2.4.0.82111100 - Disclosure - Commitments and Contingenciestruefalsefalse1false falsefalseD2012Q4YTDhttp://www.sec.gov/CIK0000356213duration2012-01-01T00:00:002012-12-31T00:00:001true 1us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstractus-gaap_truenadurationfalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalse1falsefalsefalse00falsefalsefalsexbrli:stringItemTypestringfalse0Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]2false 2us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlockus-gaap_truenadurationfalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseterseLabel1falsefalsefalse00<div style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:10pt;"><div style="line-height:120%;text-align:left;font-size:10pt;">Commitments and Contingencies</div><div style="line-height:120%;padding-top:13px;text-align:left;text-indent:20px;font-size:10pt;">Guaranteed Maximum Price Agreement for L'Auberge Baton Rouge: On April 5, 2010, we entered into an Agreement for Guaranteed Maximum Price Construction Services with a general contractor for the construction of L'Auberge Baton Rouge. In May 2011, we entered into an amendment to the agreement, which, among other things, provides that the contractor will complete the construction of the casino for the total guaranteed maximum price of approximately $249 million, which amount is currently being negotiated. We are currently unable to determine the final guaranteed maximum price. </div><div style="line-height:120%;padding-top:13px;text-align:left;text-indent:20px;font-size:10pt;">Redevelopment Agreement: In connection with our Lumière Place Casino and Hotel ("Lumière Place"), we have a redevelopment agreement, which, among other things, commits us to oversee the investment of $50 million in residential housing, retail or mixed-use developments in the City of St. Louis within five years of the opening of Lumière Place. Such investment can be made with partners and partner contributions and project debt financing, all of which count toward the $50 million investment commitment including previously made investments that satisfied the initial $13 million of the commitment. In December 2012, we entered into an amendment to the redevelopment agreement that committed us to donate cash and land to a series of not-for-profit initiatives and the City of St. Louis. These contributions fully satisfied the remaining obligation under the redevelopment agreement. In addition, we are also obligated to pay an annual fee of $1.0 million to the City of St. Louis, which obligation began after our River City Casino opened in March 2010.</div><div style="line-height:120%;padding-top:13px;text-align:left;text-indent:20px;font-size:10pt;">Lease and Development Agreement for River City Casino: In connection with our River City Casino, we have a lease and development agreement with the St. Louis County Port Authority, which, among other things, commits us to lease 56 acres for 99 years (subject to certain termination provisions). We have invested the minimum requirement of $375 million, pursuant to the agreement. From April 1, 2010 through the expiration of the term of the lease and development agreement, we are required to pay to St. Louis County as annual rent the greater of (a) $4.0 million, or (b) 2.5% of annual adjusted gross receipts, as that term is defined in the lease and development agreement. We are also required to invest an additional $75 million in the second phase of the project to construct: (a) a hotel with a minimum of 200 guestrooms, (b) a meeting room/event space with at least 10,000 square feet, and (c) a parking garage with a minimum of 1,600 parking spaces, which was completed and opened in November 2012. We are required to achieve substantial completion of the second phase by October 31, 2013. In the event the second phase is not substantially complete by October 31, 2013, we are required to pay liquidated damages of $2.0 million beginning on November 1, 2013. In each subsequent year that the second phase is not opened, the amount of liquidated damages increases by $1.0 million, hence, $3.0 million in 2014, $4.0 million in 2015, $5.0 million in 2016 and $6.0 million in 2017. As a result, the maximum amount of liquidated damages that we would have to pay if the second phase is not completed is $20.0 million. Our $82 million expansion project at River City that is currently underway is expected to fulfill the requirement to open the second phase.