Litigation	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation	Litigation Litigation Noteholder Disputes On August 4, 2014, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, solely in its capacity as successor Indenture Trustee for the 10.00% Second-Priority Senior Secured Notes due 2018 (the "10.00% Second-Priority Notes"), on behalf of itself and, it alleges, derivatively on behalf of CEOC, filed a lawsuit (the "Second Lien Lawsuit") in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware against CEC and CEOC, Caesars Growth Partners, LLC (“CGP LLC”), Caesars Acquisition Company (“CAC”), Caesars Entertainment Resort Properties, LLC (“CERP”), Caesars Enterprise Services, LLC (“CES”), Eric Hession, Gary Loveman, Jeffrey D. Benjamin, David Bonderman, Kelvin L. Davis, Marc C. Rowan, David B. Sambur, and Eric Press. The lawsuit alleges claims for breach of contract, intentional and constructive fraudulent transfer, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and corporate waste. The lawsuit seeks (1) an award of money damages; (2) to void certain transfers, the earliest of which dates back to 2010; (3) an injunction directing the recipients of the assets in these transactions to return them to CEOC; (4) a declaration that CEC remains liable under the parent guarantee formerly applicable to the 10.00% Second-Priority Notes; (5) to impose a constructive trust or equitable lien on the transferred assets; and (6) an award to plaintiffs for their attorneys’ fees and costs. CEC believes this lawsuit is without merit and will defend itself vigorously. A motion to dismiss this action was filed by CEC and other defendants in September 2014, and the motion was argued in December 2014. During the pendency of its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, the action has been automatically stayed with respect to CEOC. Vice Chancellor Glasscock denied the motion to dismiss with respect to CEC on March 18, 2015. Subsequently, plaintiffs advised the judge presiding over the CEOC bankruptcy proceeding that they would pursue in this litigation only those claims alleging that CEC remains liable under the parent guarantee formerly applicable to the 10.00% Second-Priority Notes. On August 5, 2014, CEC, along with CEOC, filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against certain institutional first and second lien note holders. The complaint states that such institutional first and second lien note holders have acted against the best interests of CEOC and other creditors, including for the purpose of inflating the value of their credit default swap positions or improving other unique securities positions. The complaint asserts claims for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, declaratory judgment and breach of contract and seeks, among other things, (1) money damages; (2) a declaration that no default or event of default has occurred or is occurring and that CEC and CEOC have not breached their fiduciary duties or engaged in fraudulent transfers or other violation of law; and (3) a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from taking further actions to damage CEC or CEOC. Defendants filed motions to dismiss this action in October 2014 and the issue has now been fully briefed. The parties have agreed to stay discovery until a decision on the motion to dismiss is issued in this action. Claims against the first lien note holder defendant have been voluntarily dismissed. On September 3, 2014, holders of approximately $21 million of CEOC 6.50% Senior Unsecured Notes due 2016 and 5.75% Senior Unsecured Noted due 2017 (collectively, the “Senior Unsecured Notes”) filed suit in federal district court in Manhattan against CEC and CEOC, claiming broadly that an August 12, 2014 Note Purchase and Support Agreement between CEC and CEOC (on the one hand) and certain other holders of the Senior Unsecured Notes (on the other hand) impaired their own rights under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 and the indentures governing the Senior Unsecured Notes. The lawsuit seeks both declaratory and monetary relief. On October 2, 2014, a holder of CEOC’s 6.50% Senior Unsecured Notes due 2016 purporting to represent a class of all persons who held these Notes from August 11, 2014 to the present filed a substantially similar suit in the same court, against the same defendants, relating to the same transactions. Both lawsuits (the "Parent Guarantee Lawsuits") have been assigned to the same judge. Although the claims against CEOC have been automatically stayed during its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, the court denied a motion to dismiss both lawsuits with respect to CEC, and discovery has begun with respect to the plaintiffs' claims against CEC. On November 25, 2014, UMB Bank, as successor indenture trustee for CEOC's 8.50% Senior Secured Notes due 2020 (the “8.50% Senior Secured Notes”), filed a verified complaint (the "First Lien Lawsuit") in Delaware Chancery Court against