XML 45 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
Fair Value Measurements
 6 Months Ended
Jul. 01, 2012
Fair Value Disclosures [Abstract]  
Fair Value Measurements
Fair Value Measurements:
The FASB Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) relating to fair value measurements emphasizes that fair value is a market-based measurement that should be determined based on assumptions (inputs) that market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability. Inputs may be observable or unobservable, and valuation techniques used to measure fair value should maximize the use of relevant observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs. Accordingly, the FASB’s ASC establishes a hierarchal disclosure framework that ranks the quality and reliability of information used to determine fair values. The hierarchy is associated with the level of pricing observability utilized in measuring fair value and defines three levels of inputs to the fair value measurement process—quoted prices are the most reliable valuation inputs, whereas model values that include inputs based on unobservable data are the least reliable. Each fair value measurement must be assigned to a level corresponding to the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety.
The three broad levels of inputs defined by the fair value hierarchy are as follows:
 
•
Level 1 – inputs to the valuation methodology are quoted prices (unadjusted) for identical assets or liabilities in active markets.
 
•
Level 2 – inputs to the valuation methodology include quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities in active markets, and inputs that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly, for substantially the full term of the financial instrument.
 
•
Level 3 – inputs to the valuation methodology are unobservable and significant to the fair value measurement.

A financial instrument’s categorization within the valuation hierarchy is based upon the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement.
 
The table below presents the balances of assets and liabilities measured at fair value as of July 1, 2012, December 31, 2011, and June 26, 2011 on a recurring basis:
 
 
Total
 
Level 1
 
Level 2
 
Level 3
July 1, 2012
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(In thousands)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interest rate swap agreements (1)
 
$
(35,146
)
 
$
—

 
$
(35,146
)
 
$
—

Net derivative liability
 
$
(35,146
)
 
$
—

 
$
(35,146
)
 
$
—

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
December 31, 2011
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interest rate swap agreements (1)
 
$
(32,400
)
 
$
—

 
$
(32,400
)
 
$
—

Cross-currency swap agreements (2)
 
(37,617
)
 
—

 
(37,617
)
 
—

Foreign currency swap agreements (2)
 
(13,155
)
 
—

 
(13,155
)
 
—

Net derivative liability
 
$
(83,172
)
 
$
—

 
$
(83,172
)
 
$
—

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
June 26, 2011
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interest rate swap agreements (1)
 
$
(16,750
)
 
$
—

 
$
(16,750
)
 
$
—

Interest rate swap agreements (2)
 
(20,193
)
 
—

 
(20,193
)
 
—

Cross-currency swap agreements (2)
 
(53,107
)
 
—

 
(53,107
)
 
—

Foreign currency swap agreements (2)
 
(4,273
)
 
—

 
(4,273
)
 
—

Net derivative liability
 
$
(94,323
)
 
$
—

 
$
(94,323
)
 
$
—

(1)
Included in “Derivative Liability” on the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet
(2)
Included in "Current derivative liability" on the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet

Fair values of the interest rate, cross-currency and foreign currency swap agreements are determined using significant inputs, including the LIBOR and foreign currency forward curves, that are considered Level 2 observable market inputs. In addition, the Partnership considered the effect of its credit and non-performance risk on the fair values provided, and recognized an adjustment decreasing the net derivative liability by approximately $1.1 million as of July 1, 2012.
There were no assets measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis at July 1, 2012, December 31, 2011, or June 26, 2011.


In 2010, the Partnership concluded based on operating results, as well as updated forecasts, that a review of the carrying value of long-lived assets at California's Great America was warranted. After performing its review, the Partnership determined that a portion of the park's fixed assets, the majority of which were originally recorded with the PPI acquisition, were impaired. As a result, it recognized $62.0 million of fixed-asset impairment during the fourth quarter of 2010.

After completing its 2010 annual review of indefinite-lived intangibles for impairment, the Partnership concluded that a portion of trade-names originally recorded with the PPI acquisition were impaired. As a result, the Partnership recognized approximately $0.9 million of trade-name impairment during the fourth quarter of 2010. A relief-from-royalty model is used to determine whether the fair value of trade-names exceeds their carrying amount. The fair value of the trade-names is determined as the present value of fees avoided by owning the respective trade-name.
The fair value of term debt at July 1, 2012 was approximately $1,143.6 million based on borrowing rates currently available to the Partnership on long-term debt with similar terms and average maturities. The fair value of the Partnership's notes at July 1, 2012 was approximately $360.7 million based on borrowing rates available as of that date to the Partnership on notes with similar terms and maturities.