Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies.
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 9. Commitments and Contingencies Litigation We are a party to various lawsuits, which have arisen in the normal course of our business. Estimated losses are accrued for these lawsuits and claims when the loss is probable and can be estimated. The current liability for the estimated losses associated with those lawsuits is not material to our consolidated financial condition and those estimated losses are not expected to have a material impact on our results of operations. On April 17, 2010, Presque Isle Downs, Inc. initiated legal action in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Pennsylvania, against defendants Dwayne Cooper Enterprises, Inc. ("DCE"), Turner Construction Company ("Turner"), and Rectenwald Buehler Architects, Inc. f/k/a Weborg Rectenwald Buehler Architects, Inc. ("RB") to recover damages arising out of failures of the surveillance system installed during the original construction of the casino facilities at Presque Isle Downs. DCE supplied and installed the surveillance system, RB acted as the project architect, and Turner served as the construction manager on the project. Shortly after Presque Isle Downs opened on February 28, 2007, it discovered that certain components of the surveillance system were defective, malfunctioning or missing. After efforts to remediate the deficiencies in the system were unsuccessful, it became necessary to replace certain components of the surveillance system at a cost of $1.9 million, and to write-off approximately $1.5 million related to the net book value of the equipment that was replaced. On April 5, 2011, Presque Isle Downs obtained a default judgment against DCE in the amount of $2.7 million. Efforts to enforce the judgment against DCE are ongoing but the assets of DCE appear to be modest and materially insufficient to pay the judgment. Any proceeds that may be received will be recorded as the amounts are realized. Defendant RB joined five additional vendors/subcontractors as additional defendants in the case. Each of the defendants and all but one of the additional defendants filed motions or objections requesting that the Court dismiss the claims against it. After these motions and objections were denied and the parties engaged in limited discovery, the parties agreed to submit the case to mediation. The mediation occurred on February 10, 2015, and resulted in an agreement under which the sum of $0.7 million would be paid to Presque Isle Downs, Inc. in exchange for a general release of the defendants (except DCE) and the additional defendants. A draft settlement agreement has been prepared and is currently under review by all parties. It is anticipated the settlement will be concluded and the case voluntarily dismissed by June 30, 2015. On October 21, 2011, the Ohio Roundtable filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas in Franklin County, Ohio against a number of defendants, including the Governor, the Ohio Lottery Commission and the Ohio Casino Control Commission. The complaint alleges a variety of substantive and procedural defects relative to the approval and implementation of video lottery terminals as well as several counts dealing with the taxation of standalone casinos. As interveners, we, along with four of the other racinos in Ohio, filed motions for judgment on the pleadings to supplement the position of the Racing Commission. In May 2012, the Court of Common Pleas dismissed the case; however, the plaintiffs filed an appeal and oral arguments were held on January 17, 2013 in the 10th District Court of Appeals. In March 2013, the Court of Appeals upheld the ruling. The decision of the Appeals Court was appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court by the plaintiffs on April 30, 2013 and the Ohio Supreme Court has elected to accept the appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court temporarily stayed the appeal until it first ruled on a matter with similar procedural issues. A decision was issued on that case on June 10, 2014. Accordingly, along with the State Appellees, a motion to dismiss as improvidently granted was filed which was partially granted. The remaining propositions of law have been briefed by both parties and oral argument is scheduled for June 23, 2015. Environmental Remediation In October 2004, we acquired 229 acres of real property, known as the International Paper site, as an alternative site to build Presque Isle Downs. In connection with our acquisition of the International Paper site, we entered into a consent order and decree (the "Consent Order") with the PaDEP and International Paper insulating us from liability for certain pre-existing contamination, subject to compliance with the Consent Order, which included a proposed environmental remediation plan for the site, which was tied specifically to the use of the property as a racetrack. The proposed environmental remediation plan in the Consent Order was based upon a "baseline environmental report" and management estimated that such remediation would be subsumed within the cost of developing the property as a racetrack. The racetrack was never developed at this site. In October 2005, we sold approximately 205 acres to GEIDC who assumed primary responsibility for the remediation obligations under the Consent Order relating to the property they acquired. However, we were advised by the PaDEP that we were not released from our liability and responsibility under the Consent Order. We also purchased an Environmental Risk Insurance Policy in the amount of $10.0 million with respect to the property, which expires in October 2015. We believe the insurance coverage is in excess of any exposure that we may have in this matter. Regulatory Gaming Assessments The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (the "PGCB"), the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue and the Pennsylvania State Police (collectively "the Borrowers"), were required to fund the costs they incurred in connection with the initial development of the infrastructure to support gaming operations in Pennsylvania as well as the initial ongoing costs of the Borrowers. The initial funding of these costs was provided from a loan from the Pennsylvania General Fund in the amount of $36.1 million, and further funding was provided from additional loans from the Pennsylvania Property Tax Reserve Fund in the aggregate amount of $63.8 million. The Pennsylvania Department of Revenue will assess all licensees, including Presque Isle Downs, their proportionate share of amounts represented by the borrowings, which are in the aggregate amount of $99.9 million, once the designated number of Pennsylvania's slot machine licensees is operational. On July 11, 2011, the PGCB issued an administrative order which established that payments associated with the $63.8 million that was borrowed from the Property Tax Reserve Fund would commence on January 1, 2012. The repayment allocation between all current licensees is based upon equal weighting of (1) cumulative gross slot revenue since inception in relation to the combined cumulative gross slot revenue for all licensees and (2) single year gross slot revenue (during the state's fiscal year ending June 30) in relation to the combined single year gross slot revenue for all licensees; and amounts paid each year will be adjusted annually based upon changes in the licensee's proportionate share of gross slot revenue. MTR Gaming has estimated that its total proportionate share of the aggregate $63.8 million to be assessed to the gaming facilities will be approximately $4.2 million and will be paid quarterly over a ten-year period, which began effective January 1, 2012. For the $36.1 million that was borrowed from the General Fund, payment is scheduled to begin after all fourteen licensees are operational. Although MTR Gaming cannot determine when payment will begin, it has considered a similar repayment model for the General Fund borrowings and estimated that its total proportionate share of the aggregate $36.1 million to all fourteen gaming facilities will approximate $2.2 million, which has been accrued in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets at March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014. The recorded estimate is subject to revision based upon future changes in the revenue assumptions utilized to develop the estimate. The estimated total obligation at March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 was $4.9 million and $0.5 million, respectively, and is accrued in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. As of and during the three months ended March 31, 2015, our total estimated liability increased as a result of changes in the forecasted assumptions utilized in the model by $20,000 and was recognized in gaming operating expenses. MTR Gaming paid approximately $0.1 million during the three months ended March 31, 2015.