CEC, CEOC, CERP, CAC, CGP LLC, CES, and against individual past and present Board members Loveman, Benjamin, Bonderman, Davis, Press, Rowan, Sambur, Hession, Colvin, Kleisner, Swann, Williams, Housenbold, Cohen, Stauber, and Winograd, alleging generally that defendants improperly stripped CEOC of certain assets, wrongfully affected a release of CEC’s parent guarantee of the 8.50% Senior Secured Notes and committed other wrongs. Among other things, UMB Bank asked the court to appoint a receiver over CEOC. In addition, the suit pleads claims for fraudulent conveyances/transfers, insider preferences, illegal dividends, declaratory judgment (for breach of contract as regards to the parent guarantee and also as to certain covenants in the bond indenture), tortious interference with contract, breach of fiduciary duty, usurpation of corporate opportunities, and unjust enrichment, and seeks monetary, equitable and declaratory relief. The lawsuit has been automatically stayed with respect to CEOC during its Chapter 11 bankruptcy process. Pursuant to the RSA, the lawsuit also has been stayed in its entirety, with the consent of all of the parties to it. The consensual stay will expire upon the termination of the RSA. On February 13, 2015, Caesars Entertainment received a Demand For Payment of Guaranteed Obligations (the “February 13 Notice”) from Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, in its capacity as successor Trustee for CEOC’s 10.00% Second-Priority Notes. The February 13 Notice alleges that CEOC’s commencement of its voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy case constituted an event of default under the indenture governing the 10.00% Second-Priority Notes; that all amounts due and owing on the 10.00% Second-Priority Notes therefore immediately became payable; and that Caesars Entertainment is responsible for paying CEOC’s obligations on the 10.00% Second-Priority Notes, including CEOC’s obligation to timely pay all principal, interest, and any premium due on these notes, as a result of a parent guarantee provision contained in the indenture governing the notes that the February 13 Notice alleges is still binding. The February 13 Notice accordingly demands that Caesars Entertainment immediately pay Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, cash in an amount of not less than $3.7 billion, plus accrued and unpaid interest (including without limitation the $184 million interest payment due December 15, 2014 that CEOC elected not to pay) and accrued and unpaid attorneys’ fees and other expenses. The February 13 Notice also alleges that the interest, fees and expenses continue to accrue. On February 18, 2015, Caesars Entertainment received a Demand For Payment of Guaranteed Obligations (the “February 18 Notice”) from BOKF, N.A., in its capacity as successor Trustee for CEOC’s 12.75% Second-Priority Senior Secured Notes due 2018 (the “12.75% Second-Priority Notes”). The February 18 Notice alleges that CEOC’s commencement of its voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy case constituted an event of default under the indenture governing the 12.75% Second-Priority Notes; that all amounts due and owing on the 12.75% Second-Priority Notes therefore immediately became payable; and that CEC is responsible for paying CEOC’s obligations on the 12.75% Second-Priority Notes, including CEOC’s obligation to timely pay all principal, interest and any premium due on these notes, as a result of a parent guarantee provision contained in the indenture governing the notes that the February 18 Notice alleges is still binding. The February 18 Notice therefore demands that CEC immediately pay BOKF, N.A., cash in an amount of not less than $750 million, plus accrued and unpaid interest, accrued and unpaid attorneys’ fees, and other expenses. The February 18 Notice also alleges that the interest, fees and expenses continue to accrue. In accordance with the terms of the applicable indentures and as previously disclosed under Item 8.01 in our Current Report on Form 8-K filed August 22, 2014, CEC is not subject to the above-described guarantees. As a result, we believe the demands for payment are meritless. On March 3, 2015, BOKF, N.A. filed an additional Parent Guarantee Lawsuit against CEC in federal district court in Manhattan, in its capacity as successor trustee for CEOC’s 12.75% Second-Priority Notes. Plaintiff alleges there that CEOC’s filing of its voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy case constitutes an event of default under the indenture governing these notes, causing all principal and interest to become immediately due and payable, and that CEC is obligated to make those payments pursuant to a parent guarantee provision in the indenture governing these notes that plaintiff alleges is still binding. Plaintiff brings claims for violation of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and for declaratory relief. The case has been assigned to the same judge presiding over the other Unsecured Note