Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Jan. 27, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	14. Commitments and Contingencies Development Projects—The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (“PGCB”) has selected the Nemacolin Woodlands Resort (“Nemacolin”) in Farmington, Pennsylvania to be awarded a Category 3 resort gaming license. We have an agreement with Nemacolin to complete the build-out of the casino space and provide management services of the casino. We currently estimate the project cost to be approximately $57,000 to $60,000, including licensing fees, and we expect to open Lady Luck Nemacolin during summer 2013. To date, we have expended approximately $10,000. Subsequent Event - On February 1, 2013, we signed an agreement with Tower Investments, Inc. to manage The Provence, the resort and casino on North Broad Street, Philadelphia (the “Project”), proposed by Tower Entertainment, LLC (the “Tower JV”), if the Project is selected by the PGCB. The Tower JV is one of six applicants for the final gaming license in Philadelphia. As part of our agreement with the Tower JV, we loaned $25,000 to the Tower JV in the form of a stand-by letter of credit issued for the purpose of securing the Pennsylvania gaming license fee relating to the Project. The $25,000 letter of credit can only be drawn upon if the Tower JV is awarded the license. If the Tower JV is selected, we have the option to convert the $25,000 loan into a minority investment in the Tower JV. Legal and Regulatory Proceedings—We and our wholly-owned subsidiary, Riverboat Corporation of Mississippi - Vicksburg, are defendants in a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Adams County, Mississippi by Silver Land, Inc., alleging breach of contract in connection with our 2006 sale of casino operations in Vicksburg, Mississippi, to a third party. In January 2011, the court ruled in favor of Silver Land and in September 2011 the court awarded damages of $1,979. We filed a notice of appeal in November 2011 and oral arguments were held in January 2013. While the outcome of this matter is still in doubt and cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty, we have accrued an estimated liability, including interest, of $2,119. We intend to continue a vigorous and appropriate appeal of this judgment. We have been named as a defendant in a complaint filed in the Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida. The complaint alleges we sent unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the “TCPA”), and seeks to certify a class action. The complaint seeks statutory damages for alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys’ fees, costs and injunction relief. The TCPA provides for statutory damages of $0.5 for each violation ($1.5 for willful violations). We intend to vigorously defend ourselves. This matter is subject to additional discovery and other legal proceedings and while the ultimate outcome is unknown, we have accrued $1,000 as our current estimate of the most probable outcome of this matter. Our wholly owned subsidiary, Lady Luck Gaming Corporation and several joint venture partners have been defendants in the Greek Civil Courts and the Greek Administrative Courts in similar lawsuits brought by the country of Greece. The actions allege that the defendants failed to make specified payments in connection with the gaming license bid process for Patras, Greece. Although it is difficult to determine the damages being sought from the lawsuits, the action may seek damages up to that aggregate amount plus interest from the date of the action. In the Civil Court lawsuit, the Civil Court of First Instance ruled in our favor and dismissed the lawsuit in 2001. Greece appealed to the Civil Appeal Court and, in 2003, the Court rejected the appeal. Greece then appealed to the Civil Supreme Court and, in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the matter was not properly before the Civil Courts and should be before the Administrative Court. In the Administrative Court lawsuit, the Administrative Court of First Instance rejected the lawsuit stating that it was not competent to hear the matter. Greece then appealed to the Administrative Appeal Court, which court rejected the appeal in 2003. Greece then appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, which remanded the matter back to the Administrative Appeal Court for a hearing on the merits. The re-hearing took place in 2006, and in 2008 the Administrative Appeal Court rejected Greece’s appeal on procedural grounds. On December 22, 2008 and January 23, 2009, Greece appealed the ruling to the Supreme Administrative Court. A hearing was held during November 2012. The Supreme Administrative Court requested both parties file briefs within 90 days. The outcome of this matter is still in doubt and cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty. We intend to continue a vigorous and appropriate defense to the claims asserted in this matter. Through January 27, 2013, we have accrued an estimated liability including interest of $13,758. Our accrual is based upon management’s estimate of the original claim by the plaintiffs for lost payments. We continue to accrue interest on the asserted claim. We are unable to estimate a total possible loss as information as to possible additional claims, if any, have not been asserted or quantified by the plaintiffs at this time. We are subject to certain federal, state and local environmental protection, health and safety laws, regulations and ordinances that apply to businesses generally, and are subject to cleanup requirements at certain of our facilities as a result thereof. We have not made, and do not anticipate making material expenditures, nor do we anticipate incurring delays with respect to environmental remediation or protection. However, in part because our present and future development sites have, in some cases, been used as manufacturing facilities or other facilities that generate materials that are required to be remediated under environmental laws and regulations, there can be no guarantee that additional pre-existing conditions will not be discovered and we will not experience material liabilities or delays. We are subject to various contingencies and litigation matters and have a number of unresolved claims. Although the ultimate liability of these contingencies, this litigation and these claims cannot be determined at this time, we believe they will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

14. Commitments and Contingencies

Development Projects—The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (“PGCB”) has selected the Nemacolin Woodlands Resort (“Nemacolin”) in Farmington, Pennsylvania to be awarded a Category 3 resort gaming license. We have an agreement with Nemacolin to complete the build-out of the casino space and provide management services of the casino. We currently estimate the project cost to be approximately $57,000 to $60,000, including licensing fees, and we expect to open Lady Luck Nemacolin during summer 2013. To date, we have expended approximately $10,000.

