Litigation (Notes)	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
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 “Delaware Second Lien Lawsuit”) in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware against CEC and CEOC, CGP, CAC,CERP, 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 is defending 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. The motion to dismiss with respect to CEC was denied on March 18, 2015. In a Verified Supplemental Complaint filed on August 3, 2015, the plaintiff stated that due to CEOC’s bankruptcy filing, the continuation of all claims was stayed pursuant to the bankruptcy except for Claims II, III, and X. These are claims against CEC only, for breach of contract in respect of the release of the parent guarantee formerly applicable to the CEOC 10.00% Second-Priority Notes, for declaratory relief in respect of the release of this guarantee, and for violations of the Trust Indenture Act in respect of the release of this guarantee. Fact discovery in the case is complete, and cross-motions for summary judgment have been filed by the parties. On January 26, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an agreed order staying this proceeding (and others). The stay will remain in effect until the earlier of (a) the Effective Date, (b) the termination of the restructuring support agreement with the Official Committee of Second Priority Noteholders or (c) further order of the Bankruptcy Court. 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 “Senior Unsecured Lawsuits”) were assigned to the same judge. 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. The parties have completed fact discovery with respect to both plaintiffs' claims against CEC. On October 23, 2015, plaintiffs in the Senior Unsecured Lawsuits moved for partial summary judgment, and on December 29, 2015, those motions were denied. On December 4, 2015, plaintiff in the action brought on behalf of holders of CEOC’s 6.50% Senior Unsecured Notes moved for class certification and briefing has been completed. The judge presiding over these cases thereafter retired, and a new judge was appointed to preside over these lawsuits. That judge set a new summary judgment briefing schedule, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which remain pending. On January 26, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an agreed order staying this proceeding (and others). The stay will remain in effect until the earlier of (a) the Effective Date, (b) the termination of the restructuring support agreement with the Official Committee of Second Priority Noteholders or (c) further order of the Bankruptcy Court. On November 25, 2014, UMB Bank (“UMB”), 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 “Delaware First Lien Lawsuit”) in Delaware Chancery Court against CEC, CEOC, CERP, CAC, CGP, 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 effected a release of CEC’s parent guarantee of the 8.50% Senior Secured Notes and committed other wrongs. Among other things, UMB 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 First Lien Bond RSA, the lawsuit also has been stayed in its entirety, with the consent of all of the parties to it. 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. (“BOKF”), 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 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, 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 filed a lawsuit (the “New York Second Lien Lawsuit”) against CEC in federal district court in Manhattan, in its capacity as successor trustee for CEOC’s 12.75% Second-Priority Notes. On June 15, 2015, UMB filed a lawsuit (the “New York First Lien Lawsuit”) against CEC, also in federal district court in Manhattan, in its capacity as successor trustee for CEOC’s 11.25% Senior Secured Notes due 2017, 8.50% Senior Secured Notes due 2020, and 9.00% Senior Secured Notes due 2020. Plaintiffs in these actions allege that CEOC’s filing of its voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy case constitutes an event of default under the indentures 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 parent guarantee provisions in the indentures governing these notes that plaintiffs allege are still binding. Both plaintiffs bring claims for violation of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and for declaratory relief and BOKF brings an additional claim for intentional interference with contractual relations. The cases were both assigned to the same judge presiding over the other Parent Guarantee Lawsuits (as defined below) that are taking place in Manhattan. CEC filed its answer to the BOKF complaint on March 25, 2015, and to the UMB complaint on August 10, 2015. On June 25, 2015, and June 26, 2015, BOKF and UMB, respectively, moved for partial summary judgment, specifically on their claims alleging a violation of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, seeking both declaratory relief and damages. On August 27, 2015, those motions were denied. The court, on its own motion, certified its order with respect to the interpretation of the Trust Indenture Act for interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and on December 22, 2015, the appellate court denied our motion for leave to appeal. On November 20, 2015, BOKF and UMB again moved for partial summary judgment. These motions likewise were denied. The