Lawsuits. CEC filed its answer to the BOKF complaint on March 25, 2015, and the parties are currently engaged in discovery. The Company believes that the claims and demands described above against CEC are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The claims against CEOC have been stayed due to the Chapter 11 process and, in some instances, the actions against CEC have been allowed to continue. At the present time, the Company believes that it is not probable that a material loss will result from the outcome of these matters. However, the Noteholder Disputes are in their very preliminary stages and discovery has only recently begun in several of them, including in the Parent Guarantee Lawsuits. We cannot provide assurance as to the outcome of any of the Noteholder Disputes or of the range of potential losses should any of the Noteholder Disputes ultimately be resolved against us, due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation and the current stage of these litigations. Should these matters ultimately be resolved through litigation outside of the financial restructuring of CEOC (the “Financial Restructuring”), and should a court find in favor of the claimants in any of these Noteholder Disputes, such determination could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows (see Note 1). CEC-CAC Merger Litigation On December 30, 2014, Nicholas Koskie, on behalf of himself and, he alleges, all others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit (the “Merger Lawsuit”) in the Clark County District Court in the State of Nevada against CAC, CEC and members of the CAC board of directors Marc Beilinson, Philip Erlanger, Dhiren Fonseca, Don Kornstein, Karl Peterson, Marc Rowan, and David Sambur (the individual defendants collectively, the “CAC Directors”). The Merger Lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the CAC Directors and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against CAC and CEC. It seeks (1) an order directing the CAC Directors to fulfill alleged fiduciary duties to CAC in connection with the proposed merger between CAC and CEC announced on December 22, 2014 (the “Proposed Merger”), specifically by announcing their intention to (a) cooperate with bona fide interested parties proposing alternative transactions, (b) ensure that no conflicts exist between the CAC Directors’ personal interests and their fiduciary duties to maximize shareholder value in the Proposed Merger, or resolve all such conflicts in favor of the latter, and (c) act independently to protect the interests of the shareholders; (2) an order directing the CAC Directors to account for all damages suffered or to be suffered by plaintiff and the putative class as a result of the Proposed Merger; and (3) an award to plaintiff for his costs and attorneys’ fees. It is unclear whether the Merger Lawsuit also seeks to enjoin the Proposed Merger. CEC believes that this lawsuit is without merit and will defend itself vigorously. The deadline to respond to the Merger Lawsuit has been adjourned without a date by agreement of the parties. Employee Benefit Obligations In December 1998, Hilton Hotels Corporation (“Hilton”) spun-off its gaming operations as Park Place Entertainment Corporation (“Park Place”). In connection with the spin-off, Hilton and Park Place entered into various agreements, including an Employee Benefits and Other Employment Allocation Agreement dated December 31, 1998 (the “Allocation Agreement”) whereby Park Place assumed or retained, as applicable, certain liabilities and excess assets, if any, related to the Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan (the “Hilton Plan”) based on the benefits of Hilton employees and Park Place employees. CEOC is the ultimate successor to this Allocation Agreement. In 2013, a lawsuit was settled related to the Hilton Plan, which retroactively and prospectively increased total benefits to be paid under the Hilton Plan. In 2009, the Company received a letter from Hilton, notifying the Company of a lawsuit related to the Hilton Plan which alleged that the Company had potential liability for the additional claims under the terms of the Allocation Agreement. Based on conversations between the Company’s representative and a representative of the defendants, the Company recorded a charge of $25 million during the second quarter 2010, representing the Company’s (including subsidiaries) allocated share of the total damages estimate. In December 2013, the Company received a letter from Hilton notifying it that all final court rulings have been rendered in relation to this matter. The Company was subsequently informed that its obligation under the Allocation Agreement was approximately $54 million, and that approximately $19 million relates to contributions for historical periods and approximately $35 million relates to estimated future contributions. The Company met with Hilton representatives in March 2014 and had discussions subsequently. The Company cannot currently predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, but continues to believe that it may have various defenses against such claims, including defenses as to the amount of liabilities. On November 21, 2014, in response to a letter from Hilton, the Company agreed to attempt to mediate a resolution of the matter. On December 24, 2014, Hilton sued CEC and CEOC in federal court in Virginia primarily under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), and also under state contract and unjust enrichment law theories, for monetary and equitable relief in connection with this ongoing dispute. Hilton amended its lawsuit in January 2015 to remove CEOC as a defendant. CEC moved to dismiss the lawsuit in February 2015 and that motion was argued in March 2015. On April 14, 2015, the Court issued an Opinion dismissing with prejudice the unjust enrichment claim, and transferring the purported contract and ERISA claims to the Northern District of Illinois, as had been requested by CEC. Other Matters In January 2015, the National Retirement Fund (“NRF”), a multi-employer defined benefit pension plan, voted to expel Caesars Entertainment and its participating subsidiaries (“CEC Group”) from the plan. NRF claims that CEOC’s bankruptcy presents an “actuarial risk” to the plan because, depending on the outcome of the bankruptcy proceeding, Caesars Entertainment might no longer be liable to the plan for any partial or complete withdrawal liability. NRF has advised the CEC Group that its expulsion has triggered withdrawal liability with a present value of approximately $360 million, payable in 80 quarterly payments of about $6 million. Prior to NRF’s vote, the CEC Group reiterated its commitment to remain in the plan and not seek rejection of any collective bargaining agreement in which the obligation to contribute to NRF exists. It is completely current with respect to pension contributions. Caesars Entertainment has opposed the NRF actions in the appropriate legal forums including in the CEOC bankruptcy proceeding. The parties entered into a Standstill Agreement in March 2015, setting a briefing schedule for both CEOC’s motion that NRF’s action violated the automatic stay and CEC’s motion to extend the stay to encompass NRF’s collection lawsuit against CEC. All briefs are due by May 21, 2015, and a hearing is to be scheduled before the Bankruptcy Court on or about May 27, 2015. Caesars Entertainment believes that its legal arguments against the actions undertaken by NRF are strong and will pursue them vigorously. Because legal proceedings with respect to this matter are at the preliminary stages, we cannot currently provide assurance as to the ultimate outcome of the matters at issue. In recent years, governmental authorities have been increasingly focused on anti-money laundering (“AML”) policies and procedures, with a particular focus on the gaming industry. On October 11, 2013, the Company’s subsidiary, Desert Palace, Inc. (the owner of and referred to herein as Caesars Palace), received a letter from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the United States Department of the Treasury (“FinCEN”), stating that FinCEN is investigating Caesars Palace for alleged violations of the Bank Secrecy Act to determine whether it is appropriate to assess a civil penalty and/or take additional enforcement action against Caesars Palace. Caesars Palace responded to FinCEN’s letter on January 13, 2014. Additionally, the Company was informed in October 2013 that a federal grand jury investigation regarding anti-money laundering practices of the Company and its subsidiaries had been initiated. The Company and Caesars Palace have been fully cooperating with both the FinCEN and grand jury investigations since October 2013. On April 29, 2015, representatives of Caesars Palace met with representatives of the various governmental entities involved. At that meeting, the governmental parties reviewed with the representatives of Caesars Palace in general terms the results of their investigations and proposed a range of potential settlement outcomes, including fines in the range of $12 million to $20 million. Caesars Palace is evaluating the government’s proposals, and representatives of Caesars Palace expect to meet with the governmental parties next month to further discuss the resolution of these matters. Caesars Palace is a subsidiary of CEOC and, because of CEOC’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing on January 15, 2015, has been, together with CEOC’s other subsidiaries, deconsolidated from CEC’s financial results. Accordingly, we expect that any financial penalties imposed upon Caesars Palace would not impact CEC’s financial results. The Company is party to other ordinary and routine litigation incidental to our business. We do not expect the outcome of any such litigation to have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, as we do not believe it is reasonably possible that we will incur material losses as a result of such litigation.