Subsequent Event - On February 1, 2013, we signed an agreement with Tower Investments, Inc. to manage The Provence, the resort and casino on North Broad Street, Philadelphia (the “Project”), proposed by Tower Entertainment, LLC (the “Tower JV”), if the Project is selected by the PGCB. The Tower JV is one of six applicants for the final gaming license in Philadelphia. As part of our agreement with the Tower JV, we loaned $25,000 to the Tower JV in the form of a stand-by letter of credit issued for the purpose of securing the Pennsylvania gaming license fee relating to the Project. The $25,000 letter of credit can only be drawn upon if the Tower JV is awarded the license. If the Tower JV is selected, we have the option to convert the $25,000 loan into a minority investment in the Tower JV.

Legal and Regulatory Proceedings—We and our wholly-owned subsidiary, Riverboat Corporation of Mississippi - Vicksburg, are defendants in a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Adams County, Mississippi by Silver Land, Inc., alleging breach of contract in connection with our 2006 sale of casino operations in Vicksburg, Mississippi, to a third party. In January 2011, the court ruled in favor of Silver Land and in September 2011 the court awarded damages of $1,979. We filed a notice of appeal in November 2011 and oral arguments were held in January 2013. While the outcome of this matter is still in doubt and cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty, we have accrued an estimated liability, including interest, of $2,119. We intend to continue a vigorous and appropriate appeal of this judgment.

We have been named as a defendant in a complaint filed in the Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida. The complaint alleges we sent unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the “TCPA”), and seeks to certify a class action. The complaint seeks statutory damages for alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys’ fees, costs and injunction relief. The TCPA provides for statutory damages of $0.5 for each violation ($1.5 for willful violations). We intend to vigorously defend ourselves. This matter is subject to additional discovery and other legal proceedings and while the ultimate outcome is unknown, we have accrued $1,000 as our current estimate of the most probable outcome of this matter.

Our wholly owned subsidiary, Lady Luck Gaming Corporation and several joint venture partners have been defendants in the Greek Civil Courts and the Greek Administrative Courts in similar lawsuits brought by the country of Greece. The actions allege that the defendants failed to make specified payments in connection with the gaming license bid process for Patras, Greece. Although it is difficult to determine the damages being sought from the lawsuits, the action may seek damages up to that aggregate amount plus interest from the date of the action.

In the Civil Court lawsuit, the Civil Court of First Instance ruled in our favor and dismissed the lawsuit in 2001. Greece appealed to the Civil Appeal Court and, in 2003, the Court rejected the appeal. Greece then appealed to the Civil Supreme Court and, in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the matter was not properly before the Civil Courts and should be before the Administrative Court.

In the Administrative Court lawsuit, the Administrative Court of First Instance rejected the lawsuit stating that it was not competent to hear the matter. Greece then appealed to the Administrative Appeal Court, which court rejected the appeal in 2003. Greece then appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, which remanded the matter back to the Administrative Appeal Court for a hearing on the merits. The re-hearing took place in 2006, and in 2008 the Administrative Appeal Court rejected Greece’s appeal on procedural grounds. On December 22, 2008 and January 23, 2009, Greece appealed the ruling to the Supreme Administrative Court. A hearing was held during November 2012. The Supreme Administrative Court requested both parties file briefs within 90 days.

The outcome of this matter is still in doubt and cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty. We intend to continue a vigorous and appropriate defense to the claims asserted in this matter. Through January 27, 2013, we have accrued an estimated liability including interest of $13,758. Our accrual is based upon management’s estimate of the original claim by the plaintiffs for lost payments. We continue to accrue interest on the asserted claim. We are unable to estimate a total possible loss as information as to possible additional claims, if any, have not been asserted or quantified by the plaintiffs at this time.

We are subject to certain federal, state and local environmental protection, health and safety laws, regulations and ordinances that apply to businesses generally, and are subject to cleanup requirements at certain of our facilities as a result thereof. We have not made, and do not anticipate making material expenditures, nor do we anticipate incurring delays with respect to environmental remediation or protection. However, in part because our present and future development sites have, in some cases, been used as manufacturing facilities or other facilities that generate materials that are required to be remediated under environmental laws and regulations, there can be no guarantee that additional pre-existing conditions will not be discovered and we will not experience material liabilities or delays.

We are subject to various contingencies and litigation matters and have a number of unresolved claims. Although the ultimate liability of these contingencies, this litigation and these claims cannot be determined at this time, we believe they will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.