judge presiding over these cases thereafter retired, and a new judge was appointed to preside over these lawsuits. That judge set a new summary judgment briefing schedule, and the parties submitted cross-motions for summary judgment, which remain pending. On January 26, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an agreed order staying this proceeding (and others). The stay will remain in effect until the earlier of (a) the Effective Date, (b) the termination of the restructuring support agreement with the Official Committee of Second Priority Noteholders or (c) further order of the Bankruptcy Court. On October 20, 2015, Wilmington Trust, National Association (“Wilmington Trust”), filed a lawsuit (the “New York Senior Notes Lawsuit” and, together with the Delaware Second Lien Lawsuit, the Delaware First Lien Lawsuit, the Senior Unsecured Lawsuits, the New York Second Lien Lawsuit, and the New York First Lien Lawsuit, the “Parent Guarantee Lawsuits”) against CEC in federal district court in Manhattan in its capacity as successor indenture trustee for CEOC’s 10.75% Senior Notes due 2016 (the “10.75% Senior Notes”). Plaintiff alleges that CEC is obligated to make payment of amounts due on the 10.75% Senior Notes pursuant to a parent guarantee provision in the indenture governing those notes that plaintiff alleges is still in effect. Plaintiff raises claims for violations of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and for declaratory judgment, and seeks monetary and declaratory relief. CEC filed its answer to the complaint on November 23, 2015. As with the other parent guaranty lawsuits taking place in Manhattan, the judge presiding over these cases thereafter retired, and a new judge was appointed to preside over these lawsuits. That judge set a new summary judgment briefing schedule, and the parties submitted cross-motions for summary judgment, which remain pending. On January 26, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an agreed order staying this proceeding (and others). The stay will remain in effect until the earlier of (a) the Effective Date, (b) the termination of the restructuring support agreement with the Official Committee of Second Priority Noteholders or (c) further order of the Bankruptcy Court. We believe that the claims and demands described above against CEC are without merit and we intend to defend the Company vigorously. The claims against CEOC have been stayed due to the Chapter 11 process and, as described above, the actions against CEC have now also been stayed. See additional disclosure relating to CEOC’s Chapter 11 filing in Note 1. In the event that the litigation stays are ever lifted, we believe that the Noteholder Disputes and the Parent Guarantee Lawsuits present a reasonably possible likelihood of an adverse outcome. 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 some or all of the Noteholder Disputes, such determination would likely lead to a CEC reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (see Note 1). We are not able to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses should any of the Noteholder Disputes ultimately be resolved against us, although they could potentially exceed $11 billion. 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 (the “Court”) 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, 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 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 Merger; and (3) an award to plaintiff for his costs and attorneys’ fees. On October 13, 2016, the Court dismissed the case for lack of prosecution. Pursuant to local rule, the case could have been reinstated at the plaintiff’s written request, provided such request was filed within 30 days of the date of service of written notice of the dismissal. The 30-day time period has now expired. 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 Park Place under this Allocation Agreement. In 2013, a lawsuit was settled relating to the Hilton Plan, which retroactively and prospectively increased total benefits to be paid under the Hilton Plan. In 2009, we received a letter from Hilton, notifying us of a lawsuit related to the Hilton Plan that alleged that CEC had a potential liability for the additional claims under the terms of the Allocation Agreement. On December 24, 2014, Hilton, the Plan Administrator of the Hilton Plan, and a representative of the Plan Administrator (the “Hilton Parties”) 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. On April 14, 2015, the federal court dismissed the Hilton Parties’ unjust enrichment claim with prejudice and ordered that the remainder of the case be transferred to the Bankruptcy Court based upon its relationship to the CEOC bankruptcy case. On June 9, 2016, CEC, CEOC and the Hilton Parties entered into a settlement of the Hilton Parties’ claims (the “Settlement Agreement”). Under the settlement, Hilton will receive a general unsecured claim in CEOC’s bankruptcy case for an amount equal to $51 million plus 31.75% of amounts paid by Hilton to the Hilton Plan due after July 16, 2016. For periods following the effective date of CEOC’s plan of reorganization, CEC shall assume certain of CEOC’s obligations under the Allocation Agreement. In exchange, Hilton shall turn over to CEC the distributions on account of $24.5 million of Hilton’s claim in the CEOC bankruptcy. On June 21, 2016, the