COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 5 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES CityCenter construction litigation. In March 2010, Perini Building Company, Inc. (“Perini”), general contractor for CityCenter, filed a lawsuit in the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, State of Nevada, against MGM MIRAGE Design Group (a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company which was the original party to the Perini construction agreement) and certain direct or indirect subsidiaries of CityCenter Holdings, LLC (the “CityCenter Owners”). Perini asserted that CityCenter was substantially completed, but the defendants failed to pay Perini approximately $490 million allegedly due and owing under the construction agreement for labor, equipment and materials expended on CityCenter. The complaint further charged the defendants with failure to provide timely and complete design documents, late delivery to Perini of design changes, mismanagement of the change order process, obstruction of Perini’s ability to complete the Harmon component, and fraudulent inducement of Perini to compromise significant amounts due for its general conditions. The complaint advanced claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel, and fraud and intentional misrepresentation. Perini seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. In April 2010, Perini served an amended complaint in this case which joins as defendants many owners of CityCenter residential condominium units (the “Condo Owner Defendants”), added a count for foreclosure of Perini’s recorded master mechanic’s lien against the CityCenter property in the amount of approximately $491 million, and asserted the priority of this mechanic’s lien over the interests of the CityCenter Owners, the Condo Owner Defendants and CityCenter lenders in the CityCenter property. The CityCenter Owners and the other defendants dispute Perini’s allegations, and contend that the defendants are entitled to substantial amounts from Perini, including offsets against amounts claimed to be owed to Perini and its subcontractors and damages based on breach of their contractual and other duties to CityCenter, duplicative payment requests, non-conforming work, lack of proof of alleged work performance, defective work related to the Harmon, property damage and Perini’s failure to perform its obligations to pay certain subcontractors and to prevent filing of liens against CityCenter. Parallel to the court litigation, CityCenter management conducted an extra-judicial program for settlement of CityCenter subcontractor claims. CityCenter has resolved the claims of 215 first-tier Perini subcontractors (including the claims of any lower-tier subcontractors that might have claims through those first-tier subcontractors), with only seven remaining for further proceedings along with trial of Perini’s claims and CityCenter’s Harmon-related counterclaim and other claims by CityCenter against Perini and its parent guarantor, Tutor Perini. Three of the remaining subcontractors are implicated in the defective work at the Harmon. In August 2012, Perini recorded an amended notice of lien reducing its lien to approximately $191 million. In November 2012, Perini filed a second amended complaint which, among other things, added claims against the CityCenter defendants of breach of contract – alleging that CityCenter’s Owner Controlled Insurance Program (“OCIP”) failed to provide adequate project insurance for Perini with broad coverages and high limits, and tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing – alleging improper administration by CityCenter of the OCIP and Builders Risk insurance programs. Trial of all claims, including the Perini and remaining subcontractor lien claims against CityCenter, and CityCenter’s counterclaims against Perini and certain subcontractors for defective work at the Harmon has been set to commence on January 14, 2014. The CityCenter Owners and the other defendants will continue to vigorously assert and protect their interests in the Perini lawsuit. The Company believes that a loss with respect to Perini’s punitive damages claim is neither probable nor reasonably possible. Please see below for further discussion on the Company’s completion guarantee obligation which may be impacted by the outcome of the above litigation and the joint venture’s extra-judicial settlement process. CityCenter completion guarantee. In January 2011, the Company entered into an amended completion and cost overrun guarantee, which is collateralized by substantially all of the assets of Circus Circus Las Vegas, as well as certain undeveloped land adjacent to that property. The terms of the amended completion guarantee provide CityCenter the ability to utilize up to $124 million of subsequent net residential proceeds to fund construction costs, or to reimburse the Company for construction costs previously expended. As of March 31, 2013, CityCenter had received net residential proceeds in excess of the $124 million and is holding $112 million in a separate bank account representing the remaining condo proceeds available to fund completion guarantee obligations or be reimbursed to the Company. In accordance with CityCenter’s credit agreement and bond indentures such amounts can only be used to fund construction lien obligations or reimbursed to the Company once the Perini litigation is settled. As of March 31, 2013, the Company has funded $698 million under the completion guarantee and has accrued a liability of $21 million which includes estimated litigation costs related to the resolution of disputes with contractors concerning the final construction costs and estimated amounts to be paid to contractors through the legal process related to the Perini litigation. The Company’s estimated obligation has been offset by the portion of the condominium proceeds received by CityCenter estimated to be used to settle construction lien claims upon the resolution of the Perini litigation but has not been offset by the remaining amount that it currently estimates it will be reimbursed from condominium proceeds that have been received by CityCenter. Also, the Company’s accrual reflects certain estimated offsets to the amounts claimed by the contractors. CityCenter has reached settlement agreements with all but seven of Perini’s first-tier subcontractors. However, significant disputes remain with the general contractor and the remaining subcontractors. Amounts claimed by such parties exceed amounts included in the Company’s completion guarantee accrual by approximately $154 million, as such amounts exceed the Company’s best estimate of its liability. Moreover, the Company has not accrued for any contingent payments to CityCenter related to the Harmon Hotel & Spa component, which will not be completed using the building as it now stands. Harmon demolition. In response to a request by the Clark County Building Division (the “Building Division”), CityCenter engaged an engineer to conduct an analysis, based on all available information, as to the structural stability of the Harmon under building-code-specified load combinations. On July 11, 2011, that engineer submitted the results of his analysis of