group sent Cadwalader an initial draft of a form of voting agreement to be entered into between us and the members of the Pershing Square Group. On the same day, Olshan sent an initial draft of the second amendment to Cadwalader, which contemplated an increased merger consideration of $24.50 per share and was dependent on us entering into the voting agreements with the members of the Pershing Square Group. Between June 11, 2010 and June 20, 2010, Cadwalader, Olshan and the parties negotiated the terms of the second amendment to the merger agreement and the voting agreements. During this period, counsel to the special committee provided regular updates to the special committee as to the progress of the negotiations. Also during this time, Cadwalader informed LMPERS’ Counsel of the proposed terms, including the voting agreement, and LMPERS’ Counsel agreed that the voting agreement should terminate in the event that the special committee terminated the merger in favor of any Superior Proposal.

On June 15, 2010, the special committee held a telephonic meeting with representatives from Cadwalader and Moelis in attendance. At the meeting, the special committee and the representatives from Moelis discussed the proposed terms of the second amendment to the merger agreement and the voting agreements.

On June 20, 2010, the special committee held a telephonic meeting with representatives from Cadwalader and Moelis in attendance. The representatives from Cadwalader reviewed with the special committee the terms of the second amendment to the merger agreement and the voting agreements. The representatives from Cadwalader informed the special committee that they had had discussions with LMPERS’ Counsel and that LMPERS’ Counsel had indicated its agreement to move forward with a $24.50 per share transaction on the terms set forth in the second amendment to the merger agreement and the voting agreements. While Moelis was not requested to, and did not, deliver an opinion in connection with the second amendment to the merger agreement, Moelis indicated that, in light of the second amendment, it was not withdrawing its fairness opinion, which opinion speaks as of May 23, 2010. After discussion, the special committee unanimously determined that the merger, the second amended merger agreement, and the transactions contemplated thereby are advisable, fair to and in the best interests of us and our unaffiliated stockholders, approved the merger, the second amended merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby and recommended that our stockholders approve and adopt the second amended merger agreement. The special committee further recommended that our board of directors approve the proposed transaction, including the merger, the second amended merger agreement and the other transactions contemplated thereby, and recommend to our stockholders that they approve and adopt the second amended merger agreement. The special committee then approved the voting agreements and recommended that our board of directors approve the voting agreements.

Thereafter, on the evening of June 20, 2010, our board of directors (other than Mr. Fertitta) met to receive and deliberate upon the report of the special committee. After discussion, our board of directors determined that the second amended merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby are advisable, fair to and in the best interests of us and our unaffiliated stockholders, approved the merger, the second amended merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby and recommended that our stockholders approve and adopt the second amended merger agreement. Our board of directors then approved the voting agreements. We thereafter entered into (i) a definitive agreement with Parent, Merger Sub and, for certain limited purposes, Mr. Fertitta, pursuant to which Parent agreed to acquire all of our outstanding common stock not owned by Mr. Fertitta for $24.50 per share in cash and (ii) voting agreements with the members of the Pershing Square Group pursuant to which they agreed to vote in favor of the transaction as contemplated by the second amended merger agreement, subject to the terms of the voting agreements.

The parties announced the proposed transaction on June 21, 2010.

 

74


Table of Contents

Recommendation of the Special Committee and Board of Directors; Reasons for Recommending Approval of the Merger Agreement

The Special Committee. On August 14, 2009, our board of directors unanimously resolved (without Mr. Fertitta voting) to establish a special committee composed of two of our outside, non-employee directors and delegated to the special committee the exclusive power and authority to, among other things, (1) review and evaluate strategic alternatives for us and determine the advisability of entering into one or more transactions in connection therewith, which may include, but not be limited to: refinancing or restructuring our debt or the debt of one of our subsidiaries, the Golden Nugget, Inc.; selling various product lines or concepts; spinning off various product lines or concepts; or selling us entirely, (2) solicit proposals from third parties in connection therewith, (3) negotiate with third parties with respect to the terms and conditions of any proposed transaction, (4) should any new proposal be made by one of our affiliates, review, evaluate, negotiate and determine whether the terms and conditions of the proposed transaction are no less favorable to us than those that could be obtained in arm’s length dealings with a person who is not one of our affiliates, (5) determine whether any proposed transaction is fair to, and in the best interests of, us and all of our stockholders, and (6) recommend to the board of directors what action, if any, should be taken by us with respect to any proposal or strategic alternative. Our board of directors appointed Michael Chadwick and Kenneth Brimmer to serve on the special committee. See “Background of the Merger” for more information about the formation and authority of the special committee.

The Original Merger Agreement

The special committee, on behalf of us as authorized by our board of directors, by unanimous vote at a meeting held on November 3, 2009 and after a presentation by its financial advisor, determined that the merger, the original merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby are advisable, fair to and in the best interests of us and our unaffiliated stockholders. The special committee approved the merger, the original merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby and recommended that our stockholders approve and adopt the original merger agreement. The special committee also recommended that our board of directors approve the proposed transaction, including the merger, the original merger agreement and the other transactions contemplated thereby, and recommend to our stockholders that they approve and adopt the original merger agreement.

In the course of reaching the determinations and making the recommendations described above, the special committee considered the following factors as being generally positive or favorable in coming to its determinations and recommendations:

 

   

that the merger enhances value for our stockholders by providing them with liquidity, without the risk to them of our current business plan that is currently constrained by a highly leveraged capital structure and has faced a slowdown due to the general economy and general downward trends in the restaurant and gaming industries;

 

   

that the merger consideration of $14.75 per share represents a premium of approximately (a) 36% over the closing price of our common stock on September 8, 2009, the last trading day before Mr. Fertitta’s initial proposal was made public, and (b) 37% over the closing price of our common stock on November 2, 2009, the last trading day before it was publicly announced that Parent, Merger Sub and Mr. Fertitta had entered into the original merger agreement with us;

 

   

the special committee’s understanding of our business, assets, financial condition and results of operations, our competitive position, our historical and projected financial performance, the nature of our business and the industry in which we compete;

 

   

the fact that the merger consideration will be paid in all cash to our stockholders, eliminating any uncertainties in value to our stockholders;

 

   

that holders of our common stock that do not vote in favor of the approval and adoption of the original merger agreement and that do not otherwise waive their appraisal rights will have the opportunity to demand appraisal of the fair value of their shares under Delaware law;

 

75


Table of Contents
   

the negotiations with respect to the merger consideration that, among other things, led to an increase in Mr. Fertitta’s initial proposal from the Saltgrass proposal to $13.00 per share of our common stock to $13.75 per share of our common stock or a revised Saltgrass proposal to $14.00 per share of our common stock to $14.25 per share of our common stock and, finally, to $14.75 per share of our common stock, and the special committee’s determination that, following extensive negotiations between the special committee and Mr. Fertitta, $14.75 per share was the highest price that Mr. Fertitta would agree to pay, with the special committee basing its belief on a number of factors, including the duration and tenor of negotiations, assertions made by Mr. Fertitta during the negotiation process and the experience of the special committee and its advisors;

 

   

the fact that no alternative acquisition proposal for us had been submitted to us, the special committee or any of their respective advisors between September 9, 2009, the date that we announced Mr. Fertitta’s initial proposal, and November 3, 2009, the date of the original merger agreement;

 

   

the increase in the merger consideration payable to our stockholders when compared to the merger consideration payable pursuant to the terms of the prior merger agreement between us and Mr. Fertitta entered into on October 18, 2008;

 

   

that the special committee received from its financial advisor, Moelis, an opinion delivered orally at the special committee meeting on November 3, 2009, and subsequently confirmed in writing as of the same date, to the effect that based upon and subject to the limitations and qualifications set forth in the written opinion, as of the date of the opinion, the merger consideration of $14.75 per share in cash to be received by our stockholders in the merger was fair, from a financial point of view, to such stockholders, other than the Excluded Persons (Moelis’ opinion refers to “stockholders, other than Mr. Fertitta, Parent, Merger Sub and their respective affiliates,” which includes all of our unaffiliated stockholders);

 

   

the presentation by Moelis to the special committee on November 3, 2009 in connection with the foregoing opinion;

 

   

the current and historical market prices of our common stock, including its market price relative to those of other participants in our industries and general market indices, which historical information was presented to the special committee as background information by Moelis;

 

   

that as a result of the merger, our stockholders would no longer be subject to the market, economic and other risks which arise from owning an interest in a public company;

 

   

that fact that we had not received any bids from potentially interested third parties other than Mr. Fertitta since the special committee first began its review of strategic alternatives in January 2008;

 

   

the special committee’s belief that the debt refinancing to be arranged and consummated by us under the merger agreement, as more fully described under the caption “Special Factors—Financing of the Merger”, is being undertaken by us at a favorable time in light of current debt market conditions and that, notwithstanding the merger agreement, such refinancing was an opportunistic move by us in light of current debt market conditions;

 

   

the efforts made by the special committee and its advisors to negotiate at arm’s length and execute a merger agreement that the special committee believed was favorable to us;

 

   

the consideration and negotiation of the original merger agreement was conducted entirely under the oversight of the members of the special committee, which consists of two of our directors, each of whom is an outside, non-employee director, and that no limitations were placed on the special committee’s authority;

 

   

the special committee was advised by independent legal counsel and an independent financial advisor, each of whom was selected by the special committee;

 

   

the fact that all of the members of the special committee, each of whom has investments in our common stock, were unanimous in their determination to approve the original merger agreement and the merger, and that the original merger agreement and the merger were approved and adopted by all of our directors who are not participating with Mr. Fertitta in the transaction;

 

76


Table of Contents
   

the fact that we had received a letter indicating that Jefferies & Company, Inc. is highly confident of its ability to arrange, subject to the customary conditions set forth therein, debt financing in a funded amount up to $550 million, as more fully described under the caption “Special Factors—Financing of the Merger”;

 

   

the fact that Parent delivered an equity commitment from Mr. Fertitta, under which we are a named third-party beneficiary, stating that, subject to the customary conditions set forth therein, Mr. Fertitta will contribute to Parent, in exchange for equity interests in Parent, an amount in cash equal to $40.0 million and all shares of our common stock that he owns immediately prior to the effective time of the merger, and that such shares and Mr. Fertitta’s options to purchase our common stock will be cancelled at the effective time of the merger;

 

   

the terms and conditions of the original merger agreement including:

 

   

the merger is conditioned upon the approval and adoption of the original merger agreement by our stockholders, including the approval and adoption of the original merger agreement by a majority of the outstanding shares owned by our minority stockholders;

 

   

the provisions in the original merger agreement that provide the special committee with a post-signing go-shop period that continues until the later of 11:59 p.m., New York City time, on December 17, 2009 and the consummation of the debt financing and during which the special committee has the right to actively initiate, solicit and encourage other acquisition proposals involving us and enter into and maintain, or participate in, discussions or negotiations with respect to acquisition proposals or otherwise cooperate with or assist or participate in, or facilitate any such inquiries, proposals, discussions or negotiations or the making of any acquisition proposals and, after such post-signing go-shop period, the special committee is permitted to continue any then ongoing discussions with any third party that has made an acquisition proposal prior to the end of the go-shop period and with whom we are having ongoing discussions or negotiations as of the end of the go-shop period, as more fully described under “The Merger Agreement—Solicitation of Other Offers”;

 

   

the provisions in the original merger agreement that provide that, prior to our stockholders adopting the original merger agreement, the special committee may, if it determines in good faith, after consultation with its outside legal advisors, that the failure to take such action could reasonably be determined to be inconsistent with its fiduciary duties to our stockholders under applicable law, withdraw or modify its recommendation in favor of the merger, cause us to terminate the original merger agreement or cause us to terminate the original merger agreement and enter into a definitive agreement with respect to a superior proposal, upon payment to Parent, in the case of any such termination, of $4.8 million, representing only approximately 2% of the equity value of the transaction (or $2.4 million, representing only approximately 1% of the equity value of the transaction, if the acquisition proposal that results in the action or event that forms the basis for such termination arose no later than the end of the go-shop period);

 

   

the provisions in the merger agreement that provide that, prior to our stockholders adopting the merger agreement and in addition to our right to actively solicit other acquisition proposals during the go-shop period, if we receive a written acquisition proposal from a third party that the special committee believes in good faith to be credible and reasonably capable of making a superior proposal, then the special committee may furnish information with respect to us to the person making such acquisition proposal and participate in discussions or negotiations with the person making such acquisition proposal regarding such acquisition proposal, as more fully described under “The Merger Agreement—Solicitation of Other Offers”;

 

   

the provisions in the merger agreement that provide that we are permitted to cancel, delay or postpone convening the special meeting to the extent the special committee, after consultation with outside legal counsel, determines that such cancellation, delay or postponement is consistent with its fiduciary duties under applicable law;

 

77


Table of Contents
   

the provisions in the merger agreement that authorize us to terminate the merger agreement and require Parent to pay us a reverse termination fee of $20.0 million, if, due to the failure of the debt or equity financing to be consummated, the closing fails to occur within two business days after all of the other closing conditions to consummate the merger have been satisfied or waived, except that no fee will be payable if the lenders providing the debt financing are not able to make the debt financing available on terms that are substantially similar to those specified in the merger agreement, by reason of the occurrence of (1) an act of God, (2) a suspension or material limitation in trading in securities generally on the New York Stock Exchange or a general moratorium on commercial banking activities in New York declared by either Federal or New York State authorities or a suspension of payments in respect of federal or state banks in the United States (whether or not mandatory), (3) the outbreak or escalation of hostilities directly involving the United States or the declaration by the United States of a national emergency or war or an act of terrorism or (4) an adverse and material change in financial or securities markets or commercial banking conditions in the United States;

 

   

the provisions in the merger agreement that authorize us to terminate the merger agreement and require Parent to pay us a reverse termination fee of $20.0 million, if Parent or Merger Sub breaches any representation, warranty, covenant or agreement set forth in the merger agreement, or any representation or warranty of Parent or Merger Sub becomes untrue, in either case that would result in the failure to satisfy certain conditions to our obligation to close the merger, and such breach is not capable of being cured by Parent within 30 days after we give Parent notice of such breach, provided that we are not in material breach of any of our representations, warranties or obligations under the merger agreement;

 

   

the provisions in the merger agreement in which Parent represents to us that the aggregate proceeds contemplated by the equity commitment letter, including the cash and shares of our common stock to be contributed by Mr. Fertitta to Parent immediately prior to the effective time of the merger pursuant to the equity commitment letter, together with cash on hand of Parent, Merger Sub and us, including the proceeds from the debt financing, at the effective time of the merger, will be sufficient to pay the aggregate merger consideration and any other amounts required to be paid by Parent and Merger Sub in connection with the merger;

 

   

the provisions in the merger agreement that prohibit Parent from terminating the merger agreement or otherwise claiming a breach by us for our failure to obtain the debt financing;

 

   

Mr. Fertitta’s agreement that, from the execution and delivery of the original merger agreement until the earlier of the termination of the merger agreement and the effective time of the merger, he will not, directly or indirectly, purchase or otherwise acquire any shares of our common stock or economic ownership of any shares of our common stock, except pursuant to the exercise of stock options outstanding as of the date of the original merger agreement;

 

   

the provisions in the merger agreement that prohibits Parent or Merger Sub from terminating the merger agreement after a change of the special committee’s recommendation in favor of the merger or the special committee’s recommendation of another acquisition proposal or the resolution or public proposal of the special committee to recommend another acquisition proposal, so long as we duly call, give notice of, convene and hold the special meeting after any such occurrence;

 

   

Mr. Fertitta has guaranteed to us the payment by Parent of certain of its payment obligations under the merger agreement, including payment of the reverse termination fee; and

 

   

the provisions in the merger agreement that provide in the event of a willful breach of a representation, warranty or covenant by Parent, Merger Sub or Mr. Fertitta where the reverse termination fee is not payable, that monetary damages may not be limited to reimbursement of expenses or out-of-pocket costs and, to the extent proven, may include the benefit of the bargain of the merger to us, including the benefit of the bargain lost by our unaffiliated stockholders, adjusted to account for the time value of money.