parties sought approval of the Settlement Agreement. The CEOC Bankruptcy Court approved the Settlement Agreement on July 19, 2016. The settlement amount is fully accrued in liabilities subject to compromise at CEOC, and the Settlement Agreement is subject to the effectiveness of CEOC’s plan of reorganization. National Retirement Fund In January 2015, a majority of the Trustees of the National Retirement Fund (“NRF”), a multi-employer defined benefit pension plan, voted to expel the five indirect subsidiaries of CEC which were required to make contributions to the legacy plan of the NRF (the “Five Employers”). The NRF contended that the financial condition of the Five Employers’ controlled group (the “CEC Controlled Group”) and CEOC’s then-potential bankruptcy presented an “actuarial risk” to the plan because, depending on the outcome of any CEOC bankruptcy proceedings, CEC might no longer be liable to the plan for any partial or complete withdrawal liability. As a result, the NRF claimed that the expulsion of the Five Employers constituted a complete withdrawal of the CEC Controlled Group from the plan. CEOC, in its bankruptcy proceedings, has to date not rejected the contribution obligations to the NRF of any of its subsidiary employers. The NRF has advised the CEC Controlled Group (which includes CERP) that the expulsion of the Five Employers has triggered a joint and several withdrawal liability with a present value of approximately $360 million, payable in 80 quarterly payments of about $6 million. Prior to the NRF’s vote to expel the Five Employers, the Five Employers reiterated their commitments to remain in the plan and not seek rejection of any collective bargaining agreement in which the obligation to contribute to NRF exists. The Five Employers were current with respect to pension contributions at the time of their expulsion, and are current with respect to pension contributions as of today pursuant to the Standstill Agreement referred to below. We have opposed the various NRF expulsion actions. On January 8, 2015, prior to the NRF’s vote to expel the Five Employers, CEC filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “S.D.N.Y.”) against the NRF and its Board of Trustees, seeking a declaratory judgment that they did not have the authority to expel the Five Employers and thus allegedly trigger withdrawal liability for the CEC Controlled Group (the “CEC Action”). On December 25, 2015, the District Judge entered an order dismissing the CEC Action on the ground that CEC’s claims in this action must first be arbitrated under ERISA. CEC has appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Oral argument on this appeal was heard on January 30, 2017, and the Second Circuit has reserved decision on this appeal. On March 6 and March 27, 2015, CEOC and certain of its subsidiaries filed in the CEOC bankruptcy proceedings two motions to void (a) the purported expulsion of the Five Employers and based thereon the alleged triggering of withdrawal liability for the non-debtor members of the CEC Controlled Group, and (b) a notice and payment demand for quarterly payments of withdrawal liability subsequently made by the NRF to certain non-debtor members of the CEC Controlled Group, respectively, on the ground that each of these actions violated the automatic stay (the “362 Motions”). On November 12, 2015, Bankruptcy Judge Goldgar issued a decision denying the 362 Motions on the ground that the NRF’s actions were directed at non-debtors and therefore did not violate the automatic stay. CEOC has appealed this decision to the federal district court in Chicago. On March 6, 2015, CEOC commenced an adversary proceeding against the NRF and its Board of Trustees in the Bankruptcy Court (the “Adversary Proceeding”). On March 11, 2015, CEOC filed a motion in that Adversary Proceeding to extend the automatic stay in the CEOC bankruptcy proceedings to apply to the NRF’s expulsion of the Five Employers (the “105 Motion”). Judge Goldgar has not yet decided the 105 Motion. On March 20, 2015, CEC, CEOC and CERP, on behalf of themselves and others, entered into a Standstill Agreement with the NRF and its Board of Trustees that, among other things, stayed each member of the CEC Controlled Group’s purported obligation to commence making quarterly payments of withdrawal liability and instead required the Five Employers to continue making monthly contribution payments to the NRF, unless and until each of the 362 Motions and the 105 Motion had been denied. As the 105 Motion has not yet been decided, the Standstill Agreement remains in effect. If both the 105 Motion and CEC’s appeal of the CEC Action are denied, then CEC could be required to pay to the NRF joint and several withdrawal liability with a present value of approximately $360 million, payable in 80 quarterly payments of about $6 million each while CEC simultaneously arbitrates whether the NRF and its Board of Trustees had the authority to expel the Five Employers and trigger withdrawal liability for the CEC Controlled Group. On March 18, 2015, before the Standstill Agreement was executed, the NRF and its fund manager commenced a collection action in the S.D.N.Y. against CEC, CERP and all non-debtor members of the CEC Controlled Group for the payment of the first quarterly payment of withdrawal liability, which the NRF contended was due on March 15, 2015 (the “NRF Action”). On