NOTE 13. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Data Security Event

In October 2013, Affinity was contacted by law enforcement regarding fraudulent credit and debit card charges which may have been linked to a data security breach in Affinity’s information technology system. We immediately initiated a thorough investigation, supported by an independent professional forensic investigative firm, to determine the nature and scope of the compromise. In December 2013, we issued a press release advising that our payment processing system had become infected by malware, which resulted in a compromise of credit card and debit card information belonging to individuals who used their cards at restaurants, hotels and gift shops at our facilities between March 14 and October 16, 2013. As of November 14, 2013, our forensics expert advised us that our credit card processing systems were free of functioning malware. We encouraged our patrons to protect against possible identity theft or other financial loss by reviewing account statements for potential fraudulent activity during the period of exposure. In April 2014, we again learned that an unauthorized intrusion and installation of malware compromising the credit card processing environment had occurred. We then hired a different professional forensics investigation firm to conduct a thorough investigation of the more recently discovered event, and the security of our information technology environment as it related to both incidents. As a result of the second investigation, we have reason to believe that credit card and debit card information from individuals who used their cards at restaurants, hotels and gift shops at our properties between December 7, 2013 and April 28, 2014, also may have been compromised. In May 2014, we issued another press release and encouraged our patrons to protect against possible identity theft or other financial loss by reviewing account statements for potential fraudulent activity during the period of exposure.

Affinity carries insurance coverage of $5.0 million for liability resulting from network security events. As of December 31, 2015, we have incurred $1.2 million in expense, including deductibles, arising out of the two security breach events. We do not expect to incur additional material expenses that are not covered by insurance. However, we cannot estimate the total amount which we will ultimately incur and be reimbursed by insurance carriers because, although the independent forensic investigation has concluded, we have not received all of the monetary assessments and evaluations from the credit card processors and issuing banks seeking to recover the cost of replacement cards and a portion of fraudulent charges, nor have we received any third-party claims as of this date. In addition, several state attorneys general are investigating the data breach events, including how they occurred, their consequences and our responses. We are cooperating in the governmental investigation, and could be subject to fines or other obligations. We have not concluded that a loss from the governmental investigation is probable, however, and therefore have not recorded an accrual for governmental investigation or regulatory action. We will continue to evaluate information as it becomes known and will record an estimate for loss at the time or times when it is both probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable. We have commenced a lawsuit in federal court in Nevada against the firm that conducted the initial forensic investigation for recovery of the costs and assessments we incurred as a result of the April 2014 data breach discovery.

Litigation

In March 2012, the Clarke County Development Corp. (“CCDC”), the local non-profit Iowa licensee for which we manage the Lakeside Hotel & Casino (“Lakeside”) in Osceola, Iowa, filed an action in Iowa state court against Affinity and Lakeside, seeking a declaratory judgment that the management contract between CCDC and Lakeside is non-assignable. We removed the case to federal court and contested CCDC's position even though we had no plans to assign the agreement. CCDC also named Lakeside, Affinity and the Iowa Racing & Gaming Commission (“IRGC”) in a separate petition in Iowa state court seeking judicial review of the IRGC's ruling, in November 2010, which approved the Predecessor's creditors to become the owners of Affinity Gaming, LLC, and thereby the indirect owners of Lakeside, prior to our emergence from bankruptcy and notwithstanding CCDC’s objection that an assignment of the management agreement had occurred which required its consent. On July 29, 2013, just two weeks before the hearing on judicial review, CCDC filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the petition for judicial review. On July 30, 2013, CCDC filed a motion to dismiss the federal court action without prejudice, which was granted. CCDC’s dismissal of the state court petition and the federal court action was based upon its filing in Iowa state court on August 5, 2013 of a third lawsuit, since removed to federal court in Iowa, in which it seeks to enforce a settlement agreement it alleges was reached with us during a non-binding mediation held in June 2013. On April 21, 2015, following discovery in the new lawsuit, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company and against CCDC, entering judgment for the Company. CCDC appealed the grant of summary judgment to the 8^th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, and oral argument on the appeal was heard November 5, 2015. We do not know when a decision on the appeal will be rendered.