Litigation

Noteholder Disputes

On August 4, 2014, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, solely in its capacity as successor Indenture Trustee for the 10.00% Second-Priority Senior Secured Notes due 2018 (the "10.00% Second-Priority Notes"), on behalf of itself and, it alleges, derivatively on behalf of CEOC, filed a lawsuit (the "Second Lien Lawsuit") in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware against CEC and CEOC, Caesars Growth Partners, LLC (“CGP LLC”), Caesars Acquisition Company (“CAC”), Caesars Entertainment Resort Properties, LLC (“CERP”), Caesars Enterprise Services, LLC (“CES”), Eric Hession, Gary Loveman, Jeffrey D. Benjamin, David Bonderman, Kelvin L. Davis, Marc C. Rowan, David B. Sambur, and Eric Press. The lawsuit alleges claims for breach of contract, intentional and constructive fraudulent transfer, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and corporate waste. The lawsuit seeks (1) an award of money damages; (2) to void certain transfers, the earliest of which dates back to 2010; (3) an injunction directing the recipients of the assets in these transactions to return them to CEOC; (4) a declaration that CEC remains liable under the parent guarantee formerly applicable to the 10.00% Second-Priority Notes; (5) to impose a constructive trust or equitable lien on the transferred assets; and (6) an award to plaintiffs for their attorneys’ fees and costs. CEC believes this lawsuit is without merit and will defend itself vigorously. A motion to dismiss this action was filed by CEC and other defendants in September 2014, and the motion was argued in December 2014. During the pendency of its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, the action has been automatically stayed with respect to CEOC. Vice Chancellor Glasscock denied the motion to dismiss with respect to CEC on March 18, 2015. Subsequently, plaintiffs advised the judge presiding over the CEOC bankruptcy proceeding that they would pursue in this litigation only those claims alleging that CEC remains liable under the parent guarantee formerly applicable to the 10.00% Second-Priority Notes.

On August 5, 2014, CEC, along with CEOC, filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against certain institutional first and second lien note holders. The complaint states that such institutional first and second lien note holders have acted against the best interests of CEOC and other creditors, including for the purpose of inflating the value of their credit default swap positions or improving other unique securities positions. The complaint asserts claims for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, declaratory judgment and breach of contract and seeks, among other things, (1) money damages; (2) a declaration that no default or event of default has occurred or is occurring and that CEC and CEOC have not breached their fiduciary duties or engaged in fraudulent transfers or other violation of law; and (3) a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from taking further actions to damage CEC or CEOC. Defendants filed motions to dismiss this action in October 2014 and the issue has now been fully briefed. The parties have agreed to stay discovery until a decision on the motion to dismiss is issued in this action. Claims against the first lien note holder defendant have been voluntarily dismissed.

On September 3, 2014, holders of approximately $21 million of CEOC 6.50% Senior Unsecured Notes due 2016 and 5.75% Senior Unsecured Noted due 2017 (collectively, the “Senior Unsecured Notes”) filed suit in federal district court in Manhattan against CEC and CEOC, claiming broadly that an August 12, 2014 Note Purchase and Support Agreement between CEC and CEOC (on the one hand) and certain other holders of the Senior Unsecured Notes (on the other hand) impaired their own rights under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 and the indentures governing the Senior Unsecured Notes. The lawsuit seeks both declaratory and monetary relief. On October 2, 2014, a holder of CEOC’s 6.50% Senior Unsecured Notes due 2016 purporting to represent a class of all persons who held these Notes from August 11, 2014 to the present filed a substantially similar suit in the same court, against the same defendants, relating to the same transactions. Both lawsuits (the "Parent Guarantee Lawsuits") have been assigned to the same judge. Although the claims against CEOC have been automatically stayed during its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, the court denied a motion to dismiss both lawsuits with respect to CEC, and discovery has begun with respect to the plaintiffs' claims against CEC.

