Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

10.  Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

The Company is subject to various legal and administrative proceedings relating to personal injuries, employment matters, commercial transactions and other matters arising in the normal course of business. The Company does not believe that the final outcome of these matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations. In addition, the Company maintains what it believes is adequate insurance coverage to further mitigate the risks of such proceedings.

However, such proceedings can be costly, time consuming and unpredictable and, therefore, no assurance can be given that the final outcome of such proceedings may not materially impact the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Further, no assurance can be given that the amount or scope of existing insurance coverage will be sufficient to cover losses arising from such matters.

The following proceedings could result in costs, settlements, damages, or rulings that materially impact the Company’s consolidated financial condition or operating results. In each instance, the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses, claims and/or counter-claims, and intends to vigorously defend itself or pursue its claim.

The Illinois Legislature passed into law House Bill 1918, effective May 26, 2006, which singled out four of the nine Illinois casinos, including the Company’s Hollywood Casino Joliet and Hollywood Casino Aurora, for a 3% surcharge to subsidize local horse racing interests. On May 30, 2006, Hollywood Casino Joliet and Hollywood Casino Aurora joined with the two other riverboats affected by the law, Harrah’s Joliet and the Grand Victoria Casino in Elgin (collectively, the “Four Casinos”), and filed suit in the Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial District in Will County, Illinois (the “Court”), asking the Court to declare the law unconstitutional. Hollywood Casino Joliet and Hollywood Casino Aurora began paying the 3% surcharge into a protest fund which accrued interest during the pendency of the lawsuit. In two orders dated March 29, 2007 and April 20, 2007, the Court declared the law unconstitutional under the Uniformity Clause of the Illinois Constitution and enjoined the collection of this surcharge. The State of Illinois requested, and was granted, a stay of this ruling. As a result, Hollywood Casino Joliet and Hollywood Casino Aurora continued paying the 3% surcharge into the protest fund until May 25, 2008, when the 3% surcharge expired. The State of Illinois appealed the ruling to the Illinois Supreme Court. On June 5, 2008, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s ruling and issued a decision upholding the constitutionality of the 3% surcharge. On January 21, 2009, the Four Casinos filed a petition for certiorari, requesting the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. Seven amicus curiae briefs supporting the plaintiffs’ request were also filed. On June 8, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to hear the case. On June 10, 2009, the Four Casinos filed a petition with the Court to open the judgment based on new evidence that came to light during the investigation of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich that the 2006 law was procured by corruption. On August 17, 2009, the Court dismissed the Four Casinos’ petition to reopen the case, and the Four Casinos decided not to pursue an appeal of the dismissal.

On December 15, 2008, former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich signed Public Act No. 95-1008 requiring the Four Casinos to continue paying the 3% surcharge to subsidize Illinois horse racing interests. On January 8, 2009, the Four Casinos filed suit in the Court, asking it to declare the law unconstitutional. The 3% surcharge being paid pursuant to Public Act No. 95-1008 was paid into a protest fund where it accrued interest. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted on August 17, 2009. The Four Casinos appealed the dismissal and filed motions to keep the payments in the protest fund while the appeal is being litigated. The motion to keep the monies in the protest fund was denied and the funds were released to the racetracks. On January 27, 2011, the Illinois appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of this case.  Hollywood Casino Joliet and Hollywood Casino Aurora asked the Illinois Supreme Court to hear an appeal of this dismissal and this request was denied. The monies paid into the protest fund have been transferred by the State of Illinois to the racetracks. The payment of the 3% surcharge under the 2008 statute ended on July 14, 2011 with the opening of the new casino in Des Plaines, Illinois.

On June 12, 2009, the Four Casinos filed a lawsuit in Illinois Federal Court naming former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, his campaign fund, racetrack owner John Johnston, and his two racetracks as defendants alleging a civil conspiracy in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §1962(c),(d) (“RICO”), based on an illegal scheme to secure the enactment of the 3% surcharge legislation in exchange for the payment of money by Johnston and entities controlled by him. The Four Casinos sought to impose a constructive trust over all funds paid under the surcharge, and therefore all of the Illinois racetracks were named as parties to the lawsuit. The defendants in the RICO case filed motions to dismiss. On December 7, 2009, the district court denied the motions to dismiss the RICO count, but it granted the motion to dismiss the constructive trust count, stating that it did not have jurisdiction in this case to impose the constructive trust. The Four Casinos appealed this dismissal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the dismissal in an en banc opinion. The Illinois racetracks are now free to use the monies that they received from the 3% surcharge.  Since the passing of House Bill 1918 into law, Hollywood Casino Joliet and Hollywood Casino Aurora have recognized approximately $55.2 million in expense as a result of the 3% surcharge, including $0.4 million and $5.5 million during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively. The 3% surcharge is included in gaming expense within the consolidated statements of income.

