Native American Development

Following is information about the Company's Native American development activities.

North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indian Tribe

The Company has development and management agreements with the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians (the "Mono"), a federally recognized Native American tribe located near Fresno, California, which were originally entered into in 2003. In August 2014, the Mono and the Company entered into the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (the "Development Agreement") and the Second Amended and Restated Management Agreement (the "Management Agreement"). Pursuant to those agreements, the Company will assist the Mono in developing and operating a gaming and entertainment facility (the "North Fork Project") to be located in Madera County, California. The Company purchased a 305-acre parcel of land located on Highway 99 north of the city of Madera (the "North Fork Site"), which was taken into trust for the benefit of the Mono by the Department of the Interior ("DOI") in February 2013.

As currently contemplated, the North Fork Project is expected to include approximately 2,000 slot machines, approximately 40 table games and several restaurants. Development of the North Fork Project is subject to certain governmental and regulatory approvals, including, but not limited to, approval of the Management Agreement by the Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission ("NIGC").

Under the Development Agreement, the Company will receive a development fee of 4% of the costs of construction and the costs of development of the North Fork Project (both as defined in the Development Agreement). Under the terms of the Development Agreement, the Company has agreed to arrange the financing for the ongoing development costs and construction of the facility. The Company will contribute significant financial support to the North Fork Project. Through June 30, 2016, the Company has paid approximately $28.1 million of reimbursable advances to the Mono, primarily to complete the environmental impact study, secure the North Fork Site and pay the costs of litigation. The advances are expected to be repaid from the proceeds of third-party financing or from the Mono's gaming revenues; however, there can be no assurance that the advances will be repaid. The carrying amount of the advances was reduced to fair value upon the Company's adoption of fresh-start reporting in 2011. At June 30, 2016, the carrying amount of the advances was $13.0 million.

The timing of this type of project is difficult to predict and is dependent upon the receipt of the necessary governmental and regulatory approvals. There can be no assurance as to when, or if, these approvals will be obtained. The Company currently estimates that construction of the facility may begin in the next 36 to 48 months and estimates that the facility would be completed and opened for business approximately 18 months after construction begins. There can be no assurance, however, that the North Fork Project will be completed and opened within this time frame or at all. The Company expects to assist the Mono in obtaining third-party financing for the North Fork Project once all necessary regulatory approvals have been received and prior to commencement of construction; however, there can be no assurance that the Company will be able to obtain such financing for the North Fork Project on acceptable terms or at all.

The Company has evaluated the likelihood that the North Fork Project will be successfully completed and opened, and has concluded that the likelihood of successful completion is in the range of 65% to 75% at June 30, 2016. The Company's evaluation is based on its consideration of all available positive and negative evidence about the status of the North Fork Project, including, but not limited to, the status of required regulatory approvals, as well as the progress being made toward the achievement of all milestones and the successful resolution of all contingencies. There can be no assurance that the North Fork Project will be successfully completed or that future events and circumstances will not change the Company's estimates of the timing, scope, and potential for successful completion or that any such changes will not be material. In addition, there can be no assurance that the Company will recover all of its investment in the North Fork Project even if it is successfully completed and opened for business.

The following table outlines the Company's evaluation at June 30, 2016 of each of the critical milestones necessary to complete the North Fork Project.