 

78


Table of Contents

In the course of reaching the determinations and making the recommendations described above, the special committee considered the following factors to be generally negative or unfavorable in making its determinations and recommendations:

 

   

the fact that our stockholders, other than Mr. Fertitta, will have no ongoing equity participation in us following the merger, and that our stockholders will cease to participate in our future earnings or growth, if any, or to benefit from increases, if any, in the value of our common stock, and will not participate in any potential future sale of us to a third party or any potential recapitalization of us which could include a dividend to stockholders;

 

   

the other strategic alternatives potentially available to us, which strategic alternatives include maintaining the status quo, pursuing acquisitions, pursuing selected asset sales/spin offs, conducting a stand-alone restructuring of certain assets or engaging in a stock or cash merger with a strategic or financial party, each of which could potentially result in increased value for our stockholders, though the probability of such increased value is uncertain;

 

   

that Mr. Fertitta and any other investors in Parent could realize significant returns on their equity investment in Parent following the merger;

 

   

the fact that we are obligated under the merger agreement to use our commercially reasonable efforts to take, or cause to be taken, all actions and to do, or cause to be done, all things necessary, proper or advisable to arrange and consummate the debt financing, as more fully described under the caption “Special Factors—Financing of the Merger”, and the fact that the consummation of the debt financing is a condition to the closing of the merger;

 

   

Mr. Fertitta’s participation in the merger and the fact that he has interests in the transaction that differ from, or are in addition to, those of our unaffiliated stockholders;

 

   

the risks and costs to us if the merger does not close, including paying the fees and expenses associated with the transaction, the diversion of management and employee attention, potential employee attrition and the potential effect on business and customer relationships;

 

   

the fact that the merger consideration consists of cash and will therefore generally be taxable for U.S. federal income tax purposes to our stockholders who surrender shares of our common stock in the merger;

 

   

the fact that other competing transactions could trigger the change of control provisions under our debt agreements and other material agreements, and the impact of such additional costs under such circumstances, including the potential obligation to refinance approximately $1.0 billion of our indebtedness;

 

   

the fact that other competing transactions could trigger the change of control provisions under Mr. Fertitta’s employment agreement, in which case we estimate that Mr. Fertitta could be entitled to receive benefits under the employment agreement in the amount of approximately $45.0 million, based on merger consideration of $14.75 per share;

 

   

the fact that the special committee did not receive competing bids for us from other potentially interested third parties prior to signing the original merger agreement with Mr. Fertitta, Parent and Merger Sub, although the special committee was satisfied that the original merger agreement provided the special committee with an adequate opportunity to conduct an affirmative post-signing market check to ensure that the $14.75 per share merger consideration was the best available to our unaffiliated stockholders;

 

   

the risk that the transactions might not be completed in a timely manner or at all;

 

   

the merger consideration payable to our stockholders is less than the $23.50 per share merger consideration proposed by Mr. Fertitta on January 27, 2008, which proposed price was subsequently reduced by Mr. Fertitta on April 4, 2008 as a result of the following: (i) the credit market conditions worsening significantly, which was making it far more costly to obtain the debt financing required to consummate the proposed transaction; (ii) the economy had continued its downward trend and (iii) our results of operations and our stock price had declined significantly;

 

79


Table of Contents
   

the merger consideration payable to our stockholders is less than the $21.00 per share merger consideration payable pursuant to the terms of the prior merger agreement between us and Mr. Fertitta entered into on June 16, 2008, which price per share was subsequently reduced, in view of the substantial damage to our Kemah and Galveston properties arising out of Hurricane Ike, the turmoil in the credit markets, the continued worsening of general economic conditions, and the deterioration in the casual dining and gaming industries, to $13.50 per share pursuant to an amendment to such merger agreement dated October 18, 2008;

 

   

the fact that Mr. Fertitta, as the beneficial owner of 57.4% of our common stock, currently has the right to elect our board of directors as a result of his common stock ownership and can control the outcome of most matters submitted to a vote of our stockholders;

 

   

the potential impact Mr. Fertitta’s beneficial ownership of approximately 57.4% of our common stock could have on the interest of third parties in making offers competitive with Mr. Fertitta’s offer;

 

   

the fact that the merger agreement contains restrictions on the conduct of our business prior to the completion of the merger, generally requiring us to conduct our business only in the ordinary course, subject to specific limitations, which may delay or prevent us from undertaking business opportunities that may arise pending completion of the merger and the length of time between signing and closing when these restrictions are in place; and

 

   

the provisions in the merger agreement that require us to reimburse Mr. Fertitta’s expenses up to $3.5 million if (1) we cancel, delay or postpone convening the special meeting and the original merger agreement is terminated because the effective time of the merger has not occurred by May 31, 2010 or (2) the merger agreement is terminated as a result of our breach of our representations, warranties, covenants or agreements in the merger agreement.

In the course of reaching the determinations and decisions, and making the recommendations, described above, the special committee considered the following factors relating to the procedural safeguards that the special committee believes were present to ensure the fairness of the merger and to permit the special committee to represent the interests of our unaffiliated stockholders, each of which the special committee believes supports its decision and provides assurance of the fairness of the merger to us and our unaffiliated stockholders:

 

   

the merger is conditioned upon the approval and adoption of the original merger agreement by our stockholders, including the approval and adoption of the original merger agreement by the holders of a majority of the then-outstanding shares of our common stock not owned by the Excluded Persons;

 

   

that the special committee consists solely of outside, non-employee directors;

 

   

that the special committee members were adequately compensated for their services prior to commencing their consideration of strategic alternatives and that their compensation for serving on the special committee was in no way contingent on their approving the original merger agreement and taking the other actions described in the proxy statement;

 

   

that the special committee retained and was advised by Cadwalader as its independent legal counsel and Moelis as its independent financial advisor;

 

   

that the special committee received from its financial advisor, Moelis, an opinion delivered orally at the special committee meeting on November 3, 2009, and subsequently confirmed in writing as of the same date, to the effect that based upon and subject to the limitations and qualifications set forth in the written opinion, as of the date of the opinion, the merger consideration of $14.75 per share in cash to be received by our stockholders in the merger was fair, from a financial point of view, to such stockholders, other than the Excluded Persons;

 

   

the fact that the original merger agreement provides the special committee with a post-signing go-shop period that continues until the later of 11:59 p.m., New York City time, on December 17, 2009 and the consummation of the debt financing and during which the special committee has the right to actively

 

80


Table of Contents
 

initiate, solicit and encourage other acquisition proposals involving us and enter into and maintain, or participate in, discussions or negotiations with respect to acquisition proposals or otherwise cooperate with, assist or participate in, or facilitate any such inquiries, proposals, discussions or negotiations or the making of any acquisition proposals and, after such post-signing go-shop period, the special committee is permitted to continue any then ongoing discussions with any third party that has made an acquisition proposal prior to the end of the go-shop period and with whom we are having ongoing discussions or negotiations as of the end of the go-shop period;

 

   

that the special committee was involved in extensive deliberations since its formation on August 14, 2009 regarding strategic alternatives for us to enhance stockholder value, including Mr. Fertitta’s proposals, and was provided with full access to our management and documentation in connection with the due diligence conducted by its advisors;

 

   

that the special committee, with the assistance of its legal and financial advisors, negotiated on an arm’s length basis with Mr. Fertitta and his representatives;

 

   

the fact that the special committee had ultimate authority to decide whether to proceed with a transaction or any alternative transaction, subject to our board of directors’ approval of a definitive transaction agreement;

 

   

that the special committee, from its inception, was authorized to consider all strategic alternatives with respect to us, including our sale;

 

   

the fact that the special committee was aware that it had no obligation to recommend any transaction, including any proposal by Mr. Fertitta; and

 

   

that the special committee made its evaluation of the original merger agreement and the merger based upon the factors discussed in this proxy statement, independent of the other members of our board of directors, including Mr. Fertitta, and with knowledge of the interests of Mr. Fertitta in the merger.

The First Amended Merger Agreement

On May 23, 2010, the special committee, after considering the presentations of its financial and legal advisors, resolved unanimously that the merger, the first amended merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby are advisable, fair to and in the best interests of us and our unaffiliated stockholders, approved the merger, the first amended merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby and recommended that our stockholders approve and adopt the first amended merger agreement. The special committee further recommended that our board of directors approve the proposed transaction, including the merger, the first amended merger agreement and the other transactions contemplated thereby, and recommend to our stockholders that they approve and adopt the first amended merger agreement.

In the course of reaching the determinations and making the recommendations described above, the special committee consulted with its financial and legal advisors, and considered, in the context of the first amended merger agreement, (i) all of the relevant factors previously considered in its evaluation of the original merger agreement and (ii) a number of additional factors relating to the first amended merger agreement that it believed supported its decision, including the following:

 

   

that the merger consideration of $24.00 per share represents a premium of approximately (a) 121% over the closing price of our common stock on September 8, 2009, the last trading day before Mr. Fertitta’s initial proposal was made public, (b) 63% over the merger consideration of $14.75 per share pursuant to the original merger agreement entered into by Parent, Merger Sub, Mr. Fertitta and us on November 3, 2009 and (c) 11% over the closing price of our common stock on May 21, 2010, the last trading day before it was publicly announced that Parent, Merger Sub and Mr. Fertitta had entered into the amendment to the merger agreement with us;

 

   

the negotiations with respect to the merger consideration that, among other things, led to an increase in the merger consideration from $14.75 pursuant to the original merger agreement entered into by Parent,

 

81


Table of Contents
 

Merger Sub, Mr. Fertitta and us on November 3, 2009 to $21.00 per share of our common stock to $22.50 per share of our common stock and, finally, to $24.00 per share of our common stock;

 

   

the merger consideration of $24.00 per share payable to our stockholders is greater than the merger consideration proposed in the two preliminary indications of interest we received pursuant to our go-shop process following entry into the original merger agreement on November 3, 2009, which indications of interest contemplated the acquisition of 100% of our common stock at a purchase price between $17.00 to $18.00 per share and $16.00 to $19.00 per share;

 

   

the merger consideration of $24.00 per share payable to our stockholders is greater than the $13.50 per share merger consideration payable pursuant to the terms of the prior merger agreement between us and Mr. Fertitta entered into on October 18, 2008;

 

   

the merger consideration of $24.00 per share payable to our stockholders is greater than the $21.00 per share merger consideration payable pursuant to the terms of the prior merger agreement between us and Mr. Fertitta entered into on June 16, 2008;

 

   

that the special committee received from its financial advisor, Moelis, an opinion delivered orally at the special committee meeting on May 23, 2010, and subsequently confirmed in writing as of the same date, to the effect that based upon and subject to the limitations and qualifications set forth in the written opinion, as of the date of the opinion, the merger consideration of $24.00 per share in cash that was to be received by our stockholders in the merger was fair, from a financial point of view, to such stockholders, other than the Excluded Persons (Moelis’ opinion refers to “stockholders, other than Mr. Fertitta, Parent, Merger Sub and their respective affiliates,” which includes all of our unaffiliated stockholders);

 

   

the presentation by Moelis to the special committee on May 23, 2010 in connection with the foregoing opinion;

 

   

the merger consideration of $24.00 per share payable to our stockholders is greater than the $23.50 per share merger consideration proposed by Mr. Fertitta on January 27, 2008;

 

   

the increased certainty of closing given that as of November 30, 2009, the debt financing, as more fully described under the caption “Special Factors—Financing of the Merger”, has been consummated;

 

   

the fact that the special committee’s current intention is not to waive the majority of the minority provision contained in the merger agreement;

 

   

the increased certainty of closing afforded by the agreement among the parties to the Delaware Litigation to settle, subject to certain conditions, certain derivative and other claims in connection with the merger;

 

   

the terms and conditions of the merger agreement including:

 

   

the increased certainty of closing provided by revisions to the “material adverse effect” definition;

 

   

the merger is conditioned upon the approval and adoption of the merger agreement by our stockholders, including the approval and adoption of the merger agreement by the holders of a majority of the then-outstanding shares of our common stock not owned by the defendants in the Delaware Litigation or any of their respective affiliates (other than the Company and its subsidiaries) and voted at the special meeting (for purposes of this calculation, abstentions are not considered shares voted at the special meeting);

 

   

the provisions in the merger agreement that provide the special committee with an additional post-signing second go-shop period that continues until 11:59 p.m., New York City time, on July 7, 2010, which is 45 days after the date of the first amendment to the merger agreement, with the option to extend the second go-shop period for a period of at least 15 additional days to permit additional due diligence to be conducted, and during which second go-shop period the special committee has the right to actively initiate, solicit and encourage other acquisition proposals involving us and enter into and maintain, or participate in, discussions or negotiations with respect to acquisition proposals or otherwise cooperate with or assist or participate in, or facilitate any

 

82


Table of Contents
 

such inquiries, proposals, discussions or negotiations or the making of any acquisition proposals and, after such post-signing second go-shop period, the special committee is permitted to continue any then ongoing discussions with any third party that has made an acquisition proposal prior to the end of the second go-shop period and with whom we are having ongoing discussions or negotiations as of the end of the second go-shop period, as more fully described under “The Merger Agreement—Solicitation of Other Offers”;

 

   

the provisions in the merger agreement that provide that we will waive standstill provisions entered into with any person having a potential interest in making an acquisition proposal in order to permit acquisition proposals (other than hostile acquisition proposals or the purchase or sale of securities of the Company or its subsidiaries from or to third parties in the open market) to be made during the second go-shop period, with such waiver to be effective until the end of the second go-shop period, as more fully described under “The Merger Agreement—Solicitation of Other Offers”;

 

   

the provisions in the merger agreement that provide that following the end of the second go-shop period the Company will permit requests for waivers of standstill provisions (other than with respect to hostile acquisition proposals or the purchase or sale of securities of the Company or its subsidiaries from or to third parties in the open market) to be made by potential acquirors notwithstanding any restrictions to the contrary contained in any standstill or confidentiality agreement with the Company, and that the special committee will determine, after consultation with outside counsel and in a manner consistent with its fiduciary duties, the extent of any waivers to be granted, as more fully described under “The Merger Agreement—Solicitation of Other Offers”;

 

   

the provisions in the merger agreement that provide that, in order to create an active second go-shop process, we will reimburse the actual out-of-pocket costs up to $500,000 per potential acquiror incurred in connection with the due diligence investigation of us by up to two potential acquirors that submit to the special committee the highest acquisition proposals at a price in excess of $24.00 per share, subject to certain conditions as more fully described under “The Merger Agreement—Solicitation of Other Offers”;

 

   

the provisions providing that Mr. Fertitta will vote the 3,162,674 shares acquired by him and his affiliates after June 16, 2008 (plus, after the exercise of his outstanding options to acquire 300,000 shares (which shares may be voted as Mr. Fertitta chooses), the next 500,000 shares acquired by him upon the exercise of his outstanding options) in such proportion as reflects the manner in which the shares owned by stockholders of the Company other than Mr. Fertitta and his affiliates are actually voted (with abstentions counted as “no” votes) with respect to (i) the adoption of the merger agreement and the approval of the merger and (ii) any acquisition proposal that results in the termination of the merger agreement;

 

   

no termination fees shall be payable to Mr. Fertitta in the event of a termination of the merger agreement; Mr. Fertitta will only be entitled to reimbursement of reasonable, documented out-of-pocket expenses upon termination of the merger agreement in specified circumstances up to $3.5 million, or $2.4 million if the acquisition proposal that results in the action or event that forms the basis for such termination is submitted to the Company or the special committee or publicly disclosed or otherwise becomes generally known to the public before the end of the second go-shop period, as more fully described under “The Merger Agreement—Solicitation of Other Offers” and “The Merger Agreement—Termination Fees and Expenses”; and

 

   

the amount of any out-of-pocket expenses paid to Mr. Fertitta and his affiliates following certain termination events shall be credited against cash amounts, including amounts received as tax “gross-ups” under Section 280G and 4999 of the Code, otherwise due to Mr. Fertitta in the event of a Termination Following a Change of Control under the terms of the Employment Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2003, as amended, between the Company and Mr. Fertitta, as more fully described under “The Merger Agreement—Termination Fees and Expenses”.

 

83


Table of Contents

Additionally, the special committee considered as a negative factor:

 

   

that we did not undertake an affirmative attempt to contact other potential buyers prior to entering into the first amended merger agreement, although the special committee was satisfied that the first amended merger agreement permitted us to conduct a post-signing market test designed to determine that the $24.00 per share price provided in the first amended merger agreement is the highest value reasonably available to us and our stockholders.

In the course of reaching the determinations and decisions, and making the recommendations, described above, the special committee consulted with its financial and legal advisors, and considered, in the context of the procedural safeguards that the special committee believes were present to ensure the fairness of the merger and to permit the special committee to represent the interests of our unaffiliated stockholders, (i) all of the relevant factors previously considered in its evaluation of the original merger agreement and (ii) a number of additional factors relating to the first amended merger agreement that it believed supported its decision, including the following:

 

   

the merger is conditioned upon the approval and adoption of the merger agreement by our stockholders, including the approval and adoption of the merger agreement by the holders of a majority of the then-outstanding shares of our common stock not owned by the defendants in the Delaware Litigation or any of their respective affiliates (other than the Company and its subsidiaries) and voted at the special meeting (for purposes of this calculation, abstentions are not considered shares voted at the special meeting);

 

   

that the special committee received from its financial advisor, Moelis, an opinion delivered orally at the special committee meeting on May 23, 2010, and subsequently confirmed in writing as of the same date, to the effect that based upon and subject to the limitations and qualifications set forth in the written opinion, as of the date of the opinion, the merger consideration of $24.00 per share in cash that was to be received by our stockholders in the merger was fair, from a financial point of view, to such stockholders, other than the Excluded Persons;

 

   

the fact that the merger agreement provides the special committee with a post-signing second go-shop period that continues until 11:59 p.m., New York City time, on July 7, 2010 (the 45th day following the date of the first amendment to the merger agreement) with the option to extend the second go-shop period for a period of at least 15 additional days to permit additional due diligence to be conducted, and during which the special committee has the right to actively initiate, solicit and encourage other acquisition proposals involving us and enter into and maintain, or participate in, discussions or negotiations with respect to acquisition proposals or otherwise cooperate with, assist or participate in, or facilitate any such inquiries, proposals, discussions or negotiations or the making of any acquisition proposals and, after such post-signing second go-shop period, the special committee is permitted to continue any then ongoing discussions with any third party that has made an acquisition proposal prior to the end of the second go-shop period and with whom we are having ongoing discussions or negotiations as of the end of the second go-shop period; and

 

   

the provisions in the merger agreement that provide for waivers of standstills and reimbursement of due diligence expenses of up to two potential acquirers in order to create an active second go-shop process, subject to the conditions in the amended merger agreement.

The Second Amended Merger Agreement

On June 20, 2010, the special committee, after consultation with its financial and legal advisors, resolved unanimously that the merger, the second amended merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby are advisable, fair to and in the best interests of us and our unaffiliated stockholders, approved the merger, the second amended merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby and recommended that our stockholders approve and adopt the second amended merger agreement. The special committee further

 

84


Table of Contents

recommended that our board of directors approve the proposed transaction, including the merger, the second amended merger agreement and the other transactions contemplated thereby, and recommend to our stockholders that they approve and adopt the second amended merger agreement.