the Harmon tower and podium in its current as-built condition. The engineer opined, among other things, that “[i]n a code-level earthquake, using either the permitted or current code specified loads, it is likely that critical structural members in the tower will fail and become incapable of supporting gravity loads, leading to a partial or complete collapse of the tower. There is missing or misplaced reinforcing steel in columns, beams, shear walls, and transfer walls throughout the structure of the tower below the twenty-first floor.” Based on this engineering opinion, the Building Division requested a plan of action from CityCenter. CityCenter informed the Building Division that it decided to abate the potential for structural collapse of the Harmon in the event of a code-level earthquake by demolishing the building, and enclosed a plan of action for demolition by implosion prepared by LVI Environmental Services of Nevada, Inc (“LVI”). CityCenter also advised that prior to undertaking the demolition plan of action, it would seek relief from a standing order of the district court judge presiding over the Perini litigation that prohibits alteration or destruction of the building without court approval. In addition, CityCenter supplied the foundational data for the engineering conclusions stated in the July 11, 2011 letter declaring the Harmon’s structural instability in the event of a code-level earthquake. On November 22, 2011, the Building Division required that CityCenter submit a plan to abate the code deficiencies discovered in the Harmon tower. In December 2011, CityCenter resubmitted to the Building Division the plan of abatement action prepared by LVI which was first submitted on August 15, 2011, and met with the Building Division about the requirements necessary to obtain demolition permits and approvals. As discussed above, the timing of the demolition of the Harmon is subject to rulings in the Perini litigation. The Company does not believe it would be responsible for funding under the completion guarantee any additional remediation efforts that might be required with respect to the Harmon; however, the Company’s view is based on a number of developing factors, including with respect to on-going litigation with CityCenter’s contractors, actions by local officials and other developments related to the CityCenter venture, all of which are subject to change. CityCenter’s revolving credit facility provides that certain demolition or repair expenses may be funded only from (i) member contributions designated for demolition of the Harmon, (ii) the proceeds of certain specified extraordinary receipts (which include any proceeds from the Perini litigation) or (iii) cash or cash equivalents in an amount not to exceed $30 million in the aggregate. Based on current estimates, which are subject to change, the Company believes the demolition of the Harmon would cost approximately $32 million. Sales and use tax on complimentary meals. In March 2008, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled, in a case involving another gaming company, that food and non-alcoholic beverages purchased for use in providing complimentary meals to customers and to employees were exempt from use tax. The Company had previously paid use tax on these items and has generally filed for refunds for the periods from January 2001 to February 2008 related to this matter. The Company is claiming the exemption on sales and use tax returns for periods after February 2008 in light of this Nevada Supreme Court decision and has not accrued or paid any sales or use tax for those periods. In February 2012, the Nevada Department of Taxation asserted that customer complimentary meals and employee meals are subject to sales tax on a prospective basis commencing February 15, 2012. In July 2012, the Nevada Department of Taxation announced that sales taxes applicable to such meals are due and payable without penalty or interest at the earlier of certain regulatory, judicial or legislative events or June 30, 2013. The Nevada Department of Taxation’s position stems from a Nevada Tax Commission decision concerning another gaming company which states that complimentary meals provided to customers are subject to sales tax at the retail value of the meal and employee meals are subject to sales tax at the cost of the meal. The other gaming company filed in Clark County District Court a petition for judicial review of the Nevada Tax Commission decision and the court recently issued a ruling in such case holding that complementary meals provided to customers were subject to sales tax, while meals provided to employees were not subject to sales tax. This decision has been appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Company continues to disagree with the Nevada Department of Taxation assertions. Based on an analysis of the facts and circumstances as of the date of these financial statements, the Company does not believe it is probable it will incur a liability with respect to such assertions. Any reasonably possible range of loss would not be material to the Company’s financial statements as of March 31, 2013. Cotai land concession contract. MGM Grand Paradise’s land concession contract for an approximately 17.8 acre site in Cotai, Macau became effective on January 9, 2013 and has an initial term of 25 years. The land premium payable to the Macau government for the land concession contract is $161 million and is composed of a down payment and eight additional semi-annual payments. As of March 31, 2013, MGM China had paid $56 million as the initial down payment of the contract premium recorded within other long-term assets, net of amortization, discussed below. Including interest on the eight semi-annual payments, MGM China has $118 million remaining payable for the land concession contract. The Company accounts for the Cotai land concession contract as an operating lease. As such, the required upfront payments are amortized over the initial 25-year contract term. As of March 31, 2013, the Company had amortized $2 million, which is classified as preopening expense during the construction of the project. In addition, in connection with the effectiveness of the Cotai land concession, the Company extended the useful life of its Macau gaming concession and is amortizing it on a straight-line basis through the initial term of the Cotai land concession. Other guarantees. The Company is party to various guarantee contracts in the normal course of business, which are generally supported by letters of credit issued by financial institutions. The Company’s senior credit facility limits the amount of letters of credit that can be issued to $500 million, and the amount of available borrowings under the senior credit facility is reduced by any outstanding letters of credit. At March 31, 2013, the Company had provided $35 million of total letters of credit. At March 31, 2013, MGM China had provided $39 million of guarantees under its credit facility. Other litigation. The Company is a party to various legal proceedings, most of which relate to routine matters incidental to its business. Management does not believe that the outcome of such proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