Note 9. Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

We are a party to various lawsuits, which have arisen in the normal course of our business. Estimated losses are accrued for these lawsuits and claims when the loss is probable and can be estimated. The current liability for the estimated losses associated with those lawsuits is not material to our consolidated financial condition and those estimated losses are not expected to have a material impact on our results of operations.

On April 17, 2010, Presque Isle Downs, Inc. initiated legal action in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Pennsylvania, against defendants Dwayne Cooper Enterprises, Inc. ("DCE"), Turner Construction Company ("Turner"), and Rectenwald Buehler Architects, Inc. f/k/a Weborg Rectenwald Buehler Architects, Inc. ("RB") to recover damages arising out of failures of the surveillance system installed during the original construction of the casino facilities at Presque Isle Downs. DCE supplied and installed the surveillance system, RB acted as the project architect, and Turner served as the construction manager on the project. Shortly after Presque Isle Downs opened on February 28, 2007, it discovered that certain components of the surveillance system were defective, malfunctioning or missing. After efforts to remediate the deficiencies in the system were unsuccessful, it became necessary to replace certain components of the surveillance system at a cost of $1.9 million, and to write-off approximately $1.5 million related to the net book value of the equipment that was replaced. On April 5, 2011, Presque Isle Downs obtained a default judgment against DCE in the amount of $2.7 million. Efforts to enforce the judgment against DCE are ongoing but the assets of DCE appear to be modest and materially insufficient to pay the judgment. Any proceeds that may be received will be recorded as the amounts are realized. Defendant RB joined five additional vendors/subcontractors as additional defendants in the case. Each of the defendants and all but one of the additional defendants filed motions or objections requesting that the Court dismiss the claims against it. After these motions and objections were denied and the parties engaged in limited discovery, the parties agreed to submit the case to mediation. The mediation occurred on February 10, 2015, and resulted in an agreement under which the sum of $0.7 million would be paid to Presque Isle Downs, Inc. in exchange for a general release of the defendants (except DCE) and the additional defendants. A draft settlement agreement has been prepared and is currently under review by all parties. It is anticipated the settlement will be concluded and the case voluntarily dismissed by June 30, 2015.