On November 25, 2014, UMB Bank, as successor indenture trustee for CEOC's 8.50% Senior Secured Notes due 2020 (the “8.50% Senior Secured Notes”), filed a verified complaint (the "First Lien Lawsuit") in Delaware Chancery Court against CEC, CEOC, CERP, CAC, CGP LLC, CES, and against individual past and present Board members Loveman, Benjamin, Bonderman, Davis, Press, Rowan, Sambur, Hession, Colvin, Kleisner, Swann, Williams, Housenbold, Cohen, Stauber, and Winograd, alleging generally that defendants improperly stripped CEOC of certain assets, wrongfully affected a release of CEC’s parent guarantee of the 8.50% Senior Secured Notes and committed other wrongs. Among other things, UMB Bank asked the court to appoint a receiver over CEOC. In addition, the suit pleads claims for fraudulent conveyances/transfers, insider preferences, illegal dividends, declaratory judgment (for breach of contract as regards to the parent guarantee and also as to certain covenants in the bond indenture), tortious interference with contract, breach of fiduciary duty, usurpation of corporate opportunities, and unjust enrichment, and seeks monetary, equitable and declaratory relief. The lawsuit has been automatically stayed with respect to CEOC during its Chapter 11 bankruptcy process. Pursuant to the RSA, the lawsuit also has been stayed in its entirety, with the consent of all of the parties to it. The consensual stay will expire upon the termination of the RSA.

On February 13, 2015, Caesars Entertainment received a Demand For Payment of Guaranteed Obligations (the “February 13 Notice”) from Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, in its capacity as successor Trustee for CEOC’s 10.00% Second-Priority Notes. The February 13 Notice alleges that CEOC’s commencement of its voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy case constituted an event of default under the indenture governing the 10.00% Second-Priority Notes; that all amounts due and owing on the 10.00% Second-Priority Notes therefore immediately became payable; and that Caesars Entertainment is responsible for paying CEOC’s obligations on the 10.00% Second-Priority Notes, including CEOC’s obligation to timely pay all principal, interest, and any premium due on these notes, as a result of a parent guarantee provision contained in the indenture governing the notes that the February 13 Notice alleges is still binding. The February 13 Notice accordingly demands that Caesars Entertainment immediately pay Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, cash in an amount of not less than $3.7 billion, plus accrued and unpaid interest (including without limitation the $184 million interest payment due December 15, 2014 that CEOC elected not to pay) and accrued and unpaid attorneys’ fees and other expenses. The February 13 Notice also alleges that the interest, fees and expenses continue to accrue.

On February 18, 2015, Caesars Entertainment received a Demand For Payment of Guaranteed Obligations (the “February 18 Notice”) from BOKF, N.A., in its capacity as successor Trustee for CEOC’s 12.75% Second-Priority Senior Secured Notes due 2018 (the “12.75% Second-Priority Notes”). The February 18 Notice alleges that CEOC’s commencement of its voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy case constituted an event of default under the indenture governing the 12.75% Second-Priority Notes; that all amounts due and owing on the 12.75% Second-Priority Notes therefore immediately became payable; and that CEC is responsible for paying CEOC’s obligations on the 12.75% Second-Priority Notes, including CEOC’s obligation to timely pay all principal, interest and any premium due on these notes, as a result of a parent guarantee provision contained in the indenture governing the notes that the February 18 Notice alleges is still binding. The February 18 Notice therefore demands that CEC immediately pay BOKF, N.A., cash in an amount of not less than $750 million, plus accrued and unpaid interest, accrued and unpaid attorneys’ fees, and other expenses. The February 18 Notice also alleges that the interest, fees and expenses continue to accrue.

In accordance with the terms of the applicable indentures and as previously disclosed under Item 8.01 in our Current Report on Form 8-K filed August 22, 2014, CEC is not subject to the above-described guarantees. As a result, we believe the demands for payment are meritless.

On March 3, 2015, BOKF, N.A. filed an additional Parent Guarantee Lawsuit against CEC in federal district court in Manhattan, in its capacity as successor trustee for CEOC’s 12.75% Second-Priority Notes. Plaintiff alleges there that CEOC’s filing of its voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy case constitutes an event of default under the indenture governing these notes, causing all principal and interest to become immediately due and payable, and that CEC is obligated to make those payments pursuant to a parent guarantee provision in the indenture governing these notes that plaintiff alleges is still binding. Plaintiff brings claims for violation of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and for declaratory relief. The case has been assigned to the same judge presiding over the other Unsecured Note Lawsuits. CEC filed its answer to the BOKF complaint on March 25, 2015, and the parties are currently engaged in discovery.

