Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Jul. 28, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	10. Commitments and Contingencies Development Projects— 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, 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 either 1) be repaid from the proceeds of permanent financing, or 2) convert the $25,000 loan into a minority investment in the Tower JV. Option Agreements — On June 17, 2013, we entered into an option agreement for a third party to purchase from us substantially all of the assets and assume certain liabilities related to our Rhythm City Casino located in Davenport, Iowa, for approximately $51,000, subject to working capital and certain other customary purchase price adjustments. Subject to satisfying certain conditions, the third party may exercise the option at any time through September 15, 2013 and may extend the exercise period to October 15, 2013. If the option is exercised, the completion of the transaction will be subject to the third party obtaining applicable gaming licenses and approvals and other customary closing conditions. 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 approximately $2,000, which we accrued. We filed a notice of appeal in November 2011 and oral arguments were held in January 2013. In June 2013, the court of appeals reversed the trial court and ruled in our favor. Silver Land filed a motion for a rehearing in July 2013, and we are awaiting a ruling on that motion. Depending on the outcome of that motion, Silver Land may appeal to the state supreme court. While the ultimate outcome of this matter is still in doubt and cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty, we intend to put forth a vigorous and appropriate defense of the favorable June 2013 ruling of the court of appeals as Silver Land continues to pursue its claim. 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. In April 2013, we entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiff and on May 22, 2013, the Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement is subject to further consideration by the Court at the final settlement hearing, which is expected to occur in late calendar 2013. 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, PPI, Inc., d/b/a Isle Casino Racing Pompano Park, has been named as a defendant in two collective action Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims in the U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida. The claims allege violations of tipping and tip-credit practices for certain employees. The outcome of these matters is still in doubt and cannot be predicted. We intend to put forth a vigorous defense against the claims asserted in 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 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 July 28, 2013 we have accrued an estimated liability, including interest, of $14,399. 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. In October 2012, we opened our new casino in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. A subcontractor has filed a mechanics’ lien against our property resulting from a dispute between the subcontractor and our general contractor for the construction project. We demanded that the general contractor cause the lien to be bonded against or satisfied, however the general contractor has refused to do so and asserted that a portion of the subcontractor’s claim results from additional work directly requested by us. The general contractor is attempting to resolve the subcontractor’s claim. While we are not a direct party in the dispute, in the event that we incur any costs in connection with this matter, we do not believe that any such costs would be material, and if incurred, would be capitalized as additional construction costs. 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.

10. Commitments and Contingencies

Development Projects— 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, 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 either 1) be repaid from the proceeds of permanent financing, or 2) convert the $25,000 loan into a minority investment in the Tower JV.

Option Agreements — On June 17, 2013, we entered into an option agreement for a third party to purchase from us substantially all of the assets and assume certain liabilities related to our Rhythm City Casino located in Davenport, Iowa, for approximately $51,000, subject to working capital and certain other customary purchase price adjustments. Subject to satisfying certain conditions, the third party may exercise the option at any time through September 15, 2013 and may extend the exercise period to October 15, 2013. If the option is exercised, the completion of the transaction will be subject to the third party obtaining applicable gaming licenses and approvals and other customary closing conditions.

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 approximately $2,000, which we accrued. We filed a notice of appeal in November 2011 and oral arguments were held in January 2013. In June 2013, the court of appeals reversed the trial court and ruled in our favor. Silver Land filed a motion for a rehearing in July 2013, and we are awaiting a ruling on that motion. Depending on the outcome of that motion, Silver Land may appeal to the state supreme court. While the ultimate outcome of this matter is still in doubt and cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty, we intend to put forth a vigorous and appropriate defense of the favorable June 2013 ruling of the court of appeals as Silver Land continues to pursue its claim.

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. In April 2013, we entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiff and on May 22, 2013, the Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement is subject to further consideration by the Court at the final settlement hearing, which is expected to occur in late calendar 2013. 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, PPI, Inc., d/b/a Isle Casino Racing Pompano Park, has been named as a defendant in two collective action Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims in the U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida. The claims allege violations of tipping and tip-credit practices for certain employees. The outcome of these matters is still in doubt and cannot be predicted. We intend to put forth a vigorous defense against the claims asserted in 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 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 July 28, 2013 we have accrued an estimated liability, including interest, of $14,399. 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.

In October 2012, we opened our new casino in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. A subcontractor has filed a mechanics’ lien against our property resulting from a dispute between the subcontractor and our general contractor for the construction project. We demanded that the general contractor cause the lien to be bonded against or satisfied, however the general contractor has refused to do so and asserted that a portion of the subcontractor’s claim results from additional work directly requested by us. The general contractor is attempting to resolve the subcontractor’s claim. While we are not a direct party in the dispute, in the event that we incur any costs in connection with this matter, we do not believe that any such costs would be material, and if incurred, would be capitalized as additional construction costs.

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.