In the course of reaching the determinations and making the recommendations described above, the special committee consulted with its financial and legal advisors, and considered, in the context of the second amended merger agreement, (i) all of the relevant factors previously considered in its evaluation of the original merger agreement and the first amended merger agreement and (ii) additional factors relating to the second amended merger agreement that it believed supported its decision, including the following:

 

   

that the merger consideration of $24.50 per share represents a premium of approximately (a) 126% over the closing price of our common stock on September 8, 2009, the last trading day before Mr. Fertitta’s initial proposal was made public, (b) 66% over the merger consideration of $14.75 pursuant to the original merger agreement entered into by Parent, Merger Sub, Mr. Fertitta and us on November 3, 2009, (c) 13% over the closing price of our common stock on May 21, 2010, the last trading day before it was publicly announced that Parent, Merger Sub and Mr. Fertitta had entered into the first amended merger agreement with us, (d) 2% over the merger consideration of $24.00 pursuant to the first amended merger agreement and (e) 2% over the closing price of our common stock on June 18, 2010, the last trading day before it was publicly announced that Parent, Merger Sub and Mr. Fertitta had entered into the second amendment to the merger agreement with us;

 

   

the merger consideration of $24.50 per share payable to our stockholders is greater than the merger consideration proposed in the two preliminary indications of interest we received pursuant to our go-shop process following entry into the original merger agreement on November 3, 2009, which indications of interest contemplated the acquisition of 100% of our common stock at a purchase price between $17.00 to $18.00 per share and $16.00 to $19.00 per share;

 

   

the merger consideration of $24.50 per share payable to our stockholders is greater than the $13.50 per share merger consideration payable pursuant to the terms of the prior merger agreement between us and Mr. Fertitta entered into on October 18, 2008;

 

   

the merger consideration of $24.50 per share payable to our stockholders is greater than the $21.00 per share merger consideration payable pursuant to the terms of the prior merger agreement between us and Mr. Fertitta entered into on June 16, 2008;

 

   

the merger consideration of $24.50 per share payable to our stockholders is greater than the $23.50 per share merger consideration proposed by Mr. Fertitta on January 27, 2008;

 

   

while Moelis was not requested to, and did not, deliver an opinion in connection with the second amendment to the merger agreement, Moelis indicated that, in light of the second amendment, it was not withdrawing its fairness opinion, which opinion speaks as of May 23, 2010; and

 

   

the terms and conditions of the voting agreements, including the provision that provides that the voting agreements terminate upon the determination by the special committee that a competing proposal constitutes a Superior Proposal, thereby permitting the parties subject to the voting agreements to vote their shares in favor of any such Superior Proposal.

Additionally, the special committee considered as a negative factor:

 

   

that we did not complete an affirmative market check prior to entering into the second amended merger agreement, although the special committee was satisfied that the ongoing go-shop process pursuant to the first amended merger agreement permitted us to conduct a post-signing market check designed to determine that the $24.50 per share price provided in the second amended merger agreement is the highest value reasonably available to us and our stockholders.

In the course of reaching the determinations and decisions, and making the recommendations, described above, the special committee consulted with its financial and legal advisors, and considered, in the context of the

 

85


Table of Contents

procedural safeguards that the special committee believes were present to ensure the fairness of the merger and to permit the special committee to represent the interests of our unaffiliated stockholders, (i) all of the relevant factors previously considered in its evaluation of the original merger agreement and the first amended merger agreement and (ii) the factors relating to the second amended merger agreement that it believed supported its decision, including the following factor:

 

   

the terms and conditions of the voting agreements, including the provision that provides that the voting agreements terminate upon the determination by the special committee that a competing proposal constitutes a Superior Proposal, thereby permitting the parties subject to the voting agreements to vote their shares in favor of any such superior proposal.

In analyzing the transaction relative to our going concern value, the special committee adopted the analysis underlying the May 23, 2010 opinion of Moelis. While the special committee did not believe that there is a single method for determining “going concern value,” the special committee believed Moelis’ valuation methodologies included valuations of us as we continue to operate our business and, therefore, such analysis could be characterized as going concern valuations. In that regard the special committee considered such analyses as a whole and did not assign any particular weight to any analysis or methodology presented by Moelis. The special committee did not consider liquidation value as a factor because we are a viable going concern business and the trading history of our common stock is an indication of our value as such. The special committee did not view the prices paid by us for the repurchase of our common stock in our open market stock buy back program over the prior two years or the prices paid by our affiliates in open market purchases of our common stock prior to the date of the merger agreement as relevant beyond indicating the trading price of our common stock during such periods. In addition, due to the fact that we are being sold as a going concern, the special committee did not consider our liquidation value relevant in determining whether the merger is procedurally and substantively fair to our unaffiliated stockholders and in the best interest of our stockholders, other than the Excluded Persons. Further, the special committee did not consider net book value a material indicator of our value because it is merely indicative of historical costs.

The foregoing discussion of the information and factors considered by the special committee addresses the material factors considered by the special committee in its consideration of the merger agreement. In view of the variety of factors considered in connection with its evaluation of the merger agreement and the merger, the special committee did not find it practicable to, and did not, quantify or otherwise assign relative weights to the specific factors considered in reaching its determination and recommendation. In addition, individual special committee members may have given different weights to factors. The special committee approved the merger agreement and the merger and recommended approval and adoption of the merger agreement based upon the totality of the information presented to and considered by it. The special committee conducted extensive discussions of, among other things, the factors described above, including asking questions of our management and the special committee’s financial and legal advisors, and unanimously determined that the merger is both procedurally and substantively fair to our unaffiliated stockholders and in the best interest of our stockholders, other than the Excluded Persons, and to recommend to the board of directors that it approve the merger agreement and the merger.

The Board of Directors. On November 3, 2009, May 23, 2010 and June 20, 2010, our board of directors met to consider the reports and recommendations of the special committee with respect to the original merger agreement and the first and second amended merger agreements, respectively. The special committee reported to the board of directors on its review of the proposed transaction and the merger agreement. On the basis of the special committee’s recommendations and the other factors described below, our board of directors expressly adopted the special committee’s conclusion and analysis with respect to the fairness of the transaction and unanimously (with Mr. Fertitta taking no part in the meetings, votes or the recommendations) determined that the merger agreement and the merger are advisable, fair to and in the best interests of us and our unaffiliated stockholders, approved the merger, the merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby and recommended that our stockholders approve and adopt the merger agreement.

 

86


Table of Contents

In the course of reaching the determinations and making the recommendations described above, the board of directors considered the following factors:

 

   

the unanimous determinations and recommendations of the special committee; and

 

   

the factors considered by the special committee, including the generally positive and favorable factors as well as the generally negative and unfavorable factors, and the factors relating to procedural safeguards.

The foregoing discussion of the information and factors considered by our board of directors includes the material factors considered by the board of directors. In view of the variety of factors considered in connection with its evaluation of the merger, our board of directors did not find it practicable to, and did not quantify or otherwise assign relative weights to the specific factors considered in reaching its determination and recommendation. In addition, individual directors may have given different weights to different factors. The board of directors approved the merger agreement and the merger and recommended approval and adoption of the merger agreement based upon the totality of the information presented to and considered by it.

Other than as described in this proxy statement, the board of directors is not aware of any firm offers by any other person during the prior two years for a merger or consolidation of us with another company, the sale or transfer of all or substantially all of our assets or a purchase of our securities that would enable such person to exercise control of us.

Our board of directors (with Mr. Fertitta taking no part in the recommendations) recommends that you vote “FOR” the approval and adoption of the merger agreement.

Opinion of Moelis & Company

On May 23, 2010, at a meeting of the special committee of the board of directors of the Company held to evaluate the transaction, Moelis delivered to the special committee its oral opinion, subsequently confirmed by delivery of a written opinion, dated May 23, 2010, to the effect that, based upon and subject to the limitations and qualifications set forth in the written opinion, as of the date of the opinion the consideration of $24.00 per share in cash that was to be received by the stockholders of the Company in the transaction was fair from a financial point of view to such stockholders, other than the Excluded Persons. Moelis was not requested to, and did not, deliver an opinion in connection with the execution of the second amendment to the merger agreement on June 20, 2010 which provided for an increase of the merger consideration from $24.00 to $24.50 per share in cash. However, Moelis indicated that, in light of the second amendment, it was not withdrawing its fairness opinion, which opinion speaks as of May 23, 2010.

The full text of the Moelis opinion describes the assumptions made, procedures followed, matters considered and limitations on the review undertaken by Moelis. This opinion is attached as Annex D to this proxy statement and is incorporated into this proxy statement by reference. The Company’s stockholders are encouraged to read this opinion carefully in its entirety. A previous opinion, dated November 3, 2009, provided in connection with the consideration of the original merger agreement, has been filed as an annex to our proxy statement filed with the SEC on December 1, 2009 and as Exhibit (c)(1) to the Schedule 13E-3 filed with the SEC on December 1, 2009.

Moelis’s opinion does not address the Company’s underlying business decision to effect the transaction or the relative merits of the transaction as compared to alternative business strategies or transactions that might be available to the Company. Moelis was not asked to, nor did it, offer any opinion as to the material terms of the merger agreement or the form of the transaction. Moelis also assumed, with the consent of the special committee, that the representations and warranties of all parties to the merger agreement, as amended through May 23, 2010, are true and correct, that each party to the merger agreement, as amended through May 23, 2010, will perform all of the covenants and agreements required to be performed by such party, that all conditions to the consummation of

 

87


Table of Contents

the transaction will be satisfied without waiver thereof, and that the merger will be consummated in a timely manner in accordance with the terms described in the merger agreement, as amended through May 23, 2010, without any modifications or amendments thereto or any adjustment to the previously negotiated $24.00 per share merger consideration (through indemnification claims, offset, purchase price adjustments or otherwise). In rendering its opinion, Moelis assumed, with the special committee’s consent, that the final executed form of the merger agreement does not differ in any material respect from the draft that Moelis examined prior to delivery of its May 23, 2010 opinion. Since the expiration of the first go-shop period that followed the execution of the original merger agreement on November 3, 2009, until delivery of Moelis’ May 23, 2010 opinion, Moelis was not authorized and did not solicit indications of interest in a possible transaction with the Company from any party.

Moelis, in arriving at its opinion, among other things:

 

   

reviewed certain publicly available business and financial information relating to the Company that Moelis deemed relevant;

 

   

reviewed certain internal information relating to the business, including financial forecasts, earnings, cash flow, assets, liabilities and prospects of the Company furnished to Moelis by the Company;

 

   

conducted discussions with members of senior management and representatives of the Company concerning the matters described in the first two bullet points of this paragraph, as well as the business and prospects of the Company generally;

 

   

reviewed publicly available financial and stock market data, including valuation multiples, for the Company and compared them with those of certain other companies in lines of business that Moelis deemed relevant;

 

   

compared the proposed financial terms of the merger with the financial terms of certain other transactions that Moelis deemed relevant;

 

   

reviewed the original merger agreement, dated November 3, 2009, and a draft of the first amendment to the merger agreement, dated May 23, 2010;

 

   

reviewed the equity commitment letter between Parent and Mr. Fertitta, as amended, dated May 23, 2010;

 

   

participated in certain discussions and negotiations among representatives of the Company and Mr. Fertitta, Parent, Merger Sub and their respective financial and legal advisors; and

 

   

conducted such other financial studies and analyses and took into account such other information as Moelis deemed appropriate.

In connection with its review, Moelis did not assume any responsibility for independent verification of any the information supplied to, discussed with, or reviewed by Moelis for the purpose of its opinion and, with the special committee’s consent, relied on such information being complete and accurate in all material respects. In addition, at the special committee’s direction Moelis did not make any independent evaluation or appraisal of any of the assets or liabilities (contingent, derivative, off-balance-sheet, or otherwise) of the Company, nor has Moelis been furnished with any such evaluation or appraisal. With respect to the forecasted financial information referred to above, Moelis assumed, with the special committee’s consent, that they were reasonably prepared on a basis reflecting the best currently available estimates and judgments of the management of the Company as to the future performance of the Company.

Moelis’s opinion was necessarily based on economic, monetary, market and other conditions as in effect on, and the information made available to Moelis as of, the date of the opinion. Moelis’s opinion does not constitute a recommendation to any stockholder of the Company as to how such stockholder should vote with respect to the merger or any other matter, nor does it constitute legal, tax or accounting advice.

 

88


Table of Contents

Moelis provided its opinion for the use and benefit of the special committee of the board of directors of the Company in its evaluation of the merger. In addition, the special committee did not ask Moelis to address, and Moelis’s opinion did not address, the fairness to, or any other consideration of, the holders of any class of securities, creditors or other constituencies of the Company, other than the holders of the Company common stock that are not Excluded Persons.

In addition, Moelis did not express any opinion as to the fairness of the amount or nature of any compensation to be received by any of the Company’s officers, directors or employees, or any class of such persons, relative to the $24.00 per share cash consideration that was to be received by the Company stockholders in the merger. The Moelis opinion was approved by a Moelis fairness opinion committee.

Financial Analyses

The following is a summary of the material financial analyses presented by Moelis to the special committee on May 23, 2010, in connection with the delivery of the opinion described above.

In its evaluation of the proposed transaction, Moelis considered several valuation methodologies, including a comparable public trading multiples analysis, a precedent transaction analysis, a discounted cash flow analysis and an illustrative leveraged buyout analysis. For purposes of the comparable public trading multiples, precedent transaction and discounted cash flow analyses, Moelis calculated an implied valuation range for each of the Company’s restaurant and gaming businesses separately, prior to calculating an implied valuation range for the combined business. Furthermore, in connection with each such analysis, Moelis calculated separate implied equity value ranges for the combined business assuming that (i) the Company’s gaming business debt is treated as consolidated debt of the Company for valuation purposes and (ii) the Company’s gaming business debt is non-recourse to the restaurant business, such that in computing the equity value of the combined business the gaming business would not be assigned an equity value less than $0. In connection with the second scenario, Moelis did not deduct any breakage costs, penalties or other negative financial impacts to the restaurant business if the gaming business debt is not honored, though Company management indicated to Moelis that the Company would likely incur such costs but has not been able to quantify them. Moelis provided separate valuation analyses because, even though the Company’s gaming business debt is non-recourse to the restaurant business, Company management advised Moelis that they believed there would be negative consequences to the restaurant business if the Company did not honor the debt of the gaming business, such as vendors withdrawing and cancelling services, an inability to retain employees, and negative media impact, among others. Company management noted that each of these consequences would be dramatic to the restaurant business, such that it would also be appropriate to consider analyses assuming that the Company’s gaming business debt is treated as consolidated debt of the Company.

The summary set forth below does not purport to be a complete description of the analyses performed by Moelis in arriving at its opinion, nor is the order of analyses described below meant to indicate the relative weight or importance given to those analyses by Moelis. The preparation of a fairness opinion is a complex process involving various determinations as to the most appropriate and relevant methods of financial analysis and the application of those methods to the particular circumstances; therefore, such an opinion is not readily susceptible to partial analysis or summary description. No business or transaction used in such analyses as a comparison is identical to the Company, the Company’s businesses or the proposed transaction, nor is an evaluation of such analyses entirely mathematical. In arriving at its opinion, Moelis did not attribute any particular weight to any analysis or factor considered by it, but rather made qualitative judgments as to the significance and relevance of each analysis and factor. Accordingly, Moelis believes that its analyses must be considered as a whole and that selecting portions of its analyses and of the factors considered by it, without considering all factors and analyses, would, in the view of Moelis, create an incomplete and misleading view of the analyses underlying Moelis’s opinion.

 

89


Table of Contents

Some of the summaries of financial analyses below include information presented in tabular format. In order to understand fully Moelis’s analyses, the tables must be read together with the text of each summary. The tables alone do not constitute a complete description of the analyses. Considering the data described below without considering the full narrative description of the financial analyses, including the methodologies and assumptions underlying the analyses, could create a misleading or incomplete view of Moelis’s analyses.

The analyses performed by Moelis include analyses based upon forecasts of future results, which results might be significantly more or less favorable than those upon which Moelis’s analyses were based. The analyses do not purport to be appraisals or to reflect the prices at which the Company’s shares might trade at any time. Because the analyses are inherently subject to uncertainty, being based upon numerous factors and events, including, without limitation, factors relating to general economic and competitive conditions beyond the control of the parties or their respective advisors, neither Moelis nor any other person assumes responsibility if future results or actual values are materially different from those contemplated below.

A copy of Moelis’s written presentation, substantially in the form delivered to the special committee on May 23, 2010 in connection with Moelis’s opinion letter, has been filed as an exhibit to the Schedule 13E-3. A copy of such presentation will also be available for inspection and copying at the Company’s principal executive offices during regular business hours by any interested stockholder of the Company or any representative of such stockholder who has been so designated in writing.

Comparable Public Trading Multiples Analysis

Moelis reviewed selected financial information, on a stand-alone basis, for each of the Company’s restaurant business and gaming business, and compared such information to corresponding financial information of publicly traded companies in the restaurant and gaming industry, respectively.

Moelis selected the companies based on a number of criteria, including the nature of the companies’ operations, size and target markets. For the selected restaurant companies, Moelis focused on companies in the casual dining, upscale casual dining and fine dining sub-sectors within the restaurant industry. For the selected gaming companies, Moelis considered mid/small-cap publicly traded operators as well as Monarch Casino and Resort, Inc., a single asset property.

The restaurant companies selected included:

 

   

Casual Dining:

 

   

Brinker International, Inc.

 

   

Darden Restaurants, Inc.

 

   

O’Charley’s Inc.

 

   

Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc.

 

   

Ruby Tuesday, Inc.

 

   

Texas Roadhouse, Inc.