The Company believes that the claims and demands described above against CEC are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The claims against CEOC have been stayed due to the Chapter 11 process and, in some instances, the actions against CEC have been allowed to continue. At the present time, the Company believes that it is not probable that a material loss will result from the outcome of these matters. However, the Noteholder Disputes are in their very preliminary stages and discovery has only recently begun in several of them, including in the Parent Guarantee Lawsuits. We cannot provide assurance as to the outcome of any of the Noteholder Disputes or of the range of potential losses should any of the Noteholder Disputes ultimately be resolved against us, due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation and the current stage of these litigations. Should these matters ultimately be resolved through litigation outside of the financial restructuring of CEOC (the “Financial Restructuring”), and should a court find in favor of the claimants in any of these Noteholder Disputes, such determination could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows (see Note 1).

CEC-CAC Merger Litigation

On December 30, 2014, Nicholas Koskie, on behalf of himself and, he alleges, all others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit (the “Merger Lawsuit”) in the Clark County District Court in the State of Nevada against CAC, CEC and members of the CAC board of directors Marc Beilinson, Philip Erlanger, Dhiren Fonseca, Don Kornstein, Karl Peterson, Marc Rowan, and David Sambur (the individual defendants collectively, the “CAC Directors”). The Merger Lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the CAC Directors and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against CAC and CEC. It seeks (1) an order directing the CAC Directors to fulfill alleged fiduciary duties to CAC in connection with the proposed merger between CAC and CEC announced on December 22, 2014 (the “Proposed Merger”), specifically by announcing their intention to (a) cooperate with bona fide interested parties proposing alternative transactions, (b) ensure that no conflicts exist between the CAC Directors’ personal interests and their fiduciary duties to maximize shareholder value in the Proposed Merger, or resolve all such conflicts in favor of the latter, and (c) act independently to protect the interests of the shareholders; (2) an order directing the CAC Directors to account for all damages suffered or to be suffered by plaintiff and the putative class as a result of the Proposed Merger; and (3) an award to plaintiff for his costs and attorneys’ fees. It is unclear whether the Merger Lawsuit also seeks to enjoin the Proposed Merger. CEC believes that this lawsuit is without merit and will defend itself vigorously. The deadline to respond to the Merger Lawsuit has been adjourned without a date by agreement of the parties.

Employee Benefit Obligations

In December 1998, Hilton Hotels Corporation (“Hilton”) spun-off its gaming operations as Park Place Entertainment Corporation (“Park Place”). In connection with the spin-off, Hilton and Park Place entered into various agreements, including an Employee Benefits and Other Employment Allocation Agreement dated December 31, 1998 (the “Allocation Agreement”) whereby Park Place assumed or retained, as applicable, certain liabilities and excess assets, if any, related to the Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan (the “Hilton Plan”) based on the benefits of Hilton employees and Park Place employees. CEOC is the ultimate successor to this Allocation Agreement. In 2013, a lawsuit was settled related to the Hilton Plan, which retroactively and prospectively increased total benefits to be paid under the Hilton Plan. In 2009, the Company received a letter from Hilton, notifying the Company of a lawsuit related to the Hilton Plan which alleged that the Company had potential liability for the additional claims under the terms of the Allocation Agreement. Based on conversations between the Company’s representative and a representative of the defendants, the Company recorded a charge of $25 million during the second quarter 2010, representing the Company’s (including subsidiaries) allocated share of the total damages estimate.