	As of June 30, 2016
Federally recognized as an Indian tribe by the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA")	Yes
Date of recognition	Federal recognition was terminated in 1961 and restored in 1983.
Tribe has possession of or access to usable land upon which the project is to be built	The DOI accepted approximately 305 acres of land for the project into trust for the benefit of the Mono in February 2013.
Status of obtaining regulatory and governmental approvals:
Tribal–state compact	A compact was negotiated and signed by the Governor of California and the Mono in August 2012. The Compact was ratified by the California State Assembly and Senate in May 2013 and June 2013, respectively. Opponents of the North Fork Project qualified a referendum, “Proposition 48,” for a state-wide ballot challenging the legislature’s ratification of the Compact. In November 2014, Proposition 48 failed. The State took the position that the failure of Proposition 48 nullified the ratification of the Compact and, therefore, the Compact did not take effect under California law. In March 2015, the Mono filed suit against the State (see North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians v. State of California) to obtain a compact with the State or procedures from the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs under which Class III gaming may be conducted on the North Fork Site. In November 2015, the district court issued its order granting judgment in favor of the Mono and ordering the parties to conclude a compact within 60 days. The parties were unable to conclude a compact and the court ordered mediation. In February 2016, the mediation was conducted and the mediator issued her decision selecting the Mono’s compact as the compact that best comports with the law and the orders from the district court. The State had 60 days in which to consent to the selected compact. The State failed to consent to the selected compact and in April 2016, it was submitted to the Secretary of the Interior for the adoption of procedures consistent with the selected compact to allow the Mono to conduct Class III gaming at the North Fork Site. On July 29, 2016, the DOI issued Secretarial procedures (the “Secretarial Procedures”) pursuant to which the Mono may conduct Class III gaming on the North Fork Site.
Approval of gaming compact by DOI	The Compact was submitted to the DOI in July 2013. In October 2013, notice of the Compact taking effect was published in the Federal Register. The Secretarial Procedures supersede and replace the Compact.
Record of decision regarding environmental impact published by BIA	In November 2012, the record of decision for the Environmental Impact Statement for the North Fork Project was issued by the BIA. In December 2012, the Notice of Intent to take land into trust was published in the Federal Register.
BIA accepting usable land into trust on behalf of the tribe	The North Fork Site was accepted into trust in February 2013.
Approval of management agreement by NIGC	In December 2015, the Mono submitted the Management Agreement, and certain related documents, to the NICG. On July 25, 2016, the Mono received a deficiency letter from the NIGC seeking additional information concerning the Management Agreement. Approval of the Management Agreement by the NIGC is expected to occur following the Mono’s response to the deficiency letter. The Company believes the Management Agreement will be approved because the terms and conditions thereof are consistent with the provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
Gaming licenses:
Type	Current plans for the North Fork Project include the operation of Class II and Class III gaming, which are allowed pursuant to the terms of the Secretarial Procedures and IGRA, following approval of the Management Agreement by the NIGC.
Number of gaming devices allowed	The Secretarial Procedures allow for the operation of a maximum of 2,000 Class III slot machines at the facility during the first two years of operation and thereafter up to 2,500 Class III slot machines. There is no limit on the number of Class II gaming devices that the Mono can offer.
Agreements with local authorities	The Mono has entered into memoranda of understanding with the City of Madera, the County of Madera and the Madera Irrigation District under which the Mono agreed to pay one-time and recurring mitigation contributions, subject to certain contingencies.

Following is a discussion of legal matters related to the North Fork Project.

Stand Up For California! v. Dept. of the Interior. In December 2012, Stand Up for California!, several individuals and the Ministerial Association of Madera (collectively, the “Stand Up” plaintiffs) filed a complaint against the DOI, the BIA and the Secretary of Interior and Assistant Secretary of the Interior, in their official capacities, seeking to overturn the Secretary’s determination to take the North Fork Site into trust for the purposes of gaming (the “North Fork Determination”) and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the United States from taking the North Fork Site into trust. The Mono filed a motion to intervene as a party to the lawsuit, which was granted. In January 2013, the Court denied the Stand Up plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and the United States accepted the North Fork Site into trust for the benefit of the Mono in February 2013. In June 2013, the court granted the Stand Up plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to add a claim alleging that the federal defendants failed to comply with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, and the Stand Up plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief challenging the validity of the Compact and alleging that the North Fork Site should be taken out of trust because the purposes for which it was taken into trust are no longer valid. The parties’ motions for summary judgment, oppositions to motions for summary judgment and responses were all filed by April 2015. The parties are currently awaiting a hearing date for oral argument or a decision on the pleadings. In June 2016, the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians (“Picayune”) filed a motion for supplemental briefing on the issue of the impact of the potential issuance of secretarial procedures. The DOI and the Mono filed responsive briefs indicating that such briefing was premature. The court has not ruled on Picayune’s motion.