In March 2013, shareholder Z Capital Partners, L.L.C. and certain of its affiliates (collectively “Z Capital”), individually as well as derivatively on behalf of Affinity Gaming, filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) against us as a nominal party and our directors as defendants in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada (the “District Court”). In July 2014, representatives of Z Capital, shareholder SPH Manager, LLC (“SPH Manager”) and certain other large shareholders reached an agreement with us to settle and dismiss with prejudice the Complaint.

In November 2013, Chartwell Advisory Group, Ltd. (“Chartwell”), a professional services firm that facilitated filing refund requests with the Nevada Tax Commission for sales and use tax paid by certain casinos on the cost of complimentary meals for periods beginning in 2004, has filed a lawsuit against numerous Nevada casino operators, including one of our subsidiaries, alleging that it is owed a percentage of the tax casinos did not have to pay as a result of the 2012 state tax regulation and related 2013 settlement agreement. Our subsidiary had entered into an agreement prior to the bankruptcy pursuant to which Chartwell would receive a percentage of any refund received from the state of sales tax previously paid by our subsidiary. Although Chartwell asserts that we owe them approximately $0.3 million, we do not believe any amounts are due to Chartwell and accordingly, we have not recorded an accrual. Discovery in the case is ongoing.

We are party to certain other claims, legal actions and complaints arising in the ordinary course of business or asserted by way of defense or counterclaim in actions we filed. We believe that our defenses are substantial in each of these matters and that we can successfully defend our legal position without material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements.

Leases

We are party to contracts which we enter into in the ordinary course of our business, including leases for real property and operating leases for equipment. The following table presents future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable leases (in thousands):



	2016		2017		2018		2019		2020		Thereafter		Total
Lease payments	$	7,785	$	7,583	$	7,583	$	7,139	$	6,722	$	151,200	$	188,012

We incurred rent expense totaling $7.6 million, $7.6 million and $8.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

Environmental Remediation

In 2011, during excavation at the site of our travel center at Whiskey Pete’s in Primm, Nevada, we encountered several contaminated underground sites which required soil remediation and groundwater testing. Much of the contamination resulted from underground fuel storage tanks related to a gas station operated more than 35 years ago, as well as from abandoned underground fuel lines. We also began testing at the direction of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (the “NDEP”) to determine the extent to which the contamination has affected the groundwater, and we have agreed to continue monitoring the groundwater for a period of at least two more years.

Through December 31, 2015, we have incurred approximately $4.0 million on remediation work at the Whiskey Pete’s site. We have an insurance policy which provides coverage for environmental remediation costs of up to $5.0 million. We received $1.0 million from our insurer in 2013, $0.6 million in 2014, and $0.3 million in 2015.

Although we believe that incurring additional cost related to the testing and ongoing monitoring of groundwater for contamination is probable, we cannot reasonably estimate an amount to accrue at this time because the NDEP has not told us what additional work, if any, it will require us to perform. Additionally, we believe some or all of the ongoing monitoring costs will be reimbursed by insurance as part of our initial claim. We also filed suit in Nevada state district court for partial recovery against the environmental consultant that managed the initial soil remediation. The ultimate cost to us will depend on the extent of contamination found, if any, as a result of our ongoing testing, the amount of remediation we are required to perform, and the amount we are reimbursed. The litigation against the environmental consultant is in the discovery phase. As we complete our ongoing monitoring obligation, we intend to analyze any cost incurred, and we will expense or capitalize it as necessary.

Asset Retirement Obligation

During the quarter ended December 31, 2014, we re-estimated the asset retirement obligation associated with a lease for real property at our Primm, Nevada location. The lease expires on June 30, 2043 and has a 25 year extension period which, for purposes of the asset retirement obligation, we assume will be exercised extending the term through June 30, 2068. First, we estimated the costs required to return the leased land to its original state using current cost data. We then used the current cost amount to estimate the cost we would incur at the end of the lease, assuming an inflation rate of 2.4%. Finally, we used a 6.7% discount rate to estimate the liability as of the current date. As a result of our re-estimation, we reduced the asset retirement obligation, as well as the fixed asset to which the obligation is associated, in the amount noted in the table below.

The following table reconciles the value of the asset retirement obligation for the periods presented.



	December 31, 2015		December 31, 2014
Balance at beginning of period	$	501	$	773
Adjustment due to re-estimate	—		(319		)
Accretion expense	34		47
Balance at end of period	$	535	$	501