In December 2013, the Company received a letter from Hilton notifying it that all final court rulings have been rendered in relation to this matter. The Company was subsequently informed that its obligation under the Allocation Agreement was approximately $54 million, and that approximately $19 million relates to contributions for historical periods and approximately $35 million relates to estimated future contributions. The Company met with Hilton representatives in March 2014 and had discussions subsequently. The Company cannot currently predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, but continues to believe that it may have various defenses against such claims, including defenses as to the amount of liabilities. On November 21, 2014, in response to a letter from Hilton, the Company agreed to attempt to mediate a resolution of the matter. On December 24, 2014, Hilton sued CEC and CEOC in federal court in Virginia primarily under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), and also under state contract and unjust enrichment law theories, for monetary and equitable relief in connection with this ongoing dispute. Hilton amended its lawsuit in January 2015 to remove CEOC as a defendant. CEC moved to dismiss the lawsuit in February 2015 and that motion was argued in March 2015. On April 14, 2015, the Court issued an Opinion dismissing with prejudice the unjust enrichment claim, and transferring the purported contract and ERISA claims to the Northern District of Illinois, as had been requested by CEC.

Other Matters

In January 2015, the National Retirement Fund (“NRF”), a multi-employer defined benefit pension plan, voted to expel Caesars Entertainment and its participating subsidiaries (“CEC Group”) from the plan. NRF claims that CEOC’s bankruptcy presents an “actuarial risk” to the plan because, depending on the outcome of the bankruptcy proceeding, Caesars Entertainment might no longer be liable to the plan for any partial or complete withdrawal liability. NRF has advised the CEC Group that its expulsion has triggered withdrawal liability with a present value of approximately $360 million, payable in 80 quarterly payments of about $6 million.

Prior to NRF’s vote, the CEC Group reiterated its commitment to remain in the plan and not seek rejection of any collective bargaining agreement in which the obligation to contribute to NRF exists. It is completely current with respect to pension contributions. Caesars Entertainment has opposed the NRF actions in the appropriate legal forums including in the CEOC bankruptcy proceeding. The parties entered into a Standstill Agreement in March 2015, setting a briefing schedule for both CEOC’s motion that NRF’s action violated the automatic stay and CEC’s motion to extend the stay to encompass NRF’s collection lawsuit against CEC. All briefs are due by May 21, 2015, and a hearing is to be scheduled before the Bankruptcy Court on or about May 27, 2015.

Caesars Entertainment believes that its legal arguments against the actions undertaken by NRF are strong and will pursue them vigorously. Because legal proceedings with respect to this matter are at the preliminary stages, we cannot currently provide assurance as to the ultimate outcome of the matters at issue.

In recent years, governmental authorities have been increasingly focused on anti-money laundering (“AML”) policies and procedures, with a particular focus on the gaming industry. On October 11, 2013, the Company’s subsidiary, Desert Palace, Inc. (the owner of and referred to herein as Caesars Palace), received a letter from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the United States Department of the Treasury (“FinCEN”), stating that FinCEN is investigating Caesars Palace for alleged violations of the Bank Secrecy Act to determine whether it is appropriate to assess a civil penalty and/or take additional enforcement action against Caesars Palace. Caesars Palace responded to FinCEN’s letter on January 13, 2014. Additionally, the Company was informed in October 2013 that a federal grand jury investigation regarding anti-money laundering practices of the Company and its subsidiaries had been initiated. The Company and Caesars Palace have been fully cooperating with both the FinCEN and grand jury investigations since October 2013. On April 29, 2015, representatives of Caesars Palace met with representatives of the various governmental entities involved. At that meeting, the governmental parties reviewed with the representatives of Caesars Palace in general terms the results of their investigations and proposed a range of potential settlement outcomes, including fines in the range of $12 million to $20 million. Caesars Palace is evaluating the government’s proposals, and representatives of Caesars Palace expect to meet with the governmental parties next month to further discuss the resolution of these matters. Caesars Palace is a subsidiary of CEOC and, because of CEOC’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing on January 15, 2015, has been, together with CEOC’s other subsidiaries, deconsolidated from CEC’s financial results. Accordingly, we expect that any financial penalties imposed upon Caesars Palace would not impact CEC’s financial results.

The Company is party to other ordinary and routine litigation incidental to our business. We do not expect the outcome of any such litigation to have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, as we do not believe it is reasonably possible that we will incur material losses as a result of such litigation.