 

   

Upscale Casual Dining:

 

   

BJ’s Restaurants, Inc.

 

   

California Pizza Kitchen, Inc.

 

   

The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated

 

   

PF Chang’s China Bistro, Inc.

 

90


Table of Contents
   

Fine Dining:

 

   

McCormick & Schmick’s Seafood Restaurants, Inc.

 

   

Morton’s Restaurant Group, Inc.

 

   

Ruth’s Hospitality Group, Inc.

The gaming companies selected included:

 

   

Mid/Small-Cap (Major Markets*):

 

   

Boyd Gaming Corporation

 

   

Mid/Small-Cap (Other Markets):

 

   

Penn National Gaming, Inc.

 

   

Ameristar Casinos, Inc.

 

   

Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc.

 

   

Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc.

 

   

Single Asset:

 

   

Monarch Casino & Resort, Inc.

 

* Major markets defined as companies receiving a majority of property EBITDA in Atlantic City, NJ and Las Vegas, NV.

For each of the companies identified above, Moelis calculated various multiples that it deemed appropriate in its professional judgment, including the ratio of enterprise value to earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization, or EBITDA, for the last twelve months and for calendar year 2010 (projected). For purposes of its analysis, Moelis calculated the enterprise value as the market capitalization plus total debt, minority interests and preferred stock, less cash and cash equivalents. Moelis used last twelve months EBITDA based on public filings, independent research analyst reports and Capital IQ, and 2010 EBITDA based on consensus analyst estimates compiled by Reuters. Moelis used closing trading prices of equity securities of each identified company as of May 21, 2010.

The table below sets forth the mean and median enterprise values and enterprise value to last twelve months EBITDA multiples for each group of restaurant companies considered by Moelis in its analysis:

 

Selected Restaurant Companies

   Enterprise Value (mm)    Enterprise Value /
LTM EBITDA

Casual Dining

     

Mean

   $ 2,077.4    6.6x

Median

   $ 1,028.3    6.7x

Upscale Casual Dining

     

Mean

   $ 918.3    9.4x

Median

   $ 798.9    8.2x

Fine Dining

     

Mean

   $ 196.1    7.5x

Median

   $ 169.2    7.2x

Overall Mean

   $ 1,286.6    7.7x

Overall Median

   $ 623.7    7.3x

Landry’s

   $ 1,399.5    7.6x

Landry’s at offer

   $ 1,439.0    7.8x

 

91


Table of Contents

The table below sets forth the mean and median enterprise value to 2010 EBITDA multiples for each group of gaming companies considered by Moelis in its analysis:

 

Selected Gaming Companies

   Enterprise Value /
     2010 EBITDA    

Mid/Small-Cap (Major Markets)

  

Mean

  

10.7x

Mid/Small-Cap (Other Markets)

  

Mean

  

  8.2x

Median

  

  8.2x

Single Asset

  

Mean

  

  7.4x

Overall Mean

  

  8.5x

Overall Median

  

  8.2x

Landry’s

  

  7.7x*

Landry’s at offer

  

  7.9x*

 

* Forward multiples based on management projections.

Based upon qualitative judgments made on the basis of Moelis’ experience in the restaurant and gaming industries and related primarily to differing sizes, growth prospects, profitability levels and degree of operational risk between the Company’s restaurant and gaming businesses and the appropriate selected companies, Moelis selected a range of (i) enterprise value to last twelve months EBITDA multiples for the selected restaurant companies and (ii) enterprise value to 2010 EBITDA multiples for selected gaming companies. Moelis then applied such multiple ranges to the Company’s last twelve months and 2010 estimated EBITDA for each of the Company’s restaurant and gaming business, as appropriate, to derive an implied range of enterprise and equity value for each of the Company’s restaurant business and gaming business. For the Company’s restaurant business, Moelis used last twelve months EBITDA based on historical financials received from the Company’s management. For the Company’s gaming business, Moelis used 2010 EBITDA based on estimates and projections prepared by the Company’s management for such business. The following summarizes the results of these calculations:

 

Restaurant Business

  

Selected Enterprise Value / LTM EBITDA Multiple Range

   5.5x-7.0x

Implied Company Restaurant Business Enterprise Value

   $760mm-$970mm

Implied Company Restaurant Business Equity Value

   $160mm-$365mm

Gaming Business

  

Selected Enterprise Value / 2010 EBITDA Multiple Range

   7.5x-9.0x

Implied Company Gaming Business Enterprise Value

   $325mm-$390mm

Implied Company Gaming Business Equity Value

   ($110)mm-($45)mm

Based on the foregoing calculations, Moelis then calculated the combined equity value of the Company’s restaurant and gaming businesses. Assuming that the debt of the gaming business is treated as consolidated debt of the entire Company, such calculations resulted in an implied equity value of the combined Company of $50 million to $320 million, and a price per Company share of $3.08 to $19.42. Moelis noted that the merger consideration of $24.00 per share was above such range.

Moelis also completed the foregoing analysis assuming the gaming business debt is non-recourse to the restaurant business. Such calculations resulted in an implied equity value of the combined Company of $160 million to $365 million, and a price per Company share of $9.82 to $22.07. Moelis noted that the merger consideration of $24.00 per share was above such range.

It should be noted that no company used in the above analysis is identical to the Company’s restaurant or gaming business. In evaluating companies identified by Moelis as comparable to the Company’s businesses,

 

92


Table of Contents

Moelis made judgments as to which companies were more comparable to the Company based on a number of factors, including the nature of a Company’s operations, size and target markets.

Precedent Transaction Analysis

Moelis reviewed the financial terms of 27 precedent transactions involving restaurant companies and 20 precedent transactions involving gaming companies.

Moelis selected the transactions based on a number of criteria, including the nature of the target companies’ operations, size and target markets. For restaurant precedent transactions, Moelis focused on transactions over the past five years involving casual dining companies as targets, highlighting regional casual diners or mixed entertainment/restaurant businesses. However, due to the effects of unstable financing dynamics in the real estate markets, Moelis excluded transactions with significant real estate holdings. For gaming precedent transactions, Moelis focused on recent gaming operator transactions with an emphasis on transactions involving the Golden Nugget hotel and casino, assets in or around the Las Vegas strip and/or local markets and small/mid-cap gaming operators. Moelis focused less on transactions completed during 2006 to July 2007, due to potential inflated asset values due to the financing and real estate environment. The transactions selected included:

Selected Restaurant Precedent Transactions

 

Announcement Date

 

Acquiror

 

Target

May 2, 2010*

  Oak Hill Capital Partners   Dave & Buster’s, Inc.

April 12, 2010*

  Roark Capital Group   Wingstop Restaurants, Inc.

April 1, 2010

  Lee Equity Partners   Papa Murphy’s International

March 25, 2010*

  Golden Gate Capital   On the Border Mexican Grill & Cantina

February 26, 2010

  Apollo Management   CKE Restaurants, Inc.

June 17, 2009

  Friedman, Fleischer & Lowe   Church’s Chicken

August 16, 2007

  Darden Restaurants, Inc.   Rare Hospitality International, Inc.

July 16, 2007

  IHOP Corp.   Applebee’s International, Inc.

June 17, 2007

  Sun Capital Partners, Inc.   Friendly Ice Cream Corporation

May 7, 2007

  Bunker Hill Capital   The Smith & Wollensky Restaurant Group

November 6, 2006

  Bain Capital & Catterton Partners   OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc.

October 30, 2006

  Bruckmann, Rosser, Sherril & Co.
Inc., Canyon Capital Advisors
LLC & Black Canyon Capital
LLC
  Logan’s Roadhouse, Inc.

October 9, 2006*

  J.H. Whitney Capital Partners,
LLC
  Joe’s Crab Shack

August 28, 2006

  Oak Investment Partners &
Catterton Partners
  Cheddar’s Holding Corp.

August 18, 2006

  Lone Star Funds   Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc.

August 10, 2006*

  Sun Capital Partners, Inc.   Real Mex Restaurants, Inc.

July 25, 2006

  Buffets Inc.   Ryan’s Restaurant Group, Inc.

June 5, 2006

  Bruckmann, Rosser, Sherril & Co.
Inc. & Castle Harlan, Inc.
  Bravo Development, Inc.

January 10, 2006

  Centre Partners   Uno Restaurant Holdings Corporation

December 12, 2005*

  Newcastle Partners, L.P.   Fox & Hound Restaurant Group

December 9, 2005*

  Wellspring Capital Management
LLC
  Dave & Buster’s Inc.

September 16, 2005

  Leonard Green & Partners, L.P.   Claim Jumper Restaurants Inc.

January 20, 2005

  Trimaran Capital Partners   Charlie Brown’s

June 14, 2004

  Bob Evan’s Farms, Inc.   Mimi’s Cafés

 

* Most comparable transactions based on such transactions’ target company having a regional focus and casual dining concept and growth characteristics more similar to the Company’s restaurant business as compared to other selected restaurant precedent transactions

 

93


Table of Contents

The following restaurant precedent transactions involving the Company were also noted for reference:

 

Announcement Date

  

Acquiror

  

Target

September 30, 2002

   Landry’s Restaurant, Inc.    Saltgrass Steak House and Seafood

February 19, 2002

   Landry’s Restaurant, Inc.    C.A. Muer Corp.

September 26, 2000

   Landry’s Restaurant, Inc.    Rainforest Cafe, Inc.

Selected Gaming Precedent Transactions

 

Announcement Date

  

Acquiror

  

Target

December 15, 2008

   Ruffin Acquisition, LLC    Treasure Island Hotel and Casino

September 23, 2008

   Carl Icahn, Black Diamond Capital Management & Schultze Asset Management    Tropicana Atlantic City

December 11, 2007

   Crown Limited    Cannery Casino Resorts, LLC

June 15, 2007

   Fortress Investment Group & Centerbridge Partners    Penn National Gaming Inc.

April 23, 2007

   Whitehall Street Real Estate Funds    American Casino & Entertainment Properties, LLC

April 4, 2007

   Publishing & Broadcasting Ltd. & Macquarie Bank Ltd.    Gateway Casinos Income Fund

April 3, 2007

   Ameristar Casinos Inc.    Resorts East Chicago

December 19, 2006

   Apollo Management LP & Texas Pacific Group    Harrah’s Entertainment Inc.

December 4, 2006

   Fertitta Colony Partners LLC    Station Casinos, Inc.

May 19, 2006

   Wilmar Tahoe, Inc., d/b/a Columbia Entertainment    Aztar Corp.

March 20, 2006

   Investor Group    Kerzner International Limited

February 4, 2005

   Landry’s Restaurant, Inc.    Poster Financial Group, Inc. (Golden Nugget)

November 3, 2004

   Penn National Gaming, Inc.    Argosy Gaming Company

September 27, 2004

   Colony Capital, LLC    Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (Caesars Assets)

July 15, 2004

   Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc.    Caesars Entertainment, Inc.

June 4, 2004

   MGM Mirage, Inc.    Mandalay Resort Group

February 9, 2004

   Boyd Gaming Corp.    Coast Casinos Inc.

September 11, 2003

   Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc.    Horseshoe Gaming Holding Corp.

June 26, 2003

   Poster Financial Group, Inc.    MGM Mirage, Inc. (Golden Nugget Hotel-Casinos)

February 22, 2000

   MGM Grand, Inc.    Mirage Resorts, Inc.

For each of the restaurant transactions identified above, Moelis calculated the ratio of enterprise value to last twelve months EBITDA at the time the transaction took place, as last twelve months EBITDA rather than forward EBITDA is viewed as most relevant for restaurant industry transactions because of the highly discretionary nature of restaurant purchases and resulting difficulty in projecting earnings. For purposes of that analysis, Moelis used last twelve months EBITDA based on public filings, independent research analyst reports and Capital IQ.

 

94


Table of Contents

The table below sets forth the mean and median enterprise values and enterprise value to LTM EBITDA multiples for the overall group of restaurant precedent transactions and those transactions deemed most comparable by Moelis, in its professional judgment and based on its experience in the restaurant industry. Such values and multiples were considered by Moelis in its analysis.

 

Selected Restaurant Precedent Transactions

   Enterprise Value
(mm)
   Enterprise Value /
LTM EBITDA

Overall

     

Mean

   $ 653    8.7x

Median

   $ 359    8.8x

Most Comparable

     

Mean

   $ 276    6.9x

Median

   $ 192    6.5x

Landry’s at offer

   $ 1,439    7.8x

For each of the gaming transactions identified above, Moelis calculated the ratio of enterprise value to the forward EBITDA estimate for the year the transaction took place, if the transaction took place in the first half of the year, and the ratio of enterprise value to the forward EBITDA estimate for the next calendar year, if the transaction took place in the second half of the year, unless otherwise noted. The use of forward EBITDA conforms to industry convention and is viewed as the most relevant earning measure for gaming transactions in part because of the portion of revenue for gaming companies that derives from advance bookings. For purposes of that analysis, Moelis used forward EBITDA based on public filings, projections reported by independent research analyst reports and Capital IQ.

The table below sets forth the mean enterprise value to forward EBITDA multiples for each range of gaming precedent transactions considered by Moelis in its analysis:

 

Selected Gaming Precedent Transactions

   Enterprise Value /
Forward EBITDA
 

August 2007 to Present

  

Mean

   8.2x

2006 to July 2007

  

Mean

   12.8x   

Prior to 2006

  

Mean

   8.2x   

Overall Mean

   9.9x   

Overall Median

   9.5x   

Landry’s at offer

   7.9x ** 

 

* Excludes Cannery Casino Resorts, LLC transaction because offer was withdrawn
** Multiple based on management estimates

 

95


Table of Contents

Based upon qualitative judgments made on the basis of Moelis’s experience in the restaurant and gaming industries and related to the characteristics of the precedent transactions, Moelis selected a range of enterprise value to last twelve months EBITDA multiples for the precedent restaurant transactions and enterprise value to forward EBITDA for the selected precedent gaming transactions. Moelis then applied such multiple ranges to the Company’s last twelve months adjusted EBITDA for the Company’s restaurant business and 2010 estimated EBITDA (based on estimates prepared by the Company’s management) for the Company’s gaming business, respectively, to derive an implied range of enterprise and equity value for each of the Company’s restaurant business and gaming business. The following tables summarize the results of these calculations:

 

Restaurant Group

  

Selected Enterprise Value / LTM EBITDA Multiple Range

   5.5x-7.5x

Implied Company Restaurant Business Enterprise Value

   $760mm-$1,040mm

Implied Company Restaurant Business Equity Value

   $160mm-$435mm

Gaming Group

  

Selected Enterprise Value / Forward EBITDA Multiple Range

   6.5x-9.0x

Implied Company Gaming Business Enterprise Value

   $285mm-$390mm

Implied Company Gaming Business Equity Value

   ($155)mm-($45)mm

Based on the foregoing calculations, Moelis then calculated the combined equity value of the Company’s restaurant and gaming businesses. Assuming that the debt of the gaming business is treated as consolidated debt of the Company, such calculations resulted in an implied equity value of the combined Company of $(60) million to $325 million, and a price per Company share of $(3.70) to $19.70. Moelis noted that the merger consideration of $24.00 per share was above such range.

Moelis also completed the foregoing analysis assuming the gaming business debt is non-recourse to the restaurant business. Such calculations resulted in an implied equity value of the combined Company of $95 million to $370 million, and a price per Company share of $5.85 to $22.37. Moelis noted that the merger consideration of $24.00 was above such range.

It should be noted that the foregoing calculations of the combined equity value of the Company were made net of estimated $65 million change in control payments to Mr. Fertitta that he could be entitled to receive in a transaction other than the merger. Also, no transaction used in the above analysis is identical to the proposed transaction. In evaluating transactions identified by Moelis as comparable to the proposed transaction, Moelis made judgments and assumptions with regard to industry performance, general business, economic, market and financial conditions and other matters, many of which are beyond the control of the Company.

Discounted Cash Flow Analysis

Moelis conducted a discounted cash flow, or DCF, analysis of the Company to calculate a range of implied equity values for the Company. A DCF analysis is a method of evaluating an asset using estimates of the future unlevered free cash flows generated by assets and taking into consideration the time value of money with respect to those future free cash flows by calculating their “present value.” “Present value” refers to the current value of one or more future cash payments from the asset, which Moelis refers to as that asset’s free cash flows, and is obtained by discounting those free cash flows back to the present using a discount rate that takes into account macro-economic assumptions and estimates of risk, the opportunity cost of capital, capitalized returns and other appropriate factors. “Terminal value” refers to the capitalized value of all free cash flows from an asset for periods beyond the final forecast period.

Moelis analyzed the five-year projections provided by the Company’s management with respect to future unlevered free cash flows of each of the Company’s restaurant and gaming businesses. The future unlevered free cash flows for such five-year period were discounted back to present value as of June 30, 2010 using discount rates ranging from 10.0% to 11.0% for the restaurant business and 10.0% to 11.5% for the gaming business,

 

96


Table of Contents

which discount ranges were based upon each business’s and its comparable companies’ weighted average cost of capital. The restaurant and gaming businesses’ respective terminal value was then calculated using perpetuity growth rates ranging from 0.0% to 3.0% in each case, based upon guidance provided by the Company’s management.

The foregoing analysis indicated a combined equity value for the consolidated Company of $90 million to $570 million, assuming that the gaming business debt is treated as consolidated debt of the entire Company. The foregoing equity range was equal to a price per share range of $5.54 to $34.01. Moelis noted that the merger consideration of $24.00 per share fell within such range.

Moelis also completed the foregoing analysis assuming the gaming business debt is non-recourse to the restaurant business. Such analysis indicated a combined equity value for the Company of $225 million to $575 million. The foregoing equity range was equal to a price per share range of $13.73 to $34.30. Moelis noted that the merger consideration of $24.00 per share fell within such range.