December 25, 2015, the District Judge entered an Order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to deny defendants’ motion to dismiss over the defendants’ objections on the ground that the defendants’ arguments must first be arbitrated under ERISA. On February 26, 2016, the NRF and its fund manager filed a motion for summary judgment against CEC and CERP for payment of the first quarterly payment of withdrawal liability and for interest, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On November 7, 2016, the District Judge entered an Order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to grant partial summary judgment to the NRF Action plaintiffs over CEC and CERP’s objections on the ground that CEC and CERP’s further arguments must also first be arbitrated under ERISA. CEC and CERP filed a Notice of Appeal to protect their rights in response to this Order. Subsequently, the District Judge determined that no final order or judgment was entered, and thus the Notice of Appeal was premature. Accordingly, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the appeal without prejudice to any party’s rights to appeal a final, appealable judgment that may later be entered in the case. On December 5, 2016, an interlocutory judgment was entered against CEC and CERP comprising the first quarterly payment of withdrawal liability referred to above, interest and liquidated damages under ERISA‎. On December 19, 2016, a CEC and CERP filed a motion to certify a final judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for immediate appeal and to stay the NRF Action plaintiffs’ motions to amend and for summary judgment, as described below. On January 11, 2017, the District Court granted the motion to certify a final judgment under Rule 54(b) in the amount of $9 million, but denied the motion for a stay, and a judgment in that amount was entered the next day. CEC has appealed this decision to the Second Circuit, and has bonded the judgment pending appeal. On December 23, 2016, the NRF Action plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint to add claims for the second through eighth quarterly payments of withdrawal liability, which the NRF Action plaintiffs contended were past due, as well as for injunctive relief requiring the defendants to pay all further quarterly payments as they purportedly became due. Also on December 23, 2016, the NRF Action plaintiffs simultaneously filed a motion for summary judgment against CEC and CERP for payment of the second through eighth quarterly payments of withdrawal liability, for interest, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and for injunctive relief requiring the defendants to pay all further quarterly payments as they purportedly became due. These motions have not yet been fully submitted to the District Court. We believe our legal arguments against the actions undertaken by NRF are strong and will pursue them vigorously, and will defend vigorously against the claims raised by the NRF in the NRF Action. Since settlement discussions with the NRF are continuing and no material discovery has yet been performed with respect to any of the above actions, we cannot currently provide assurance as to the ultimate outcome of the matters at issue. 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. In October 2013, CEOC’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 was 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 in January 2014. Additionally, we were informed in October 2013 that a federal grand jury investigation regarding anti-money laundering practices of the Company and its subsidiaries had been initiated. CEC and Caesars Palace have been cooperating with FinCEN, the Department of Justice and the Nevada Gaming Control Board (the “GCB”) on this matter. On September 8, 2015, FinCEN announced a settlement pursuant to which Caesars Palace agreed to an $8 million civil penalty for its violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, which penalty shall be treated as a general unsecured claim in Caesars Palace’s bankruptcy proceedings. In addition, Caesars Palace agreed to conduct periodic external audits and independent testing of its AML compliance program, report to FinCEN on mandated improvements, adopt a rigorous training regime, and engage in a “look-back” for suspicious transactions. The terms of the FinCEN settlement were approved by the Bankruptcy Court on October 19, 2015. CEOC and the GCB reached a settlement on the same facts as above, wherein CEC agreed to pay $1.5 million and provide to the GCB the same information that is reported to FinCEN and to resubmit its updated AML policies. On September 17, 2015, the settlement agreement was approved by the Nevada Gaming Commission. CEOC continues to cooperate with the Department of Justice in its investigation of this matter. Caesars 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 “Delaware Second Lien Lawsuit”) in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware against CEC and CEOC, CGP, CAC,CERP, 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 is defending 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. The motion to dismiss with respect to CEC was denied on March 18, 2015. In a Verified Supplemental Complaint filed on August 3, 2015, the plaintiff stated that due to CEOC’s bankruptcy filing, the continuation of all claims was stayed pursuant