Stand Up For California! v. Brown. In March 2013, Stand Up for California! and Barbara Leach, a local resident, filed a complaint for declaratory relief and petition for writ of mandate in California Superior Court for the County of Madera against California Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., alleging that Governor Brown violated the California constitutional separation-of-powers doctrine when he concurred in the North Fork Determination. The complaint sought to vacate and set aside the Governor’s concurrence. Plaintiffs’ complaint was subsequently amended to include a challenge to the constitutionality of AB 277. The Mono intervened as a defendant in the lawsuit and both the State and the Mono filed demurrers to plaintiffs’ complaint. In March 2014, the court issued its Judgment of Dismissal dismissing plaintiffs’ amended complaint. In September 2014, plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief appealing the Judgment of Dismissal. The State and the Mono subsequently filed their responsive briefs and the plaintiffs filed their reply brief in January 2015. Oral arguments were heard on July 26, 2016. Prior to the court’s issuing its Judgment of Dismissal, the Mono filed a Cross-Complaint against the State alleging that Proposition 48 was invalid and unenforceable to the extent that it purports to invalidate the legislative ratification of the Compact. The State and the plaintiffs filed demurrers seeking to dismiss the Cross-Complaint. In June 2014, the court sustained the plaintiffs’ and the State’s demurrers and dismissed the Mono’s Cross-Complaint. The Mono timely filed their notice of appeal for dismissal of the Cross-Complaint and in June 2015, filed their opening appellate brief. In September 2015, plaintiffs and the State filed their responsive briefs and in November 2015 the Mono filed its reply brief. In May 2016, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the Mono’s appeal.

North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians v. State of California. In March 2015, the Mono filed a complaint against the State alleging that the State violated 25 U.S.C. Section 2710(d)(7) et. seq. by failing to negotiate with the Mono in good faith to enter into a tribal-state compact governing Class III gaming on the Mono’s Indian lands. The compliant sought a declaration that the State failed to negotiate in good faith to enter into an enforceable tribal-state compact and an order directing the State to conclude an enforceable tribal-state compact within 60 days or submit to mediation. The State filed its answer to the Mono’s complaint in May 2015. The Mono’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed in August 2015 and the State’s opposition and cross motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed in September 2015. The Mono’s reply and the State’s reply brief were filed in October 2015. In November 2015, the district court issued its order granting judgment in favor of the Mono and ordering the parties to conclude a compact within 60 days. The parties were unable to conclude a compact within such period and on January 13, 2016 the district court filed its Order to Show Cause as to why the court should not order the parties to submit to mediation. On January 26, 2016, the court filed its order confirming the selection of a mediator and requiring the parties to submit their last, best offers for a compact to the mediator within ten days. In February 2016, the mediation was conducted and the mediator issued her decision selecting the Mono’s compact as the compact that best comports with the law and the orders from the district court. The State had 60 days in which to consent to the selected compact. The State failed to consent to the selected compact and in April 2016, the selected compact was submitted to the Secretary of the Interior for the adoption of procedures consistent with the terms of the selected compact to allow the Mono to conduct Class III gaming at the North Fork Site. In March 2016, Picayune filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit. In April 2016, the Mono and the State filed briefs opposing the intervention. In June 2016, the court denied Picayune’s motion to intervene, but requested briefing on issues raised by Picayune and allowed Picayune to file a brief as an amicus curiae. The Mono, State and Picayune filed briefs and reply briefs on July 15 and 22, respectively. On July 29, 2016, the DOI issued the Secretarial Procedures.

Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. Brown. In March 2016, the Picayune Rancheria filed a complaint for declaratory relief and petition for writ of mandate in California Superior Court for the County of Madera against California Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., alleging that Governor Brown violated the California constitutional separation-of-powers doctrine when he concurred in the North Fork Determination. The complaint seeks to vacate and set aside the Governor’s concurrence. In May, the Mono filed an ex-parte application to intervene in this case. On July 8, 2016, the court granted the Mono’s application to intervene and the Mono filed a demurrer seeking to dismiss the case. Picayune’s brief opposing the demurrer is scheduled to be filed on September 5, 2016, the Mono’s reply brief is scheduled to be filed on October 3, 2016, and a hearing has been scheduled for October 27, 2016.

Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. United States Department of Interior. On July 1, 2016, Picayune filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California for declaratory and injunctive relief against the DOI. The complaint seeks a declaration that the North Fork Site does not come under one of the exceptions to the general prohibition against gaming on lands taken into trust after October 1988 set forth in IGRA and therefore is not eligible for gaming. It also seeks a declaration that the North Fork Determination has expired because the legislature never ratified Governor Brown’s concurrence, and seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the DOI from taking any action under IGRA concerning the North Fork Site. The Mono intends to file a petition to intervene in this case.