Illustrative Leveraged Buyout Analysis

Moelis performed an illustrative leveraged buyout analysis using financial information provided by the Company’s management projections and financing assumptions based on Moelis estimates. Assuming the refinancing of all existing debt upon a transaction and a hypothetical required internal rate of return of 25% to a financial buyer, Moelis calculated financial buyer enterprise value to 2010 EBITDA entry multiples of 6.0x to 6.5x. The foregoing analysis indicated a combined equity value for the Company of $50 million to $140 million, or a price per share range of $3.08 to $8.61. Moelis noted that the merger consideration of $24.00 per share was above this range.

The merger consideration was determined through arms’ length negotiations between the special committee, on the one hand, and Mr. Fertitta and certain of his affiliates, on the other hand, and the decision by the Company to enter into the merger agreement (including the amendments thereto) was solely that of the Company. Moelis acted as financial advisor to the special committee in connection with its consideration of the transaction and participated in certain of the negotiations leading to the transaction. Moelis did not, however, recommend any specific amount of consideration to the Company or the special committee or that any specific amount of consideration constituted the only appropriate consideration for the merger. The Moelis opinion and financial analyses were only one of many factors considered by the special committee in its evaluation of the transaction and should not be determinative of the views of the special committee or management with respect to the transaction or the merger consideration.

The Company retained Moelis based upon Moelis’s experience. Moelis is an investment banking firm with substantial experience in transactions similar to the proposed merger. Moelis, as part of its investment banking business, is continually engaged in the valuation of businesses and securities in connection with business combinations and acquisitions and for other purposes. In the ordinary course of business, Moelis, its successors and its affiliates may trade securities of the Company for its own account and the accounts of its customers and, accordingly, may at any time hold a long or short position in such securities.

Under the terms of the engagement letter between Moelis and the Company, the Company agreed to pay Moelis (i) a retainer of $200,000, which will be offset on a one-time basis against the Opinion Fee and any Transaction Fee, (ii) an opinion fee of $1,000,000 (the “Opinion Fee”), in respect of each opinion, payable upon delivery, and regardless of the conclusion reached in such opinion, and which fee will be offset against any Transaction Fee and (iii) a transaction fee (the “Transaction Fee”) of an amount determined as follows: (a) $2,000,000 if a transaction is consummated with Mr. Fertitta in which Mr. Fertitta acquires substantially all of the stock or assets of the Company, including by a merger or combination of the Company; (b) 0.85% of the transaction value if a transaction is consummated with an acquirer other than Mr. Fertitta in which such acquirer acquires greater than 50% of the stock or assets of the Company, including by a merger or combination of the

 

97


Table of Contents

Company; and (c) 1.25% of the transaction value if a transaction is consummated involving a sale of a significant portion of the assets of the Company, subject to a minimum Transaction Fee of $1,000,000 for each such transaction. In addition, the Company has agreed to indemnify Moelis and its affiliates (and their respective directors, officers, agents, employees and controlling persons) against certain liabilities and expenses, including liabilities under the federal securities laws, related to or arising out of Moelis’s engagement. Moelis may provide investment banking services to the Company, Mr. Fertitta, Parent and their respective affiliates in the future, for which Moelis would expect to receive compensation.

Position of Tilman J. Fertitta, Parent, and Merger Sub as to Fairness

Under the rules governing “going-private” transactions, Mr. Fertitta, Parent and Merger Sub are required to express their beliefs as to the substantive and procedural fairness of the merger to our stockholders. Mr. Fertitta, Parent and Merger Sub are making the statements included in this subsection solely for the purposes of complying with the requirements of Rule 13e-3 and related rules under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The views of Mr. Fertitta, Parent and Merger Sub as to the fairness of the proposed merger should not be construed as a recommendation to any of our stockholders as to how such stockholder should vote on the proposal to adopt and approve the merger agreement.

The interests of our unaffiliated stockholders were represented by the special committee comprised of outside, non-employee directors, which had the exclusive authority to review, evaluate and negotiate the terms and conditions of the merger agreement on our behalf, with the assistance of the special committee’s financial and legal advisors. Accordingly, Mr. Fertitta, Parent and Merger Sub did not undertake a formal evaluation of the merger or engage a financial advisor for the purpose of reviewing and evaluating the merits of the proposed merger from our stockholders’ viewpoint. Mr. Fertitta, Parent and Merger Sub believe that the merger agreement and the merger are substantively and procedurally fair to the unaffiliated stockholders on the basis of the factors described under “—Recommendation of the Special Committee and Board of Directors; Reasons for Recommending Approval of the Merger Agreement” and agree with the analyses and conclusions of the special committee and the board of directors, based upon the reasonableness of those analyses and conclusions, which they adopt, and their respective knowledge of us, as well as the factors considered by, and the findings of, the special committee and the board of directors with respect to the fairness of the merger to such unaffiliated stockholders. In addition, Mr. Fertitta, Parent and Merger Sub considered the fact that the special committee received an opinion from Moelis to the effect that based upon and subject to the limitations and qualifications set forth in the written opinion, as of the date of the opinion, the merger consideration of $24.00 per share in cash that was to be received by our stockholders in the merger was fair, from a financial point of view, to such stockholders, other than the Excluded Persons. See “—Recommendation of the Special Committee and Board of Directors; Reasons for Recommending Approval of the Merger Agreement.”

The foregoing discussion of the information and factors considered and given weight by Mr. Fertitta, Parent and Merger Sub in connection with the fairness of the merger agreement and the merger is not intended to be exhaustive but is believed to include all material factors they considered. Mr. Fertitta, Parent and Merger Sub did not find it practicable to, and did not, quantify or otherwise attach relative weights to the foregoing factors in reaching their position as to the fairness of the merger agreement and the merger. Mr. Fertitta, Parent and Merger Sub believe that the foregoing factors provide a reasonable basis for their belief that the merger is fair to us and our unaffiliated stockholders.

Purposes and Reasons of Tilman J. Fertitta for the Merger

For Mr. Fertitta, the primary purpose of the merger is to benefit from our future earnings and growth after our stock ceases to be publicly traded through his ownership of all of the common stock of Parent. Mr. Fertitta believes that structuring the transaction in such a manner is preferable to other transaction structures because it will enable the acquisition of all of our shares at the same time and it represents an opportunity for our unaffiliated stockholders to immediately receive a substantial premium for their shares based upon the closing

 

98


Table of Contents

price for our common stock on May 21, 2010, the last trading day before the first amended merger agreement was publicly announced. In addition, Mr. Fertitta believes that this is an appropriate time to pursue this merger since the current effects of the economy on the casual dining and gaming industries might inhibit us from accessing the public equity markets for the foreseeable future. Mr. Fertitta believes that, following the merger, we will have greater operating flexibility, allowing management to concentrate on long-term growth, reduce our focus on the quarter-to-quarter performance often emphasized by the public markets and pursue alternatives that we would not have as a public company, such as the ability to pursue transactions without focusing on the market reaction or risk profile of our unaffiliated stockholders with respect to such transactions.

Purposes and Reasons for the Merger of Parent and Merger Sub

If the proposed merger is completed, we will become a direct subsidiary of Parent. For Parent and Merger Sub, the purpose of the merger is to effectuate the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement.

Purposes, Reasons and Plans for Us After the Merger

The purpose of the merger for us is to enable our stockholders (other than Mr. Fertitta, Parent and Merger Sub and stockholders who properly exercise their dissenters’ rights of appraisal under Delaware law) to immediately realize the value of their investment in us through their receipt of the per share merger consideration of $24.50 in cash, representing a premium of approximately (a) 126% over the closing price of our common stock on September 8, 2009, the last trading day before Mr. Fertitta’s initial proposal was made public, (b) 66% over the merger consideration of $14.75 per share pursuant to the original merger agreement entered into by Parent, Merger Sub, Mr. Fertitta and us on November 3, 2009, (c) 13% over the closing price of our common stock on May 21, 2010, the last trading day before it was publicly announced that Parent, Merger Sub and Mr. Fertitta had entered into the first amended merger agreement with us, (d) 2% over the merger consideration of $24.00 pursuant to the first amended merger agreement and (e) 2% over the closing market price of our common stock on June 18, 2010, the last trading day before the second amendment to the merger agreement was publicly announced. For the reasons discussed under “—Recommendation of the Special Committee and Board of Directors; Reasons for Recommending Approval of the Merger Agreement,” our board of directors unanimously determined (with Mr. Fertitta taking no part in the vote or recommendation) that the merger agreement and the merger are advisable, fair to and in the best interests of us and our unaffiliated stockholders.

It is expected that, upon consummation of the merger, our operations will be conducted substantially in the same manner as they currently are being conducted except that our common stock will cease to be publicly traded and will no longer be listed on any exchange or quotation system, including the New York Stock Exchange, so price quotations will no longer be available. We will not be subject to many of the obligations and constraints, and the related direct and indirect costs, associated with having publicly traded equity securities. We will, however, continue to file periodic reports with the SEC to the extent such reports are required by any indenture governing the outstanding indebtedness of the surviving corporation or applicable law.

Following the merger, we will continue to evaluate and review our business and operations and may develop new plans and proposals or elect to pursue acquisitions or other opportunities that we consider appropriate to maximize our value.

Effects of the Merger

If the merger is consummated, Merger Sub will be merged with and into us, and we will continue as the surviving corporation. Following the consummation of the merger, all of our issued and outstanding common stock will be owned by Parent.

Upon consummation of the merger, each share of our common stock issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of the merger (other than shares owned by Parent or Merger Sub, held in treasury by us or owned by stockholders who properly exercise their dissenters’ rights of appraisal under Delaware law) will be cancelled and converted automatically into the right to receive $24.50 in cash, without interest. At the effective time of the merger, all outstanding and unexercised options having an option exercise price of less than $24.50

 

99


Table of Contents

will be cancelled and the holder of each such cancelled option will be entitled to receive a cash payment (subject to applicable withholding taxes) equal to the number of shares of our common stock subject to the cancelled option multiplied by the amount by which $24.50 exceeds the option exercise price, without interest, except that all options owned by Mr. Fertitta that remain unexercised at the effective time of the merger will be cancelled and he will not receive any cash or consideration for his unexercised options. All options having an exercise price equal to or greater than $24.50 will be cancelled without payment of any consideration therefor. In addition, each share of restricted stock will be treated in the same manner as other shares of outstanding common stock and will be cancelled and converted automatically into the right to receive $24.50 in cash without interest, except that Mr. Fertitta’s shares of restricted stock will be contributed to Parent immediately prior to the effective time of the merger and will be cancelled and he will not receive any cash or consideration for his shares of restricted stock.

Immediately prior to the merger, in exchange for the common stock of Parent, Mr. Fertitta will contribute to Parent at least $40.0 million in cash and all of the shares of our common stock that he owns, which as of the date of this proxy statement totals 8,894,155 shares (which includes 775,000 shares of restricted stock that have not yet vested). Parent will own all of our issued and outstanding shares of common stock following the consummation of the merger. The cash contribution and equity rollover of Mr. Fertitta is more fully described under “—Interests of Tilman J. Fertitta.” A table detailing the expected capitalization of us and Parent following the merger is set forth under “—Arrangements with Respect to Us and Parent Following the Merger.”

If the merger is consummated, our stockholders other than Mr. Fertitta will have no interest in our net book value or net earnings after the merger. The table below sets forth the direct and indirect interests in our book value and net earnings (loss) of Mr. Fertitta and Parent prior to and immediately following the merger, based on our net book value as of December 31, 2009 and March 31, 2010 and net income (loss) for the year ended December 31, 2009.

 

     Ownership Prior to the Merger  
     Net Book Value    Earnings/(Loss)  

Name

   December 31, 2009    March 31, 2010    December 31, 2009  
     %    $(000’s)      %        $(000’s)        %        $(000’s)    

Tilman J. Fertitta

   55    $ 165,304    55    $ 175,507    55    $ (8,927
     Ownership After the Merger  
     Net Book Value    Earnings/(Loss)  

Name

   December 31, 2009    March 31, 2010    December 31, 2009  
     %    $(000’s)    %    $(000’s)    %    $(000’s)  

Tilman J. Fertitta (1)

   100    $ 300,554    100    $ 319,103    100    $ (16,230

 

(1) Following the consummation of the merger, Mr. Fertitta will have an indirect interest in our net book value and earnings as a result of his ownership of the equity interests in Parent.

A primary benefit of the merger to our stockholders (other than Mr. Fertitta) will be the right of such stockholders to receive a cash payment of $24.50, without interest, for each share of our common stock held by such stockholders as described above, representing a premium of approximately (a) 126% over the closing price of our common stock on September 8, 2009, the last trading day before Mr. Fertitta’s initial proposal was made public, (b) 66% over the merger consideration of $14.75 per share pursuant to the original merger agreement entered into by Parent, Merger Sub, Mr. Fertitta and us on November 3, 2009, (c) 13% over the closing price of our common stock on May 21, 2010, the last trading day before it was publicly announced that Parent, Merger Sub and Mr. Fertitta had entered into the first amended merger agreement with us, (d) 2% over the merger consideration of $24.00 pursuant to the first amended merger agreement and (e) 2% over the closing market price of our common stock on June 18, 2010, the last full trading day prior to the public announcement of the execution of the second amendment to the merger agreement. Additionally, such stockholders will avoid the risk of any possible decrease in our future earnings, growth or value, and the risks related to our additional leverage, following the merger.

The primary detriments of the merger to such stockholders include the lack of interest of such stockholders in our potential future earnings, growth or value. Additionally, the receipt of cash in exchange for shares of our

 

100


Table of Contents

common stock pursuant to the merger will generally be a taxable sale transaction for U.S. federal income tax purposes to our stockholders who surrender shares of our common stock in the merger.

In connection with the merger, Mr. Fertitta will receive benefits and be subject to obligations that are different from, or in addition to, the benefits of our stockholders generally. These benefits and detriments arise from (i) the right to a continued ownership interest in us following the consummation of the merger and (ii) a continuing employment agreement with us. These incremental benefits and detriments are described in more detail under “—Interests of Tilman J. Fertitta.”

The primary benefits of the merger to Mr. Fertitta, based on his ownership of the equity interests in Parent, include his interest in our potential future earnings and growth which, if we successfully execute our business strategies, could be substantial. Additionally, following the merger, we will be a private company, and as such will be relieved of the burdens imposed on companies with publicly traded equity, including the requirements and restrictions on trading that our directors, officers and beneficial owners of more than 10% of the shares of our common stock face as a result of the provisions of Section 16 of the Exchange Act. Additionally, following the merger, Mr. Fertitta will retain his position as Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the surviving corporation.

The primary detriments of the merger to Mr. Fertitta include the fact that all of the risk of any possible decrease in our earnings, growth or value, and all of the risks related to our additional leverage, following the merger will be borne by Parent. Additionally, the investment in Parent and us will not be liquid, with no public trading market for such securities, and the equity securities of Parent and us may be subject to contractual restrictions on transfer, including, in the case of our securities, liens to the extent provided under the terms of our debt financing. Mr. Fertitta may also be limited in his ability to take advantage of our net operating losses.

Our common stock is currently registered under the Exchange Act and is quoted on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “LNY”. As a result of the merger, we, as the surviving corporation, will become a privately held corporation, and there will be no public market for our common stock. After the merger, our common stock will cease to be quoted on the New York Stock Exchange, and price quotations with respect to sales of shares of our common stock in the public market will no longer be available. The surviving corporation will, however, continue to file periodic reports with the SEC to the extent such reports are required by any indenture governing the outstanding indebtedness of the surviving corporation or applicable law.

At the effective time of the merger, our certificate of incorporation, as in effect immediately prior to the merger, will be amended in the form of Exhibit A to the merger agreement and will become the certificate of incorporation of the surviving corporation until thereafter amended in accordance with its terms and applicable law. The bylaws of Merger Sub, as in effect immediately prior to the merger, will become the bylaws of the surviving corporation until thereafter amended in accordance with their terms and applicable law. Upon consummation of the merger, the directors of Merger Sub will be the initial directors of the surviving corporation and our officers will be the initial officers of the surviving corporation. All surviving corporation directors and officers will hold their positions in accordance with and subject to applicable law and the certificate of incorporation and bylaws of the surviving corporation.

Conduct of Our Business if the Merger is Not Completed

If the merger agreement is not approved by the requisite stockholder vote or if the merger is not consummated for any other reason, stockholders will not receive any payment for their shares. Instead, we will remain a public company and our common stock will continue to be listed and traded on the New York Stock Exchange. In addition, if the merger is not consummated, we expect that, except as noted below, management will operate our business in a manner similar to the manner in which it is being operated today and that our stockholders will continue to be subject to the same risks and opportunities as they currently are.

 

101


Table of Contents

From time to time, our board of directors will evaluate and review, among other things, our business operations, properties, dividend policy and capitalization and make such changes as are deemed appropriate and continue to seek to identify strategic alternatives to enhance stockholders’ value. If the merger agreement is not approved by our stockholders or if the merger is not consummated for any other reason, there can be no assurance that any other transaction that we find acceptable will be offered, or that our business, prospects, results of operations or stock price will not be adversely impacted or that our management team will remain intact. In addition, if the merger is not consummated, it is anticipated that Mr. Fertitta will continue to hold a controlling interest in us and would effectively control whether an alternative change in control transaction could be approved by our stockholders.