to the bankruptcy except for Claims II, III, and X. These are claims against CEC only, for breach of contract in respect of the release of the parent guarantee formerly applicable to the CEOC 10.00% Second-Priority Notes, for declaratory relief in respect of the release of this guarantee, and for violations of the Trust Indenture Act in respect of the release of this guarantee. Fact discovery in the case is complete, and cross-motions for summary judgment have been filed by the parties. On January 26, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an agreed order staying this proceeding (and others). The stay will remain in effect until the earlier of (a) the Effective Date, (b) the termination of the restructuring support agreement with the Official Committee of Second Priority Noteholders or (c) further order of the Bankruptcy Court.

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 “Senior Unsecured Lawsuits”) were assigned to the same judge. 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. The parties have completed fact discovery with respect to both plaintiffs' claims against CEC. On October 23, 2015, plaintiffs in the Senior Unsecured Lawsuits moved for partial summary judgment, and on December 29, 2015, those motions were denied. On December 4, 2015, plaintiff in the action brought on behalf of holders of CEOC’s 6.50% Senior Unsecured Notes moved for class certification and briefing has been completed. The judge presiding over these cases thereafter retired, and a new judge was appointed to preside over these lawsuits. That judge set a new summary judgment briefing schedule, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which remain pending. On January 26, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an agreed order staying this proceeding (and others). The stay will remain in effect until the earlier of (a) the Effective Date, (b) the termination of the restructuring support agreement with the Official Committee of Second Priority Noteholders or (c) further order of the Bankruptcy Court.

On November 25, 2014, UMB Bank (“UMB”), 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 “Delaware First Lien Lawsuit”) in Delaware Chancery Court against CEC, CEOC, CERP, CAC, CGP, 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 effected a release of CEC’s parent guarantee of the 8.50% Senior Secured Notes and committed other wrongs. Among other things, UMB 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 First Lien Bond RSA, the lawsuit also has been stayed in its entirety, with the consent of all of the parties to it.

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. (“BOKF”), 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 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, 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 filed a lawsuit (the “New York Second Lien Lawsuit”) against CEC in federal district court in Manhattan, in its capacity as successor trustee for CEOC’s 12.75% Second-Priority Notes. On June 15, 2015, UMB filed a lawsuit (the “New York First Lien Lawsuit”) against CEC, also in federal district court in Manhattan, in its capacity as successor trustee for CEOC’s 11.25% Senior Secured Notes due 2017, 8.50% Senior Secured Notes due 2020, and 9.00% Senior Secured Notes due 2020. Plaintiffs in these actions allege that CEOC’s filing of its voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy case constitutes an event of default under the indentures 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 parent guarantee provisions in the indentures governing these notes that plaintiffs allege are still binding. Both plaintiffs bring claims for violation of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and for declaratory relief and BOKF brings an additional claim for intentional interference with contractual relations. The cases were both assigned to the same judge presiding over the other Parent Guarantee Lawsuits (as defined below) that are taking place in Manhattan. CEC filed its answer to the BOKF complaint on March 25, 2015, and to the UMB complaint on August 10, 2015. On June 25, 2015, and June 26, 2015, BOKF and UMB, respectively, moved for partial summary judgment, specifically on their claims alleging a violation of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, seeking both declaratory relief and damages. On August 27, 2015, those motions were denied. The court, on its own motion, certified its order with respect to the interpretation of the Trust Indenture Act for interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and on December 22, 2015, the appellate court denied our motion for leave to appeal. On November 20, 2015, BOKF and UMB again moved for partial summary judgment. These motions likewise were denied. The judge presiding over these cases thereafter retired, and a new judge was appointed to preside over these lawsuits. That judge set a new summary judgment briefing schedule, and the parties submitted cross-motions for summary judgment, which remain pending. On January 26, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an agreed order staying this proceeding (and others). The stay will remain in effect until the earlier of (a) the Effective Date, (b) the termination of the restructuring support agreement with the Official Committee of Second Priority Noteholders or (c) further order of the Bankruptcy Court.