On October 21, 2011, the Ohio Roundtable filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas in Franklin County, Ohio against a number of defendants, including the Governor, the Ohio Lottery Commission and the Ohio Casino Control Commission. The complaint alleges a variety of substantive and procedural defects relative to the approval and implementation of video lottery terminals as well as several counts dealing with the taxation of standalone casinos. As interveners, we, along with four of the other racinos in Ohio, filed motions for judgment on the pleadings to supplement the position of the Racing Commission. In May 2012, the Court of Common Pleas dismissed the case; however, the plaintiffs filed an appeal and oral arguments were held on January 17, 2013 in the 10th District Court of Appeals. In March 2013, the Court of Appeals upheld the ruling. The decision of the Appeals Court was appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court by the plaintiffs on April 30, 2013 and the Ohio Supreme Court has elected to accept the appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court temporarily stayed the appeal until it first ruled on a matter with similar procedural issues. A decision was issued on that case on June 10, 2014. Accordingly, along with the State Appellees, a motion to dismiss as improvidently granted was filed which was partially granted. The remaining propositions of law have been briefed by both parties and oral argument is scheduled for June 23, 2015.

Environmental Remediation

In October 2004, we acquired 229 acres of real property, known as the International Paper site, as an alternative site to build Presque Isle Downs. In connection with our acquisition of the International Paper site, we entered into a consent order and decree (the "Consent Order") with the PaDEP and International Paper insulating us from liability for certain pre-existing contamination, subject to compliance with the Consent Order, which included a proposed environmental remediation plan for the site, which was tied specifically to the use of the property as a racetrack. The proposed environmental remediation plan in the Consent Order was based upon a "baseline environmental report" and management estimated that such remediation would be subsumed within the cost of developing the property as a racetrack. The racetrack was never developed at this site. In October 2005, we sold approximately 205 acres to GEIDC who assumed primary responsibility for the remediation obligations under the Consent Order relating to the property they acquired. However, we were advised by the PaDEP that we were not released from our liability and responsibility under the Consent Order. We also purchased an Environmental Risk Insurance Policy in the amount of $10.0 million with respect to the property, which expires in October 2015. We believe the insurance coverage is in excess of any exposure that we may have in this matter.

Regulatory Gaming Assessments

The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (the "PGCB"), the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue and the Pennsylvania State Police (collectively "the Borrowers"), were required to fund the costs they incurred in connection with the initial development of the infrastructure to support gaming operations in Pennsylvania as well as the initial ongoing costs of the Borrowers. The initial funding of these costs was provided from a loan from the Pennsylvania General Fund in the amount of $36.1 million, and further funding was provided from additional loans from the Pennsylvania Property Tax Reserve Fund in the aggregate amount of $63.8 million.

The Pennsylvania Department of Revenue will assess all licensees, including Presque Isle Downs, their proportionate share of amounts represented by the borrowings, which are in the aggregate amount of $99.9 million, once the designated number of Pennsylvania's slot machine licensees is operational. On July 11, 2011, the PGCB issued an administrative order which established that payments associated with the $63.8 million that was borrowed from the Property Tax Reserve Fund would commence on January 1, 2012. The repayment allocation between all current licensees is based upon equal weighting of (1) cumulative gross slot revenue since inception in relation to the combined cumulative gross slot revenue for all licensees and (2) single year gross slot revenue (during the state's fiscal year ending June 30) in relation to the combined single year gross slot revenue for all licensees; and amounts paid each year will be adjusted annually based upon changes in the licensee's proportionate share of gross slot revenue. MTR Gaming has estimated that its total proportionate share of the aggregate $63.8 million to be assessed to the gaming facilities will be approximately $4.2 million and will be paid quarterly over a ten-year period, which began effective January 1, 2012. For the $36.1 million that was borrowed from the General Fund, payment is scheduled to begin after all fourteen licensees are operational. Although MTR Gaming cannot determine when payment will begin, it has considered a similar repayment model for the General Fund borrowings and estimated that its total proportionate share of the aggregate $36.1 million to all fourteen gaming facilities will approximate $2.2 million, which has been accrued in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets at March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014.

The recorded estimate is subject to revision based upon future changes in the revenue assumptions utilized to develop the estimate. The estimated total obligation at March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 was $4.9 million and $0.5 million, respectively, and is accrued in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. As of and during the three months ended March 31, 2015, our total estimated liability increased as a result of changes in the forecasted assumptions utilized in the model by $20,000 and was recognized in gaming operating expenses. MTR Gaming paid approximately $0.1 million during the three months ended March 31, 2015.