Interests of Tilman J. Fertitta

In connection with the merger agreement, Mr. Fertitta, our Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President, entered into an equity commitment letter with Parent, under which we are a named third party beneficiary. Pursuant to the equity commitment letter, and subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the conditions to the merger, Mr. Fertitta agreed that in exchange for the common stock of Parent, immediately prior to the effective time of the merger, (i) he will contribute to Parent at least $40.0 million in cash, (ii) he will contribute to Parent all 8,894,155 of his shares of our common stock, including 775,000 shares of restricted stock that have not yet vested (which contribution of shares is valued at approximately $217.9 million as of the date of this proxy statement, which is based on Mr. Fertitta’s ownership of 8,894,155 shares as of the date of this proxy statement valued at the merger consideration of $24.50 per share) and any additional shares that he may acquire prior to the effective time of the merger pursuant to the exercise of options to purchase our common stock and (iii) all options to purchase our common stock that he holds immediately prior to the effective time of the merger will be cancelled. As a result, following the merger, Mr. Fertitta will own all of our common stock through his ownership of all of the common stock of Parent.

The foregoing summary of the equity commitment letter does not purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the copy of the equity commitment letter, as amended, included as Exhibits 99.1(d)(2), (d)(4) and (d)(6) to the Schedule 13E-3 filed with the SEC in connection with the merger and incorporated herein by reference.

In addition, Mr. Fertitta is a party to an employment agreement with us and we expect this employment agreement will stay in effect following the merger. The employment agreement provides Mr. Fertitta benefits upon a change of control. In connection with the merger, no change of control payments will be made to Mr. Fertitta. However, if we do not consummate the merger and instead consummate a Superior Proposal that constitutes a change of control under Mr. Fertitta’s employment agreement, and Mr. Fertitta’s employment is terminated in connection with such transaction, we estimate that Mr. Fertitta could receive benefits under the employment agreement in the amount of approximately $63 million, based on merger consideration of $24.50 per share. In that event, the amount of any expenses reimbursed to Parent as a result of the termination of the merger agreement will be credited against the cash amounts due to Mr. Fertitta if his employment is terminated following a change of control.

The Voting Agreements

Fertitta Voting Agreement

Pursuant to a voting agreement entered into as part of the merger agreement (the “Fertitta Voting Agreement”), Mr. Fertitta has agreed to vote the 5,731,481 shares owned beneficially or of record by him and his affiliates as of June 16, 2008, plus up to the first 300,000 shares acquired upon exercise of his outstanding options, provided all such shares are held as of the record date for the special meeting, in favor of the adoption of the merger agreement and the approval of the merger and any actions required in furtherance thereof, as the merger agreement may be modified or amended from time to time. Mr. Fertitta further agreed that, at the special meeting or any other meeting of our stockholders, however called, and in any action by written consent of our

 

102


Table of Contents

stockholders, he will vote, or cause to be voted, 3,162,674 shares, plus up to the next 500,000 shares acquired upon exercise of his outstanding options, then owned beneficially or of record by him and his affiliates, as of the record date for such meeting or consent, in such proportion as reflects the manner in which the shares owned by our stockholders other than Mr. Fertitta and his affiliates are actually voted (with abstentions counted as “no” votes for purposes of calculating how such shares of Mr. Fertitta and his affiliates are voted), with respect to (1) the adoption of the merger agreement and the approval of the merger and any actions required in furtherance thereof, as the merger agreement may be modified or amended from time to time, and (2) any Acquisition Proposal that results in the termination of the merger agreement. Mr. Fertitta also agreed to certain restrictions on the transfer of his shares and certain other restrictions on his rights with respect to our common stock. All of the outstanding shares of our common stock owned beneficially or of record by Mr. Fertitta or his affiliates are subject to the Fertitta Voting Agreement. Furthermore, in the Fertitta Voting Agreement, Mr. Fertitta waived, to the full extent of the applicable law, and agreed not to assert any appraisal rights pursuant to Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “DGCL”) or assert any rights to dissent or otherwise in connection with the merger with respect to any and all of his shares of common stock subject to the Fertitta Voting Agreement. In addition, Mr. Fertitta agreed that, until the termination of the Fertitta Voting Agreement, he will not, directly or indirectly, purchase or otherwise acquire any shares of our common stock or economic ownership thereof, except pursuant to the exercise of options outstanding as of the date of the original merger agreement.

The Fertitta Voting Agreement is contained in the merger agreement and will terminate, other than with respect to Mr. Fertitta’s obligation to vote certain shares proportionally with respect to any Acquisition Proposal that results in the termination of the merger agreement, upon the earlier of the termination of the merger agreement in accordance with its terms and the effective time of the merger. The foregoing summary of the Fertitta Voting Agreement does not purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the Fertitta Voting Agreement which is contained in the original merger agreement, the first amended merger agreement and the second amended merger agreement, attached hereto as Annexes A, B and C, respectively, and incorporated herein by reference.

Pershing Square Group Voting Agreements

On June 20, 2010, we entered into voting agreements with the Pershing Square Group whereby the Pershing Square Group has agreed, for so long as the voting agreements have not been terminated, to vote the shares of common stock beneficially owned by it, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the voting agreements, (i) in favor of the adoption of the merger agreement and the approval of other actions required in furtherance thereof, (ii) against the approval of any proposal made in opposition to or in competition with the merger agreement or the consummation of the merger as provided in the merger agreement, including any Acquisition Proposal and (iii) against (A) any merger, rights offering, reorganization, recapitalization or liquidation involving us or any of our subsidiaries (other than the merger), (B) a sale or transfer of a material amount of assets or capital stock of us or any of our subsidiaries or (C) any other action that is intended, or could reasonably be expected to, impede, interfere with, delay, postpone or adversely affect the merger or any of the other transactions contemplated by the merger agreement.

As of June 20, 2010, the Pershing Square Group beneficially owned approximately 9.9% of our outstanding shares of common stock, which represents 21.9% of the voting power for purposes of the majority of the minority approval.

Pursuant to the voting agreements, the Pershing Square Group cannot grant a proxy or power of attorney with respect to any of our shares they beneficially own or subject any such shares to a voting trust or other voting agreement or arrangement, except as provided in the voting agreements, take any action that would prevent or materially impair the Pershing Square Group from performing any of their obligations under the voting agreements, or transfer any of our shares they beneficially own or any interest therein, other than pursuant to the merger agreement or in a transfer under which the transferee remains subject to the applicable voting agreement.

 

103


Table of Contents

The voting agreements will terminate when the first of the following occurs: (i) the special committee determines an Acquisition Proposal is a Superior Proposal; (ii) the merger agreement is terminated, including in connection with a termination by us in order to enter into an agreement with respect to a Superior Proposal; (iii) the merger agreement is further amended, or any provision thereunder is waived, that reduces or changes the form of the merger consideration, adds or modifies any closing condition, materially delays the closing of the merger or adversely affects in any material respect the rights or obligations of the parties under the voting agreement as of the date of the voting agreement; (iv) December 31, 2010; (v) the effective time of the merger under the merger agreement; and (vi) the agreement of the parties to terminate the voting agreements (subject to Parent’s consent).

Interests of Our Directors and Officers

Pursuant to the merger agreement, (i) the board of directors of the surviving corporation will be the same as the directors of Merger Sub immediately prior to the consummation of the merger and (ii) the officers of the surviving corporation will be the same as our officers immediately prior to the consummation of the merger.

None of our executive officers, other than Mr. Fertitta, is a party to an employment agreement that would provide such executive officer benefits upon a change of control, see “—Interests of Tilman J. Fertitta.”

Our directors are named parties to certain derivative litigation relating to Mr. Fertitta’s proposal to acquire all of our outstanding stock in 2008 and claims arising from the current proposed merger, which litigation, subject to final court approvals, would be terminated and thus resolved in a manner favorable to such directors upon consummation of the merger. Specifically, it is a condition to the closing of the merger that the dismissal with prejudice of the counts relating to the derivative claims in the Delaware Litigation has been approved by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, conditioned only on the closing of the merger. See “The Merger Agreement—Delaware Litigation Settlement.”

As of June 18, 2010, there were approximately 1.0 million shares of our common stock subject to options granted under our equity incentive plans or otherwise and approximately 0.8 million shares of unvested restricted stock outstanding. Upon the consummation of the merger, all of our equity compensation awards, including awards held by our directors and executive officers (other than Mr. Fertitta), will be subject to the following treatment:

 

   

all outstanding and unexercised options granted under any of our employee or director equity plans or otherwise, whether vested or unvested, will vest and be cancelled, and the holder of each cancelled option having an exercise price of less than $24.50 will be entitled to receive a cash payment (subject to applicable withholding taxes) equal to the number of shares of our common stock subject to the cancelled option multiplied by the amount by which $24.50 exceeds the option exercise price, without interest; and

 

   

each share of restricted stock will be treated in the same manner as other shares of outstanding common stock and will be cancelled and converted automatically into the right to receive $24.50 in cash, without interest.

In connection with the merger, we estimate that our officers and directors (other than Mr. Fertitta) will receive $193,596 from the settlement of options and $243,237 from the settlement of restricted stock. Mr. Fertitta’s unexercised options to purchase our common stock will be cancelled and he will not receive any cash or consideration for his options. Mr. Fertitta’s shares of restricted stock will be contributed to Parent immediately prior to the effective time of the merger and cancelled and he will not receive any cash or consideration for his shares of restricted stock.

 

104


Table of Contents

The following table reflects the consideration to be provided to each of our directors and officers (other than Mr. Fertitta) in connection with the merger, based on their ownership of common stock, options and restricted common stock as of June 8, 2010:

 

Name

   Merger
consideration to be
received for
common stock
   Merger
consideration to be
received for
restricted stock
   Merger
consideration to be
received for
options
   Total
consideration

Richard H. Liem

   $ 73,500    $ 73,500    $ -0-    $ 147,000

Steven L. Scheinthal

     98,000      98,000      -0-      196,000

Jeffrey L. Cantwell

     -0-      20,997      -0-      20,997

Kenneth Brimmer

     103,219      12,250      -0-      115,469

Michael S. Chadwick

     24,500      12,250      143,640      180,390

Joe Max Taylor

     12,250      12,250      6,456      30,956

K. Kelly Roberts

     13,990      13,990      43,500      71,480
                           

Totals

   $ 325,459    $ 243,237    $ 193,596    $ 762,292

Special Committee

We paid each of Michael Chadwick and Kenneth Brimmer a fee of $60,000 in 2009 for serving as the co-chairmen of the special committee. We paid each of Michael Chadwick and Kenneth Brimmer an additional fee of $60,000 subsequent to our entry into the first amended merger agreement in recognition of the substantial additional time and effort involved in serving on the special committee. In addition, we have agreed to reimburse the expenses incurred by each member of the special committee in connection with his service on the special committee. Finally, pursuant to the terms of a special committee indemnification agreement we entered into with each member of the special committee, we have agreed to (i) indemnify each member of the special committee in respect of liabilities for acts or omissions arising out of such member’s service as a special committee member and (ii) advance to each member of the special committee expenses actually incurred in connection with any action or suit arising out of such member’s service as a special committee member. None of the above payments are dependent on the success of the merger or the special committee’s recommendations with respect to the merger.

Indemnification and Insurance

From and after the effective time of the merger, Parent will, and will cause the surviving corporation to, indemnify and hold harmless to the fullest extent permitted under applicable law each of our present and former directors and officers, and their heirs, executors and administrators, each of whom we refer to as an “indemnified party”, against any and all costs, expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, judgments, fines, losses, claims, damages, liabilities and amounts paid in settlement in connection with any action or investigation arising out of, pertaining to or in connection with any act or omission or matters existing or occurring or alleged to have occurred at or prior to the effective time of the merger, including the merger and the other transactions contemplated by the merger agreement and any acts or omissions in connection with such persons serving as an officer, director or other fiduciary in any entity if such service was at our request or for our benefit. If any such action or investigation occurs, Parent or the surviving corporation will advance to each indemnified party the expenses it incurs in the defense of any such action or investigation within 10 business days of Parent or the surviving corporation receiving from such indemnified party a written request for reimbursement. However, (i) any advancement of expenses will be only to the fullest extent permitted under applicable law and (ii) the indemnified party must provide an undertaking to repay such advances to Parent or the surviving corporation, as applicable, if it is ultimately determined by a court of competent jurisdiction (which determination is not subject to any appeal) that the indemnified party is not entitled to indemnification under applicable law.

The certificate of incorporation and bylaws of the surviving corporation will contain provisions no less favorable with respect to indemnification than are set forth in our certificate of incorporation and bylaws, each as

 

105


Table of Contents

amended, as of the date of the original merger agreement, unless any modification is required by law and then Parent will cause the surviving corporation to make such modification only to the minimum extent required by law. The indemnification provisions may not be amended, repealed or otherwise modified (except as provided in this paragraph) for a period of six years from the effective time of the merger in any manner that would affect adversely the rights of individuals who, at or prior to the effective time of the merger, were our directors or officers.

We will purchase at or prior to the effective time of the merger, and the surviving corporation will maintain in effect, tail policies to our current directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, which tail policies (i) will be effective for a period of six years after the effective time of the merger with respect to claims arising from acts or omissions occurring prior to the effective time of the merger with respect to those persons who are currently covered by our directors’ and officers’ liability insurance and (ii) will contain terms with respect to coverage and amount no less favorable, in the aggregate, than those of such policy or policies as in effect on the date of the original merger agreement. If the tail policies described in the immediately preceding sentence cannot be obtained or can only be obtained by paying aggregate premiums in excess of 150% of the aggregate annual amount currently paid by us for such coverage, the surviving corporation will only be required to provide as much coverage as can be obtained by paying aggregate premiums equal to 150% of the aggregate annual amount currently paid by us for such coverage.

Arrangements with Respect to Us and Parent Following the Merger

In connection with the merger, we will become a privately held company. Following the consummation of the merger, all of the issued and outstanding shares of our common stock will be owned by Parent. Mr. Fertitta will own all of the common stock of Parent, and thus indirectly own all of our common stock.

The table below sets forth the expected capitalization of Landry’s and Parent following the merger.

Capitalization of Parent Immediately Following the Merger

 

     Cash (1)    Contributed
Landry’s
Common
Stock
   Imputed Value
Landry’s
Common
Stock (2)
   Total
Common
Stock
   % Common
Stock
 

Tilman J. Fertitta

   $ 101,500,000    8,894,155    $ 225,606,798    $ 327,106,798    100

Capitalization of Landry’s Immediately Following the Merger

 

     Common Stock    % Common Stock  

Tilman J. Fertitta

   $ 327,106,798    100

 

(1) Includes funds available from certain of our unrestricted subsidiaries.
(2) Includes equity in unexercised options.

Financing of the Merger

The consummation of the merger is contingent upon the consummation of the equity financing commitment from Mr. Fertitta and the consummation of the refinancing of certain of our debt obligations, which financings, in the aggregate, together with Parent’s, Merger Sub’s and our cash on hand, Parent has represented to us in the merger agreement will be sufficient to pay the aggregate merger consideration and any other amounts required to be paid by Parent and Merger Sub in connection with the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement. The refinancing of our indebtedness was completed on November 30, 2009.

 

106


Table of Contents

The total amount of funds necessary to consummate the merger is anticipated to be approximately $187.0 million, consisting of (i) approximately $180.5 million to be paid to our stockholders (other than Mr. Fertitta, Parent and Merger Sub) and option holders (other than Mr. Fertitta) under the merger agreement and (ii) approximately $6.5 million to pay fees and expenses incurred in connection with the merger, which we collectively refer to as the “merger payments”.

On November 30, 2009, we completed (1) an offering of $406.5 million of 11 5/8% Notes, which resulted in our receiving $400.1 million in net proceeds; and (ii) closed a four year $235.6 million amended and restated senior secured credit facility consisting of a $75.0 million revolving credit facility and a $160.6 million term loan. At March 31, 2010, we had outstanding (i) $28.0 million under our senior secured revolving credit facility and (ii) $152.6 million under our senior secured term loan facility. Additionally, on April 28, 2010 we completed the offering of an additional $47.0 million of 11 5/8% Notes, which resulted in our receiving $49.8 million in gross proceeds. Pursuant to these loans, up to $79.5 million of our cash and the cash of certain of our restricted subsidiaries can be used to consummate the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, so long as Mr. Fertitta or Parent contributes at least $40.0 million to the equity of Merger Sub or us.

The funds to pay for the acquisition of our stock are anticipated to come from the following sources:

 

   

approximately $101.5 million of cash, which amount includes contributions by Mr. Fertitta and funds available from certain of our unrestricted subsidiaries; and

 

   

approximately $79.5 million from our cash and the cash of certain of our restricted subsidiaries.

The foregoing amounts do not include the value of all of the shares of common stock held by Mr. Fertitta, including restricted shares, that are being contributed to Parent immediately prior to the effective time of the merger, and which will be cancelled as of the effective time, or Mr. Fertitta’s stock options that are being cancelled in connection with the merger. As of the date of this proxy statement, Mr. Fertitta owned 8,894,155 restricted and unrestricted shares of our common stock with an aggregate value of $217.9 million at $24.50 per share and options to purchase 800,000 shares of our common stock.

We have been provided an equity commitment letter related to Mr. Fertitta’s cash and equity contributions to Parent.

We have agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to take, or cause to be taken, all actions and to do, or cause to be done, all things necessary, proper or advisable to arrange and consummate the debt financing as promptly as practicable but in any event on or before the consummation of the merger, including using our commercially reasonable efforts to:

 

   

negotiate definitive agreements with respect to the debt financing; and

 

   

satisfy on a timely basis all conditions applicable to us or our affiliates in such definitive agreements that are within their control.

We have also agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to comply, and to cause our subsidiaries to comply, in all material respects with the terms of the definitive agreements with respect to the debt financing and any related commitment, fee and engagement letters, if any, entered into with respect to the debt financing. We agreed to:

 

   

furnish to Parent complete, correct and executed copies of the definitive agreements with respect to the debt financing promptly upon their execution; and

 

   

otherwise keep Parent reasonably informed of the status of our efforts to arrange the debt financing , including providing to Parent copies of definitive agreements with respect to the debt financing in substantially final form following the negotiation of such definitive agreements.