</div><div style="line-height:120%;text-align:left;font-size:10pt;"> </div><div style="line-height:120%;text-align:left;text-indent:24px;font-size:10pt;">Guaranteed Maximum Price Agreement for River Downs: In January 2013, we entered into an Agreement for Guaranteed Maximum Price Construction Services with a general contractor for the mobilization, demolition, site work and foundation work for River Downs. This agreement provides, among other things, that the contractor will complete the initial work for a total guaranteed maximum price of approximately $20 million. </div><div style="line-height:120%;text-align:left;text-indent:24px;font-size:10pt;"> </div><div style="line-height:120%;text-align:left;text-indent:24px;font-size:10pt;">Indiana Tax Dispute: In 2008, the Indiana Department of Revenue (“IDR”) commenced an income tax examination of the Company's Indiana income tax filings for the 2005 to 2007 period. In February 2010, the Company received a notice of proposed adjustment from the field agent in the amount of $7.3 million, excluding interest and penalties of $2.3 million, challenging the treatment of income and gain from certain asset sales outside of Indiana, which we reported on our Indiana state tax returns for the years 2000 through 2007. In March 2010, the Company timely filed a protest with the IDR requesting abatement of all tax, interest and penalties. In September 2010, a hearing was held with the IDR where the Company restated significant facts and positions, which the Company believed the field agent had not taken into consideration in issuing the assessment. On March 30, 2011, the IDR issued a letter of finding which denied all issues protested in the hearing, but sustained the Company's request to waive penalties.  In the supplemental letter of findings, the IDR did not raise any new technical arguments or advance any new theory that would alter our judgment regarding the recognition or measurement of the unrecognized tax benefit related to this audit. We believe that our tax return position is sustainable on the merits. In June 2012, we filed a tax appeal petition with the Indiana tax court to set aside the final assessment. As of December 31, 2012, we continue to believe that we have adequately reserved for the potential outcome.</div><div style="line-height:120%;text-align:left;text-indent:24px;font-size:10pt;"> </div><div style="line-height:120%;text-align:left;text-indent:20px;font-size:10pt;">Self-Insurance: We self-insure various levels of general liability and workers' compensation at all of our properties and medical coverage at most of our properties. Insurance reserves include accruals for estimated settlements for known claims, as well as accruals for estimates of claims not yet made. At December 31, 2012 and 2011, we had total self-insurance accruals of $16.5 million and $14.8 million, respectively, which are included in “Other accrued liabilities” in our Consolidated Balance Sheets.</div><div style="line-height:120%;text-align:left;text-indent:20px;font-size:10pt;"> </div><div style="line-height:120%;text-align:left;text-indent:24px;font-size:10pt;">Ameristar Lawsuit: On December 24, 2012, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit related to our proposed acquisition of Ameristar was filed in Nevada District Court for Clark County, captioned Joseph Grob v. Ameristar Casinos, Inc., et al. (the “Grob action”).  The complaint names Ameristar and members of Ameristar's Board of Directors (the “Ameristar Defendants”); and Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., PNK Holdings, Inc., and PNK Development 32, Inc. as defendants (the “Pinnacle Defendants”).  The complaint generally alleges that the Board of Directors of Ameristar, aided and abetted by Ameristar and the Pinnacle Defendants, breached their fiduciary duties owed to Ameristar's shareholders in connection with Pinnacle's proposed acquisition of Ameristar.  The action includes claims for, among other things, an injunction halting the proposed acquisition of Ameristar by Pinnacle, and an award of costs and expenses to the putative plaintiff shareholder, including attorneys' fees. Thereafter, other plaintiffs filed additional complaints in the same court making essentially the same allegations and seeking similar relief to the Grob action.  On January 15, 2013, the court issued an order consolidating the actions, and any subsequently filed actions, into a single, consolidated action.  The action is still in the initial stages and there has been no discovery.  We believe that the allegations directed against us lack merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously.</div><div style="line-height:120%;text-align:left;font-size:10pt;"> </div><div style="line-height:120%;text-indent:24px;font-size:10pt;">Other:  We are a party to a number of pending legal proceedings. Management does not expect that the outcome of such proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material effect on our financial position, cash flows or results of operations.</div></div>falsefalsefalsenonnum:textBlockItemTypenaThe entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. false0Commitments and ContingenciesfalseCommitments and ContingenciesUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownUnKnowntruefalsefalseSheethttp://www.pnkinc.com/role/CommitmentsAndContingencies12