NOTE 5 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

CityCenter construction litigation. In March 2010, Perini Building Company, Inc. (“Perini”), general contractor for CityCenter, filed a lawsuit in the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, State of Nevada, against MGM MIRAGE Design Group (a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company which was the original party to the Perini construction agreement) and certain direct or indirect subsidiaries of CityCenter Holdings, LLC (the “CityCenter Owners”). Perini asserted that CityCenter was substantially completed, but the defendants failed to pay Perini approximately $490 million allegedly due and owing under the construction agreement for labor, equipment and materials expended on CityCenter. The complaint further charged the defendants with failure to provide timely and complete design documents, late delivery to Perini of design changes, mismanagement of the change order process, obstruction of Perini’s ability to complete the Harmon component, and fraudulent inducement of Perini to compromise significant amounts due for its general conditions. The complaint advanced claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel, and fraud and intentional misrepresentation. Perini seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.

In April 2010, Perini served an amended complaint in this case which joins as defendants many owners of CityCenter residential condominium units (the “Condo Owner Defendants”), added a count for foreclosure of Perini’s recorded master mechanic’s lien against the CityCenter property in the amount of approximately $491 million, and asserted the priority of this mechanic’s lien over the interests of the CityCenter Owners, the Condo Owner Defendants and CityCenter lenders in the CityCenter property.

The CityCenter Owners and the other defendants dispute Perini’s allegations, and contend that the defendants are entitled to substantial amounts from Perini, including offsets against amounts claimed to be owed to Perini and its subcontractors and damages based on breach of their contractual and other duties to CityCenter, duplicative payment requests, non-conforming work, lack of proof of alleged work performance, defective work related to the Harmon, property damage and Perini’s failure to perform its obligations to pay certain subcontractors and to prevent filing of liens against CityCenter. Parallel to the court litigation, CityCenter management conducted an extra-judicial program for settlement of CityCenter subcontractor claims. CityCenter has resolved the claims of 215 first-tier Perini subcontractors (including the claims of any lower-tier subcontractors that might have claims through those first-tier subcontractors), with only seven remaining for further proceedings along with trial of Perini’s claims and CityCenter’s Harmon-related counterclaim and other claims by CityCenter against Perini and its parent guarantor, Tutor Perini. Three of the remaining subcontractors are implicated in the defective work at the Harmon. In August 2012, Perini recorded an amended notice of lien reducing its lien to approximately $191 million.