 

107


Table of Contents

Parent may not terminate the merger agreement for, or otherwise claim, a breach of our obligations with respect to the debt financing.

The debt financing was consummated on November 30, 2009.

Cash and Equity Contributions by Tilman J. Fertitta

Parent has received an equity commitment letter from Mr. Fertitta, pursuant to which, subject to the conditions contained therein, he has agreed:

 

   

to contribute to Parent at least $40.0 million in cash;

 

   

to contribute to Parent the 8,894,155 shares of common stock that he owns (which includes 775,000 shares of restricted stock that have not yet vested), the aggregate value of which is approximately $217.9 million based on the merger consideration of $24.50 per share, and any additional shares that he acquires prior to the effective time of the merger pursuant to the exercise of outstanding options; and

 

   

that all options to purchase shares of our common stock that he owns immediately prior to the effective time of the merger will be cancelled.

The obligation to fund the commitments under the equity commitment letter is subject to, and will occur immediately prior to, the consummation of the merger. In addition, the obligation to fund the cash and equity commitments will terminate automatically upon the earliest to occur of (a) the effective time of the merger (at which time the obligations shall be discharged) and (b) the termination of the merger agreement, and may be terminated earlier upon agreement of Parent and Mr. Fertitta. The equity commitment letter may be amended upon the mutual consent of Mr. Fertitta and Parent. We are a named third party beneficiary under the equity commitment letter and the special committee, if then in existence, or otherwise our disinterested directors, is entitled to enforce the terms of the equity commitment letter.

Debt Financing

On November 30, 2009, we refinanced (i) our 14% senior secured notes with a larger debt financing, a portion of which will be used to fund a portion of the merger payments if the merger is consummated or for general corporate purposes if the merger is not consummated and (ii) our existing secured credit facility. Additionally, on April 28, 2010, we issued additional $47.0 million of our 11 5/8% Notes. These new debt facilities are made up of the following:

 

   

up to $75.0 million aggregate principal amount under an amended senior secured revolving credit facility;

 

   

$160.6 million aggregate principal amount under an amended senior secured term loan facility; and

 

   

$453.5 million aggregate principal amount of debt from the issuance of our 11 5/8% Notes, which includes the April 28, 2010 note issuance.

Senior Secured Credit Facility

We are able to borrow up to $235.6 million under the amended senior secured credit facility, which is comprised of:

 

   

a 4-year $75.0 million senior secured revolving credit facility; and

 

   

an up to 4-year $160.6 million senior secured term loan facility.

The amended revolver includes a $25.0 million sublimit for the issuance of letters of credit and a $5.0 million sublimit for swingline loans. Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC (formerly known as Wells Fargo Foothill LLC) and Jefferies Finance LLC and/or their designees were co-lead arrangers, co-bookrunners and co-syndication agents for the amended senior secured credit facility. Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC and/or its designees acted as sole administrative agent and collateral agent for the amended senior secured credit facility.

 

108


Table of Contents

Loans under the amended senior secured credit facility bear interest, at our election, at a rate of interest equal to either (i) LIBOR plus 6.0% with a LIBOR floor fixed at a minimum of 2.0% or (ii) 5.0% plus the highest of (a) the prime rate announced periodically by Wells Fargo (b) the U.S. federal funds effective rate plus 0.50% or (c) a fixed rate of 4.0% per annum.

Our obligations under the amended senior secured credit facility are unconditionally guaranteed jointly and severally by each direct and indirect, existing and future subsidiary of ours, other than our unrestricted and foreign subsidiaries, including the subsidiaries that own and operate the Golden Nugget, and any subsidiary that is a controlled foreign corporation.

Our obligations under the amended senior secured credit facility are secured by a perfected first priority security interest in substantially all of our and the guarantors’ tangible and intangible assets and all of the capital stock of each guarantor (but limited, in the case of the voting stock of a controlled foreign corporation, to 65% of all such voting stock to the extent the pledge of a greater percentage would result in material adverse tax consequences to us).

The amended senior secured credit facility contains customary representations and warranties and customary affirmative and negative covenants, including, among other things, restrictions on indebtedness, investments, sales of assets, mergers and consolidations, prepayments of subordinated indebtedness, liens and dividends and other distributions. The amended senior secured credit facility also includes customary events of default.

Senior Secured Notes

On November 30, 2009, we issued $406.5 million in aggregate principal amount of 11 5/8% Notes, from which we received $400.1 million in net proceeds. Additionally, on April 28, 2010 we completed the offering of an additional $47.0 million 11 5/8% Notes, which resulted in our receiving $49.8 million in gross proceeds. We will pay interest on the 11 5/8% Notes semi-annually in arrears at an annual interest rate of 11 5/8%, beginning November 30, 2009. The first interest payment date was June 1, 2010. The notes are fully guaranteed on a senior secured basis by each of our existing and future domestic restricted subsidiaries. Our unrestricted and foreign subsidiaries, including the subsidiaries that own and operate the Golden Nugget Hotels and Casinos, will not guarantee the 11 5/8% Notes.

The 11 5/8% Notes and the guarantees are secured by liens on substantially all of our and the guarantors’ assets; provided, however, that pursuant to the terms of an intercreditor agreement, such liens will be contractually subordinated to liens that secure our amended senior secured credit facility. Consequently, the 11 5/8% Notes and the guarantees are effectively subordinated to all obligations under our amended senior secured credit facility.

The 11 5/8% Notes and the guarantees of the 11 5/8% Notes rank pari passu in right of payment with all of our and the guarantors’ existing and future senior indebtedness and senior in right of payment to all our and the guarantors’ future subordinated indebtedness. The 11 5/8% Notes and the guarantees are effectively subordinated, however, to indebtedness and other obligations under our amended senior secured credit facility described above, and certain other indebtedness to the extent of the assets securing such indebtedness, and are effectively senior to our and the guarantors’ existing and future senior unsecured indebtedness to the extent of the assets securing the 11 5/8% Notes.

We agreed to file an exchange offer registration statement to exchange the 11 5/8% Notes for a new issue of substantially identical debt securities, the issuance of which has been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as evidence of the same underlying obligation of indebtedness. Under a registration rights agreement, we have agreed:

 

   

to file a registration statement with respect to an offer to exchange the 11 5/8% Notes for senior secured notes with substantially identical terms to the 11 5/8% Notes within 90 days after the respective issue dates of the 11 5/8% Notes;

 

109


Table of Contents
   

to use our best efforts to cause such registration statement to become effective within 150 days after the respective issue dates of the 11 5/8% Notes;

 

   

to consummate the exchange offer contemplated by such registration statement within 30 business days after its effective date; and

 

   

under certain circumstances, to file and to use our best efforts to cause to become effective, a shelf registration statement relating to the resale of the 11 5/8% Notes.

We will be obligated to pay additional interest as liquidated damages to holders of the notes under certain circumstances if we are not in compliance with our obligations under the registration rights agreement. In May 2010, we completed the exchange of the $406.5 million of the 11 5/8% Notes placed on November 30, 2009 for substantially identical registered notes. We must still satisfy our registration obligations for the $47.0 million of 11 5/8% Notes that were placed in April 2010.

At any time prior to December 1, 2012, we may redeem up to 35% of the 11 5/8% Notes at a redemption price of 111.625% of the principal amount thereof, plus accrued and unpaid interest, with the net cash proceeds of certain equity offerings. Additionally, on or after December 1, 2012, we may redeem all or a part of the 11 5/8% Notes at a premium that will decrease over time, plus accrued and unpaid interest on the notes redeemed.

If we experience a change of control (as defined in the indenture governing the 11 5/8% Notes), we will be required to make an offer to repurchase the 11 5/8% Notes at a price of 101% of their aggregate principal amount, plus accrued and unpaid interest. An acquisition of us by Mr. Fertitta or his affiliates will not be considered a change of control.

If we or our restricted subsidiaries sell assets and do not use the proceeds for specified purposes, we may be required to offer to use the net proceeds to purchase the 11 5/8% Notes at 100% of their principal amount, plus accrued and unpaid interest.

The indenture governing the 11 5/8% Notes, among other things, limits our ability and the ability of our restricted subsidiaries to:

 

   

incur or guarantee additional indebtedness or issue disqualified capital stock;

 

   

transfer or sell assets;

 

   

pay dividends or distributions, redeem subordinated indebtedness, make certain types of investments or make other restricted payments;

 

   

create or incur liens;

 

   

incur dividend or other payment restrictions affecting certain subsidiaries;

 

   

consummate a merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets;

 

   

enter into transactions with affiliates;

 

   

designate subsidiaries as unrestricted subsidiaries;

 

   

engage in a business other than a business that is the same or similar to our current business and reasonably related businesses; and

 

   

take or omit to take any actions that would adversely affect or impair in any material respect the collateral securing the 11 5/8% Notes.

Other Debt Outstanding

At March 31, 2010, we had approximately $447.2 million of indebtedness that will remain outstanding following the merger, substantially all of which will consist of amounts outstanding under the Golden Nugget, Inc.’s $545.0 million credit facility. In addition, we have approximately $1.5 million under our existing 7.5% notes and 9.5% notes that will remain outstanding following the merger.

 

110


Table of Contents

Fees and Expenses of the Merger

The following is an estimate of our fees and expenses to be incurred in connection with the merger:

 

Expense

   Amount

Legal

   $ 2,100,000

Financial Advisors

   $ 3,550,000

Accounting

   $ 300,000

Printing and Mailing

   $ 250,000

Securities and Exchange Commission Filing Fees

   $ 11,200

Paying Agent

   $ 20,000

Proxy Solicitation and Information Agent

   $ 30,000

Miscellaneous

   $ 238,800
      

Total

   $ 6,500,000

Regulatory Approvals

The following discussion summarizes the material regulatory requirements that we believe relate to the merger, although we may determine that additional consents from or notifications to governmental agencies are necessary or appropriate.

In the merger agreement, the parties have agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to take, or cause to be taken, all actions and to do, or cause to be done, all things necessary under applicable laws in order to obtain the expiration or termination of the applicable waiting periods under the competition laws of any relevant competition authority required for the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, including the payment when due of all filing fees associated with any notifications, reports or other filings required by any relevant competition authority, except as otherwise provided in the merger agreement, and to effect all necessary filings, consents, waivers, authorizations, permits and approvals from governmental authorities, gaming authorities and other third parties required for the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, including under any applicable gaming laws and liquor laws.

The failure to obtain the approvals required as a result of the merger, comply with the procedural requirements prescribed by any applicable gaming regulatory authority, or of us or Parent to qualify or make disclosures or applications as required under the laws and regulations of any applicable gaming regulatory authority may result in the loss of license or denial of application for licensure in any such applicable jurisdiction.

Nevada Gaming Regulation. As a result of our ownership and operation of the Golden Nugget Hotel & Casino, Las Vegas, Nevada and the Golden Nugget Hotel & Casino, Laughlin, Nevada, we are, and upon consummation of the merger, will be, subject to the jurisdiction of the Nevada gaming authorities. The ownership and operation of casino gaming facilities in Nevada are subject to the Nevada Gaming Control Act and the regulations of the Nevada Gaming Commission (collectively the “Nevada Act”), and various local ordinances and regulations. Our respective gaming operations are subject to the licensing and regulatory control of the Nevada Gaming Commission (the “Nevada Commission”), the Nevada State Gaming Control Board (the “Nevada Board”), and the local gaming authorities of the cities of Las Vegas and Laughlin, Nevada (collectively, the “Nevada Gaming Authorities”).

The laws, regulations and supervisory procedures of the Nevada Gaming Authorities are based upon declarations of public policy that are concerned with, among other things:

 

   

the prevention of unsavory or unsuitable persons from having a direct or indirect involvement with gaming at any time or in any capacity;

 

   

the establishment and maintenance of responsible accounting practices and procedures;

 

111


Table of Contents
   

the maintenance of effective controls over the financial practices of licensees, including the establishment of minimum procedures for internal fiscal affairs and the safeguarding of assets and revenues, providing reliable record-keeping and requiring the filing of periodic reports with the Nevada Gaming Authorities;

 

   

the prevention of cheating and fraudulent practices; and

 

   

the establishment of a source of state and local revenues through taxation and licensing fees.

The Nevada Act provides that the acquisition of control of a registered publicly traded corporation such as ours must have the prior approval of the Nevada Commission. However, in this instance, Mr. Fertitta, the sole stockholder of Parent, has already been found suitable as our controlling stockholder. Accordingly, no prior approval of the merger by the Nevada Gaming Authorities is required. Following the closing of the merger transaction, Parent will be required to file an application for registration as a holding company and a finding of suitability as our sole stockholder, and Mr. Fertitta will be required to file an application for a finding of suitability as the sole stockholder of Parent. Certain officers and directors of Parent may also be required to file applications for relevant approvals and to obtain such approvals. The Nevada Board reviews and investigates applications and makes recommendations on those applications to the Nevada Commission for final action. Parent, Mr. Fertitta and, if required, officers and directors of Parent will file applications with the Nevada Board for the approvals referred to above, and will also file related applications with all appropriate local jurisdictions after the merger transaction has closed.

We are currently registered by the Nevada Commission and have been found suitable to own gaming subsidiaries that have licensed gaming facilities in Nevada. We, together with our operating gaming subsidiaries, currently hold all gaming licenses and approvals necessary to our continued operation. The merger will not result in our having to re-register with the Nevada Commission or any of the local jurisdictions. However, if we do not consummate the merger and instead consummate an alternative transaction, the party making the proposal for an alternative transaction would be required to register with the Nevada Commission and file applications with the appropriate local jurisdictions. This approval process can take in excess of a year to complete.

Liquor Licenses. The restaurant industry is subject to extensive state and local government regulation relating to the sale of alcoholic beverages. Alcoholic beverage control regulations require each of our restaurants to apply for and obtain from state authorities a license to sell alcohol on the premises. We currently have all of the liquor licenses required to operate our business and these licenses will not be terminated as a result of the merger. However, if we do not consummate the merger and instead consummate an alternative transaction, the party making the proposal for an alternative transaction would be required to obtain new liquor licenses in many of the states in which we operate to the extent it does not already have such licenses.

Accounting Treatment of the Merger

For financial accounting purposes the Company is expected to retain its historical cost basis accounting records as the transaction is between entities under common control.

Provisions for Unaffiliated Security Holders

No provision has been made to grant our stockholders, other than Mr. Fertitta, access to our corporate files, any other party to the merger agreement or Mr.  Fertitta, or to obtain counsel or appraisal services at our expense or the expense of any other such party.

Appraisal Rights of Stockholders

Our stockholders have the right under Delaware law to dissent from the approval and adoption of the merger agreement, to exercise appraisal rights and to receive payment in cash of the judicially determined fair value for their shares, plus interest, if any, on the amount determined to be the fair value, in accordance with Delaware

 

112


Table of Contents

law. The fair value of shares of our common stock, as determined in accordance with Delaware law, may be more or less than, or equal to, the merger consideration to be paid to non-dissenting stockholders in the merger. To preserve their rights, stockholders who wish to exercise appraisal rights must not vote in favor of the approval and adoption of the merger agreement and must follow the specific procedures provided under Delaware law for perfecting appraisal rights. Dissenting stockholders must precisely follow these specific procedures to exercise appraisal rights or their appraisal rights may be lost. These procedures are described in this proxy statement, and a copy of Section 262 of the DGCL, which grants appraisal rights and governs such procedures, is attached as Annex E to this proxy statement. See “Appraisal Rights” beginning on page .

Projected Financial Information

Our senior management does not as a matter of course make public projections as to future performance or earnings beyond the current year and is especially reluctant to make projections for extended earnings periods due to the unpredictability of the underlying assumptions and estimates. However, non-public prospective financial information for the four years ending December 31, 2012 was prepared by our senior management as of October 27, 2009 and May 14, 2010 and made available to Parent, as well as to the board of directors, the special committee and Moelis, the special committee’s financial advisor, in connection with their respective considerations of the merger.

We have included the material projections in this proxy statement to give our stockholders access to certain nonpublic information considered by Parent, the special committee, Moelis and the board of directors for purposes of considering and evaluating the merger. The inclusion of this information should not be regarded as an indication that Parent, Merger Sub, Mr. Fertitta, the special committee, our board of directors, Moelis or any other recipient of this information considered, or now considers, it to be a reliable prediction of future results.

We have advised the recipients of the projections that our internal financial forecasts upon which the projections were based are subjective in many respects. The projections reflect numerous assumptions with respect to industry performance, general business, economic, regulatory, market and financial conditions and other matters, all of which are difficult to predict and beyond our control. The projections also reflect estimates and assumptions related to our business that are inherently subject to significant economic, political, and competitive uncertainties, all of which are difficult to predict and many of which are beyond our control. As a result, there can be no assurance that the projected results will be realized or that actual results will not be significantly higher or lower than projected. The financial projections were prepared for internal use and to assist Parent, the special committee and Moelis with their respective due diligence investigations of us and not with a view toward public disclosure or toward complying with GAAP, the published guidelines of the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding projections or the guidelines established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants for preparation and presentation of prospective financial information. The projected financial information included herein has been prepared by, and is the responsibility of our management, and none of Parent, Merger Sub, the board of directors, the special committee or Moelis was involved in the preparation of the projected financial information or has any responsibility for the projected financial information. Grant Thornton LLP, our independent registered public accounting firm, has not examined or compiled any of the accompanying projected financial information, and accordingly, Grant Thornton LLP does not express an opinion or any other form of assurance with respect thereto. The Grant Thornton LLP report incorporated by reference in this proxy statement relates to our historical financial information. It does not extend to the projected financial information and should not be read to do so.

