Litigation, Contractual Commitments, and Contingent Liabilities

Litigation

Noteholder Disputes

On August 4, 2014, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, solely in its capacity as successor Indenture Trustee for the 10% Second-Priority Senior Secured Notes due 2018 (the "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 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. No decision on that motion has yet been issued. The parties agreed to stay discovery until a decision on the motion to dismiss is entered. During the Chapter 11 process, the action has been automatically stayed with respect to CEOC.

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.

On September 3, 2014, holders of approximately $21 million of CEOC Senior Notes due 2016 and 2017 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 CEOC Senior Notes (on the other hand) impaired their own rights under the Senior Notes. The lawsuit seeks both declaratory and monetary relief. On October 2, 2014, other holders of CEOC Senior Notes due 2016 purporting to represent a class of all holders of 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 "Unsecured Note Lawsuits") have been assigned to the same judge. CEC and CEOC’s motion to dismiss both complaints was denied in substantial part by the court. Although the claims against CEOC have been automatically stayed during the Chapter 11 process, discovery has begun with respect to the plaintiffs' claims against CEC.

On November 25, 2014, UMB Bank, as successor indenture trustee for CEOC's 8.5% senior secured notes due 2020, 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 have improperly stripped CEOC of prized assets, have wrongfully affected a release of a CEC parental guarantee of CEOC debt and have committed other wrongs. Among other things, UMB Bank has asked the court to appoint a receiver over CEOC and seeks accelerated discovery and an expedited trial on that receivership cause of action. In addition to seeking appointment of a receiver, the new suit pleads claims for alleged 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 and equitable as well as declaratory relief. We have moved to dismiss the lawsuit, and that motion has been fully briefed. In addition, this lawsuit has been automatically stayed with respect to CEOC during the Chapter 11 process and, pursuant to the RSA, has been subject to a consensual stay for all parties since CEOC’s filing for Chapter 11. The consensual stay will expire upon the termination of the RSA.

The Company believes that the claims and demands described above against CEC are without merit and intend to defend ourselves 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, we believe it is not probable that a material loss will result from the outcome of these matters. The Noteholder Disputes are in their very preliminary stages and discovery has begun on the Unsecured Note Lawsuits. We cannot provide assurance as to the outcome of the Noteholder Disputes or of the range of potential losses should the Noteholder Disputes ultimately be resolved against us, due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation and the stage of the related litigation. Should these matters ultimately be resolved through litigation outside of the financial restructuring of CEOC (the "Financial Restructuring"), and were a court to 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, “Description of Business - Going Concern.”

See additional disclosures related to litigation and other matters in Note 22, “Subsequent Events - Other,” and Note 23, “Subsequent Events - CEOC Bankruptcy and Deconsolidation.”

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) a declaration that the claim for breach of fiduciary duty is a proper class action claim; (2) to order the CAC Directors to fulfill their 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; (3) to order 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 (4) to award 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”), 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 is scheduled to be argued in March 2015.

Other Matters

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. As an example, a major gaming company recently settled a U.S. Attorney investigation into its AML practices. On October 11, 2013, a subsidiary of the Company received a letter from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the United States Department of the Treasury ("FinCEN"), stating that FinCEN is investigating the Company’s subsidiary, Desert Palace, Inc. (the owner of 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. We responded to FinCEN's letter on January 13, 2014. Additionally, the Company has been informed that a federal grand jury investigation regarding the Company’s anti-money laundering practices and procedures is ongoing. The Company is fully cooperating with both the FinCEN and grand jury investigations. Based on proceedings to date, the Company is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of these matters or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any.

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.

Contractual Commitments

Casino Development Opportunities

We continue to pursue additional casino development opportunities that may require, individually and in the aggregate, significant commitments of capital, up-front payments to third parties, and development completion guarantees.

The agreements pursuant to which we manage casinos on Indian lands contain provisions required by law that provide a minimum monthly payment that must be made to the tribe. That obligation has priority over scheduled repayments of borrowings for development costs and over the management fee earned and paid to the manager. In the event that insufficient cash flow is generated by the operations to fund this payment, we must pay the shortfall to the tribe. Subject to certain limitations as to time, such advances, if any, would be repaid to us in future periods in which operations generate cash flow in excess of the required minimum payment. These commitments will terminate upon the occurrence of certain defined events, including termination of the management contract. Our aggregate monthly commitment for the minimum guaranteed payments, pursuant to contracts for the three managed, Indian-owned facilities is $1 million. Each of these casinos currently generates sufficient cash flows to cover all of its obligations, including its debt service.

Tribal Casino Management Contracts



Casino	Location	Expiration of Management Agreement
Harrah’s Ak-Chin	near Phoenix, Arizona	July 2015
Harrah’s Cherokee	Cherokee, North Carolina	November 2018
Harrah’s Resort Southern California	near San Diego, California	November 2019