On July 16, 2008, the Company was served with a purported class action lawsuit brought by plaintiffs seeking to represent a class of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company’s Common Stock between March 20, 2008 and July 2, 2008. The lawsuit alleges that the Company’s disclosure practices relative to the proposed transaction with Fortress Investment Group LLC and Centerbridge Partners, L.P. and the eventual termination of that transaction were misleading and deficient in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint, which seeks class certification and unspecified damages, was filed in federal court in Maryland. The complaint was amended, among other things, to add three new named plaintiffs and to name Peter M. Carlino, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and William J. Clifford, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, as additional defendants. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in November 2008, and the court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on October 21, 2009. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the dismissal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and an oral argument was heard on October 26, 2010. On March 14, 2011, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court. The plaintiffs have requested the U.S. Supreme Court to consider an appeal of the decision.  In October 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the application for an appeal.

On September 11, 2008, the Board of County Commissioners of Cherokee County, Kansas (the “County”) filed suit against Kansas Penn Gaming, LLC (“KPG,” a wholly-owned subsidiary of Penn created to pursue a development project in Cherokee County, Kansas) and the Company in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas. The petition alleges that KPG breached its pre-development agreement with the County when KPG withdrew its application to manage a lottery gaming facility in Cherokee County and currently seeks in excess of $50 million in damages. In connection with their petition, the County obtained an ex-parte order attaching the $25 million privilege fee paid to the Kansas Lottery Commission in conjunction with the gaming application for the Cherokee County zone. The defendants have filed motions to dissolve and reduce the attachment. Those motions were denied. Following discovery, both parties have filed dispositive motions.

On September 23, 2008, KPG filed an action against HV Properties of Kansas, LLC (“HV”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas seeking a declaratory judgment from the U.S. District Court finding that KPG has no further obligations to HV under a Real Estate Sale Contract (the “Contract”) that KPG and HV entered into on September 6, 2007, and that KPG properly terminated this Contract under the terms of the Repurchase Agreement entered into between the parties effective September 28, 2007. HV filed a counterclaim claiming KPG breached the Contract, and seeks $37.5 million in damages. On October 7, 2008, HV filed suit against the Company claiming the Company is liable to HV for KPG’s alleged breach based on a Guaranty Agreement signed by the Company. Both cases were consolidated. Following extensive discovery and briefings, on July 23, 2010, the court granted KPG’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed HV’s claim. KPG filed a motion requesting reimbursement of the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in litigating this case pursuant to the terms of the Contract and was awarded approximately $0.9 million.  HV has appealed both rulings of the district court.

On March 11, 2011, CD Gaming Ventures, LLC (“CD Gaming”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company and developer of the Columbus casino, filed suit in U.S. District Court against the City of Columbus (the “City”), Columbus officials, Franklin County and County officials. The lawsuit alleged that the City, Franklin County and various city and county officials violated the Company’s rights under the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions, principally by removing preexisting sewer and water service in an effort to force annexation of the constitutionally-authorized casino site into the City. CD Gaming asked the court for an injunction preventing the City and the county from denying water and sewer service to the casino site and also sought monetary damages.  On May 24, 2011, the City and CD Gaming announced they had reached a contingent agreement, subject to final documentation, that would result in the annexation of the casino site into the City in exchange for water and sewer service and other considerations.  The agreement was conditioned, among other things, on the sale of real estate previously purchased by the Company in downtown Columbus for $11 million and an acceptable settlement agreement with certain affiliates of the Columbus Dispatch.  A sale agreement for the real estate in downtown Columbus closed on August 23, 2011 and a release and settlement agreement has been finalized with certain affiliates of the Columbus Dispatch.