Projections of this type are based on estimates and assumptions that are inherently subject to factors such as industry performance, general business, economic, regulatory, market and financial conditions, as well as changes to the business, financial condition or results of our operations, including the factors described under “Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information,” which factors may cause the financial projections or the underlying assumptions to be inaccurate. Since the projections cover multiple years, such information by its nature becomes less reliable with each successive year. The financial projections do not take into account any circumstances or events occurring after the date they were prepared.

 

113


Table of Contents

Readers of this proxy statement are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any of the projections set forth below. No one has made or makes any representation to any stockholder regarding the information included in these projections.

The projected financial information has been prepared on a basis consistent with the accounting principles used in the historical financial statements. For the foregoing reasons, as well as the basis and assumptions on which the financial projections were compiled, the inclusion of the material projections in this proxy statement should not be regarded as an indication that such projections will be an accurate prediction of future events, and they should not be relied on as such. Except as required by applicable securities laws, we do not intend to update, or otherwise revise the material projections to reflect circumstances existing after the date when made or to reflect the occurrence of future events, even in the event that any or all of the assumptions are shown to be incorrect.

Summary Financial Projections as of October 27, 2009

We prepared our financial projections, as set forth below, on October 27, 2009.

Landry’s Restaurants, Inc.

Summary Financial Projections as of October 27, 2009

(amounts in thousands)

 

     2009    2010     2011    2012

EBITDA (1) (2)

   $ 205,510    $ 182,796      $ 193,535    $ 208,344

Capital expenditures

   $ 151,889    $ 29,500      $ 29,500    $ 29,500

Operating income, continuing operations

   $ 119,473    $ 101,201      $ 110,289    $ 123,695

Revenues

   $ 1,066,855    $ 1,084,320      $ 1,114,719    $ 1,151,855

Net income (loss) attributable to Landry’s

   $ 11,802    $ (17,391   $ 638    $ 25,742

 

(1) EBITDA consists of net income plus income tax provision, depreciation and amortization, interest expense and asset impairment expense.
(2) 2009 EBITDA includes gains on debt extinguishment ($19.4 million), lease termination ($7.5 million) and asset sales/insurance proceeds ($5.7 million) and expenses for debt retirement ($4.0 million) and interest rate swaps ($1.3 million). Excluding these items, 2009 EBITDA would be $178.2 million.

We made a number of key assumptions in preparing these projections, including:

 

   

Construction of three restaurants in 2010 and beyond with a projected construction cost of $3.0 million;

 

   

Opening of a hotel tower at the Golden Nugget Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas opens in late November 2009 with a construction cost of $140.0 million;

 

   

Low sales growth in the restaurant and hospitality segment throughout the projection period; and

 

   

Continued aggressive discounting of hotel room rates in Las Vegas negating the additional rooms from the new hotel tower in 2010 with moderate growth from the lower base in 2011 and 2012.

Summary Financial Projections as of May 14, 2010

On May 14, 2010, our projections were revised based on the actual results for 2009 and the first quarter of 2010 and to reflect certain changes to our business and assumptions. Significant changes are described below:

 

   

In November 2009, we refinanced our $295.5 million 14% Senior Secured Notes with $406.5 million in 11 5/8% Notes and amended and restated our senior credit facility.

 

114


Table of Contents
   

In February 2010, we amended our Golden Nugget credit facilities and repurchased $62.8 million of second lien debt at 40% of face value resulting in a $33.0 million gain. In addition, the Golden Nugget agreed to pay a 0.5% fee to all consenting first lien lenders and an annual 0.5% fee on all outstanding first lien commitments as well as an additional 1% PIK interest on all outstanding first lien amounts which may be paid in cash at the Golden Nugget’s discretion.

 

   

In April 2010, we sold $47.0 million in additional 11 5 /8% Notes under the existing indenture for net proceeds of $48.9 million.

 

   

We acquired twelve Oceanaire restaurants on April 30, 2010 for approximately $24.0 million.

 

   

We lowered expectations for the gaming division based on continued softness in the gaming industry compounded by aggressive discounting of hotel room rates in Las Vegas.

Landry’s Restaurants, Inc.

Summary Financial Projections as of May 14, 2010

(amounts in thousands)

 

     2009     2010    2011    2012

EBITDA (1) (2) (3)

   $ 206,863      $ 201,771    $ 194,575    $ 204,556

Capital expenditures

   $ 160,700      $ 28,148    $ 27,600    $ 27,600

Operating income, continuing operations

   $ 117,812      $ 100,530    $ 112,272    $ 121,417

Revenues

   $ 1,060,234      $ 1,107,161    $ 1,161,966    $ 1,190,696

Net income attributable to Landry’s common stockholders

   $ (16,230   $ 7,010    $ 1,572    $ 12,014

 

(1) EBITDA consists of net income plus income tax provision, depreciation and amortization, interest expense and asset impairment expense.
(2) 2009 EBITDA includes gains on debt extinguishment ($19.4 million), lease termination ($7.5 million) and asset sales/insurance proceeds ($5.7 million) and expenses for debt retirement ($4.0 million) and interest rate swaps ($1.3 million). Excluding these items, 2009 EBITDA would be $178.2 million.
(3) 2010 EBITDA includes gains on debt extinguishment of $33.0 million and a loss on interest rate swaps of $10.0 million. Excluding these items EBITDA would be $178.7 million.

Material United States Federal Income Tax Consequences

The following summarizes the material U.S. federal income tax consequences of the merger to U.S. Holders (as defined below) of shares of our common stock who exchange such shares for the cash consideration pursuant to the merger. This summary is based upon the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Internal Revenue Code”), existing regulations promulgated thereunder, and published rulings and court decisions, all as in effect and existing on the date of this proxy statement and all of which are subject to change at any time, which change may be retroactive or prospective. No rulings have been sought or are expected to be sought from the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) with respect to any of the tax consequences discussed below, and no assurance can be given that the IRS will not take contrary positions. Unless otherwise specifically noted, this summary applies only to U.S. Holders (as defined below) that hold their shares of our common stock as a capital asset within the meaning of Section 1221 of the Internal Revenue Code. Finally, this summary does not address issues, rules, etc. that are currently pending in the Congress and which relate to U.S. taxes.

This summary addresses only the material U.S. federal income tax consequences, and not all tax consequences, of the merger that may be relevant to U.S. Holders of shares of our common stock. It also does not address any of the tax consequences of the merger to holders of shares of our common stock that are Non-U.S. Holders (as defined below) or to holders that may be subject to special treatment under U.S. federal income tax law, such as, for example, financial institutions, real estate investment trusts, personal holding companies,

 

115


Table of Contents

tax-exempt organizations, regulated investment companies, persons who hold shares of our common stock as part of a straddle, hedge, conversion, constructive sale or other integrated transaction or whose functional currency is not the U.S. dollar, traders in securities who elect to use the mark-to-market method of accounting, persons who acquired their shares of our common stock through the exercise of employee stock options or other compensation arrangements, insurance companies, S corporations, brokers and dealers in securities or currencies and certain U.S. expatriates. Further, this summary does not address the U.S. federal estate, gift or alternative minimum tax consequences of the merger, or any state, local or non-U.S. tax consequences of the merger, or the U.S. federal income tax consequences to any person (other than Mr. Fertitta or Parent) that will own actually or constructively shares of our capital stock following the merger. For example, this summary does not address the U.S. federal income tax consequences of the merger to persons related to Mr. Fertitta or Parent under applicable constructive ownership rules set forth in the Internal Revenue Code or the Treasury regulations promulgated thereunder.

Each holder of shares of our common stock should consult his, her or its tax advisor regarding the tax consequences of the merger in light of such holder’s particular situation, including any tax consequences that may arise under the laws of any state, local or non-U.S. taxing jurisdiction and the possible effects of changes in U.S. federal or other tax laws.

A “U.S. Holder” means a beneficial owner of shares of our common stock that, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, is:

 

   

a citizen or individual resident of the United States;

 

   

a corporation, including any entity treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, created or organized in the United States or under the laws of the United States, any State thereof or the District of Columbia;

 

   

an estate, the income of which is subject to U.S. federal income tax without regard to its source; or

 

   

a trust, if (i) a court within the United States is able to exercise primary supervision over the administration of the trust and one or more United States persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust or (ii) it has a valid election in effect under applicable U.S. Treasury regulations to be treated as a United States person.

If a partnership or limited liability company that is treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes holds shares of our common stock, the tax treatment of each of its partners or members generally will depend upon the status of such partner or member and the activities of the partnership or limited liability company. A partner of a partnership or member of a limited liability company that is treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes holding shares of our common stock should consult its own tax advisors regarding the U.S. federal income tax consequences of the merger.

A “Non-U.S. Holder” means a beneficial owner of shares of our common stock that is not a U.S. Holder. We urge holders of shares of our common stock that are Non-U.S. Holders to consult their own tax advisors regarding the U.S. federal income tax consequences of the merger.

Disposition of Shares of our Common Stock

In general, the exchange of shares of our common stock for the cash consideration pursuant to the merger will be a taxable sale transaction for U.S. federal income tax purposes. In general, a U.S. Holder who receives the cash consideration in exchange for shares of our common stock pursuant to the merger will recognize gain or loss for U.S. federal income tax purposes in an amount equal to the difference, if any, between the amount of cash received and the U.S. Holder’s adjusted tax basis in the shares of our common stock sold. The U.S. Holder’s gain or loss will be determined separately for each block of shares (that is, shares acquired at the same cost in a single transaction). The U.S. Holder’s gain or loss will generally be capital gain or loss, and will generally be long-term capital gain or loss if, on the date of the merger, the shares of our common stock exchanged pursuant to the

 

116


Table of Contents

merger were held by the tendering U.S. Holder for more than one year. In the case of U.S. Holders who are individuals, long-term capital gain is currently eligible for reduced rates of U.S. federal income tax. There are limitations on the deductibility of capital losses.

The merger will be a tax-free transaction for each of Parent, Merger Sub, Mr. Fertitta and us for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Parent will be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as purchasing our common stock from our tendering stockholders and will have a cost basis in the acquired shares.

Appraisal Rights

In general, a U.S. Holder who exercises appraisal rights with respect to the merger will recognize gain or loss equal to the difference, if any, between the cash received via appraisal and the U.S. Holder’s adjusted tax basis in the shares of our common stock with respect to which the appraisal rights were exercised. The U.S. Holder’s gain or loss will generally be capital gain or loss, and will generally be long-term or short-term capital gain or loss depending on the U.S. Holder’s holding period for our common stock with respect to which the appraisal rights were exercised, as described in the immediately preceding paragraph. We urge stockholders who exercise appraisal rights to consult their own tax advisors regarding the U.S. federal income tax consequences of the receipt of cash in respect of appraisal rights pursuant to the merger.

Backup Withholding Tax and Information Reporting

Payment of the cash consideration to a U.S. Holder with respect to the exchange of shares of our common stock pursuant to the merger may be subject to information reporting. A U.S. Holder of our common stock may also be subject to U.S. backup withholding tax at the applicable rate (currently 28%), unless the U.S. Holder properly certifies its taxpayer identification number or otherwise establishes an exemption from backup withholding and complies with all other applicable requirements of the backup withholding rules. Each beneficial owner of shares of our common stock that is a U.S. Holder should complete and sign the substitute Form W-9 that will be part of the letter of transmittal to be returned to the disbursing agent in order to provide the information and certification necessary to avoid backup withholding. Backup withholding is not an additional tax. Any amounts so withheld may be allowed as a refund or a credit against such holder’s U.S. federal income tax liability, if any, provided that the required information is properly and timely furnished to the IRS.

Litigation Related to the Merger

Following Mr. Fertitta’s proposal to acquire all of our outstanding stock in 2008, two putative class action law suits were filed as follows:

James F. Stuart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Landry’s Restaurants, Inc. et al., was filed on June 26, 2008 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (“Stuart”). We are named as a defendant along with our directors, Fertitta Holdings, Inc. (“Fertitta Holdings”) and Fertitta Acquisition Co. (“Fertitta Acquisition”). Stuart is a putative class action in which plaintiff alleges that the 2008 merger agreement unduly hinders obtaining the highest value for shares of our stock. Plaintiff also alleges that the proposed 2008 merger is unfair. Plaintiff seeks an accounting and damages along with costs and fees.

David Barfield v. Landry’s Restaurants, Inc. et al., was filed on June 27, 2008 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (“Barfield”). We are named in this case along with our directors, Fertitta Holdings and Fertitta Acquisition. Barfield is a putative class action in which plaintiff alleges that our directors aided and abetted Fertitta Holdings and Fertitta Acquisition, and have breached their fiduciary duties by failing to engage in a fair and reliable sales process leading up to the 2008 merger agreement. Plaintiff seeks an accounting and damages along with costs and fees.

Stuart and Barfield were consolidated by court order. The consolidated action is proceeding under Consolidated C.A. No. 3856-VCL; In re: Landry’s Restaurants, Inc. Shareholder Litigation. In their consolidated

 

117


Table of Contents

complaint, plaintiffs allege that our directors breached fiduciary duties to our stockholders and that the preliminary proxy statement filed on July 17, 2008 fails to disclose what plaintiffs contend are material facts. Plaintiffs also alleged that we, Fertitta Holdings and Fertitta Acquisition aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duty. This consolidated action was voluntarily dismissed on November 24, 2009.

On February 5, 2009, following abandonment of the transaction, the Delaware Litigation, a purported class action and derivative lawsuit, was brought against all members of our board of directors, Fertitta Holdings, and Fertitta Acquisition in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The lawsuit originally alleged, among other things, a breach of a fiduciary duty by the directors for renegotiating the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement with the Fertitta entities, allowing Mr. Fertitta to acquire shares of stock in the Company and gain majority control thereof, and terminating the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement without requiring payment of the reverse termination fee. The suit seeks consummation of the transaction at $21.00 a share or damages representing the difference between $21.00 per share and the price at which class members sold their stock in the open market, or damages for allowing Mr. Fertitta to acquire control of the Company without paying a control premium, or alternately requiring payment of the reverse termination fee or damages for the devaluation of the Company’s stock. Plaintiff has amended its complaint on two occasions and now further alleges, among other things, class action claims against the members of our directors for breach of fiduciary duty related to the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and derivative clams against the members of our board of directors for failure to seek a reverse termination fee following the abandonment of the 2008 proposed transaction. Plaintiff also asserts a derivative claim for breach of contract against Mr. Fertitta and Fertitta Acquisition for failure to perform under the 2008 proposed transaction. Plaintiff also alleges that in connection with Mr. Fertitta’s proposal to acquire all of our outstanding shares at $14.75 per share, our board of directors violated their fiduciary duties by failing to ensure that the merger transaction was accomplished by fair dealing and in a fair process. Plaintiff alleges that Fertitta Holdings, Fertitta Acquisition, Parent and Merger Sub knowingly participated in the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Mr. Fertitta. On May 23, 2010, the parties delivered a Memorandum of Understanding for Partial Settlement to the Vice Chancellor of the Delaware Chancery Court. The partial settlement described in the Memorandum of Understanding would settle certain derivative claims related to the renegotiation and termination of the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement among us and entities owned by Mr. Fertitta as well as claims related to Mr. Fertitta’s current proposal.

Following Mr. Fertitta’s 2009 proposal to acquire all of our outstanding stock, the following putative class actions were filed:

Frederic Goldfein, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Landry’s Restaurants, Inc., et al., a putative class action, was filed on November 3, 2009 in the District Court of Harris Country, 164th Judicial District. We are named in the petition as a defendant along with all of our directors. Plaintiff has alleged that in connection with the proposed merger transaction, defendants have violated their fiduciary duties, duties of loyalty and good faith and fair dealing and have placed an artificial lid on the price of our stock by announcing a transaction at an inadequate price. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the transaction until we adopt procedures and a process to obtain the highest price for stockholders, or alternatively to rescind the transaction.

Ralph Biancalana, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tilman J. Fertitta, et al., a putative class action, was filed on November 10, 2009 in the District Court of Harris County, 165th Judicial District, following the execution of the merger agreement signed on November 3, 2009. We are named in the petition as a defendant along with all of our directors. Plaintiff has alleged, among other things, that in connection with the proposed merger transaction, our directors have knowingly and recklessly violated their fiduciary duty of care, have violated their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, candor and independence, and that the transaction contains an inadequate and unfair price. Plaintiff also alleged that we aided and abetted our directors’ alleged breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the transaction and the payment of a termination fee to Mr. Fertitta. Plaintiff also requests declarations from the court that the termination fee is unfair, and that our directors have breached their fiduciary duties to our stockholders. Plaintiff seeks recovery of attorneys fees and costs.

 

118


Table of Contents

Robert Caryer, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Landry’s Restaurants, Inc., et al., a putative class action, was filed on November 17, 2009 in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 125th Judicial District, following Mr. Fertitta’s latest proposal to acquire all of our outstanding stock. We are named in the petition as a defendant along with all of our directors. Plaintiff has alleged, among other things, that in connection with the proposed merger transaction, defendants violated their fiduciary duties, duties of candor, loyalty and good faith and fair dealing and have placed an artificial lid on the price of our stock by announcing a transaction at an inadequate price. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the transaction until we adopt procedures and a process to obtain the highest value for stockholders and to rescind the proposed merger transaction or merger agreement to the extent already implemented. Plaintiff also requests declarations from the Court that our directors have breached their fiduciary duties to our stockholders and that our directors must exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction which is in the best interest of our stockholders. Finally, Plaintiff seeks recovery of attorneys fees and costs.

Goldfein, Biancala a