In November 2012, Perini filed a second amended complaint which, among other things, added claims against the CityCenter defendants of breach of contract – alleging that CityCenter’s Owner Controlled Insurance Program (“OCIP”) failed to provide adequate project insurance for Perini with broad coverages and high limits, and tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing – alleging improper administration by CityCenter of the OCIP and Builders Risk insurance programs.

Trial of all claims, including the Perini and remaining subcontractor lien claims against CityCenter, and CityCenter’s counterclaims against Perini and certain subcontractors for defective work at the Harmon has been set to commence on January 14, 2014.

The CityCenter Owners and the other defendants will continue to vigorously assert and protect their interests in the Perini lawsuit. The Company believes that a loss with respect to Perini’s punitive damages claim is neither probable nor reasonably possible.

Please see below for further discussion on the Company’s completion guarantee obligation which may be impacted by the outcome of the above litigation and the joint venture’s extra-judicial settlement process.

CityCenter completion guarantee. In January 2011, the Company entered into an amended completion and cost overrun guarantee, which is collateralized by substantially all of the assets of Circus Circus Las Vegas, as well as certain undeveloped land adjacent to that property. The terms of the amended completion guarantee provide CityCenter the ability to utilize up to $124 million of subsequent net residential proceeds to fund construction costs, or to reimburse the Company for construction costs previously expended. As of March 31, 2013, CityCenter had received net residential proceeds in excess of the $124 million and is holding $112 million in a separate bank account representing the remaining condo proceeds available to fund completion guarantee obligations or be reimbursed to the Company. In accordance with CityCenter’s credit agreement and bond indentures such amounts can only be used to fund construction lien obligations or reimbursed to the Company once the Perini litigation is settled.

As of March 31, 2013, the Company has funded $698 million under the completion guarantee and has accrued a liability of $21 million which includes estimated litigation costs related to the resolution of disputes with contractors concerning the final construction costs and estimated amounts to be paid to contractors through the legal process related to the Perini litigation. The Company’s estimated obligation has been offset by the portion of the condominium proceeds received by CityCenter estimated to be used to settle construction lien claims upon the resolution of the Perini litigation but has not been offset by the remaining amount that it currently estimates it will be reimbursed from condominium proceeds that have been received by CityCenter. Also, the Company’s accrual reflects certain estimated offsets to the amounts claimed by the contractors. CityCenter has reached settlement agreements with all but seven of Perini’s first-tier subcontractors. However, significant disputes remain with the general contractor and the remaining subcontractors. Amounts claimed by such parties exceed amounts included in the Company’s completion guarantee accrual by approximately $154 million, as such amounts exceed the Company’s best estimate of its liability. Moreover, the Company has not accrued for any contingent payments to CityCenter related to the Harmon Hotel & Spa component, which will not be completed using the building as it now stands.

Harmon demolition. In response to a request by the Clark County Building Division (the “Building Division”), CityCenter engaged an engineer to conduct an analysis, based on all available information, as to the structural stability of the Harmon under building-code-specified load combinations. On July 11, 2011, that engineer submitted the results of his analysis of the Harmon tower and podium in its current as-built condition. The engineer opined, among other things, that “[i]n a code-level earthquake, using either the permitted or current code specified loads, it is likely that critical structural members in the tower will fail and become incapable of supporting gravity loads, leading to a partial or complete collapse of the tower. There is missing or misplaced reinforcing steel in columns, beams, shear walls, and transfer walls throughout the structure of the tower below the twenty-first floor.” Based on this engineering opinion, the Building Division requested a plan of action from CityCenter. CityCenter informed the Building Division that it decided to abate the potential for structural collapse of the Harmon in the event of a code-level earthquake by demolishing the building, and enclosed a plan of action for demolition by implosion prepared by LVI Environmental Services of Nevada, Inc (“LVI”). CityCenter also advised that prior to undertaking the demolition plan of action, it would seek relief from a standing order of the district court judge presiding over the Perini litigation that prohibits alteration or destruction of the building without court approval. In addition, CityCenter supplied the foundational data for the engineering conclusions stated in the July 11, 2011 letter declaring the Harmon’s structural instability in the event of a code-level earthquake. On November 22, 2011, the Building Division required that CityCenter submit a plan to abate the code deficiencies discovered in the Harmon tower.

In December 2011, CityCenter resubmitted to the Building Division the plan of abatement action prepared by LVI which was first submitted on August 15, 2011, and met with the Building Division about the requirements necessary to obtain demolition permits and approvals. As discussed above, the timing of the demolition of the Harmon is subject to rulings in the Perini litigation.

The Company does not believe it would be responsible for funding under the completion guarantee any additional remediation efforts that might be required with respect to the Harmon; however, the Company’s view is based on a number of developing factors, including with respect to on-going litigation with CityCenter’s contractors, actions by local officials and other developments related to the CityCenter venture, all of which are subject to change. CityCenter’s revolving credit facility provides that certain demolition or repair expenses may be funded only from (i) member contributions designated for demolition of the Harmon, (ii) the proceeds of certain specified extraordinary receipts (which include any proceeds from the Perini litigation) or (iii) cash or cash equivalents in an amount not to exceed $30 million in the aggregate. Based on current estimates, which are subject to change, the Company believes the demolition of the Harmon would cost approximately $32 million.

Sales and use tax on complimentary meals. In March 2008, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled, in a case involving another gaming company, that food and non-alcoholic beverages purchased for use in providing complimentary meals to customers and to employees were exempt from use tax. The Company had previously paid use tax on these items and has generally filed for refunds for the periods from January 2001 to February 2008 related to this matter. The Company is claiming the exemption on sales and use tax returns for periods after February 2008 in light of this Nevada Supreme Court decision and has not accrued or paid any sales or use tax for those periods. In February 2012, the Nevada Department of Taxation asserted that customer complimentary meals and employee meals are subject to sales tax on a prospective basis commencing February 15, 2012. In July 2012, the Nevada Department of Taxation announced that sales taxes applicable to such meals are due and payable without penalty or interest at the earlier of certain regulatory, judicial or legislative events or June 30, 2013. The Nevada Department of Taxation’s position stems from a Nevada Tax Commission decision concerning another gaming company which states that complimentary meals provided to customers are subject to sales tax at the retail value of the meal and employee meals are subject to sales tax at the cost of the meal. The other gaming company filed in Clark County District Court a petition for judicial review of the Nevada Tax Commission decision and the court recently issued a ruling in such case holding that complementary meals provided to customers were subject to sales tax, while meals provided to employees were not subject to sales tax. This decision has been appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Company continues to disagree with the Nevada Department of Taxation assertions. Based on an analysis of the facts and circumstances as of the date of these financial statements, the Company does not believe it is probable it will incur a liability with respect to such assertions. Any reasonably possible range of loss would not be material to the Company’s financial statements as of March 31, 2013.

Cotai land concession contract. MGM Grand Paradise’s land concession contract for an approximately 17.8 acre site in Cotai, Macau became effective on January 9, 2013 and has an initial term of 25 years. The land premium payable to the Macau government for the land concession contract is $161 million and is composed of a down payment and eight additional semi-annual payments. As of March 31, 2013, MGM China had paid $56 million as the initial down payment of the contract premium recorded within other long-term assets, net of amortization, discussed below. Including interest on the eight semi-annual payments, MGM China has $118 million remaining payable for the land concession contract. The Company accounts for the Cotai land concession contract as an operating lease. As such, the required upfront payments are amortized over the initial 25-year contract term. As of March 31, 2013, the Company had amortized $2 million, which is classified as preopening expense during the construction of the project. In addition, in connection with the effectiveness of the Cotai land concession, the Company extended the useful life of its Macau gaming concession and is amortizing it on a straight-line basis through the initial term of the Cotai land concession.

Other guarantees. The Company is party to various guarantee contracts in the normal course of business, which are generally supported by letters of credit issued by financial institutions. The Company’s senior credit facility limits the amount of letters of credit that can be issued to $500 million, and the amount of available borrowings under the senior credit facility is reduced by any outstanding letters of credit. At March 31, 2013, the Company had provided $35 million of total letters of credit. At March 31, 2013, MGM China had provided $39 million of guarantees under its credit facility.

Other litigation. The Company is a party to various legal proceedings, most of which relate to routine matters incidental to its business. Management does not believe that the outcome of such proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.