On October 20, 2015, Wilmington Trust, National Association (“Wilmington Trust”), filed a lawsuit (the “New York Senior Notes Lawsuit” and, together with the Delaware Second Lien Lawsuit, the Delaware First Lien Lawsuit, the Senior Unsecured Lawsuits, the New York Second Lien Lawsuit, and the New York First Lien Lawsuit, the “Parent Guarantee Lawsuits”) against CEC in federal district court in Manhattan in its capacity as successor indenture trustee for CEOC’s 10.75% Senior Notes due 2016 (the “10.75% Senior Notes”). Plaintiff alleges that CEC is obligated to make payment of amounts due on the 10.75% Senior Notes pursuant to a parent guarantee provision in the indenture governing those notes that plaintiff alleges is still in effect. Plaintiff raises claims for violations of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and for declaratory judgment, and seeks monetary and declaratory relief. CEC filed its answer to the complaint on November 23, 2015. As with the other parent guaranty lawsuits taking place in Manhattan, the judge presiding over these cases thereafter retired, and a new judge was appointed to preside over these lawsuits. That judge set a new summary judgment briefing schedule, and the parties submitted cross-motions for summary judgment, which remain pending. On January 26, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an agreed order staying this proceeding (and others). The stay will remain in effect until the earlier of (a) the Effective Date, (b) the termination of the restructuring support agreement with the Official Committee of Second Priority Noteholders or (c) further order of the Bankruptcy Court.

We believe that the claims and demands described above against CEC are without merit and we intend to defend the Company vigorously. The claims against CEOC have been stayed due to the Chapter 11 process and, as described above, the actions against CEC have now also been stayed. See additional disclosure relating to CEOC’s Chapter 11 filing in Note 1. In the event that the litigation stays are ever lifted, we believe that the Noteholder Disputes and the Parent Guarantee Lawsuits present a reasonably possible likelihood of an adverse outcome. 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 some or all of the Noteholder Disputes, such determination would likely lead to a CEC reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (see Note 1). We are not able to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses should any of the Noteholder Disputes ultimately be resolved against us, although they could potentially exceed $11 billion.

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 (the “Court”) 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, 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 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 Merger; and (3) an award to plaintiff for his costs and attorneys’ fees. On October 13, 2016, the Court dismissed the case for lack of prosecution. Pursuant to local rule, the case could have been reinstated at the plaintiff’s written request, provided such request was filed within 30 days of the date of service of written notice of the dismissal. The 30-day time period has now expired.

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 Park Place under this Allocation Agreement. In 2013, a lawsuit was settled relating to the Hilton Plan, which retroactively and prospectively increased total benefits to be paid under the Hilton Plan. In 2009, we received a letter from Hilton, notifying us of a lawsuit related to the Hilton Plan that alleged that CEC had a potential liability for the additional claims under the terms of the Allocation Agreement.

On December 24, 2014, Hilton, the Plan Administrator of the Hilton Plan, and a representative of the Plan Administrator (the “Hilton Parties”) 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. On April 14, 2015, the federal court dismissed the Hilton Parties’ unjust enrichment claim with prejudice and ordered that the remainder of the case be transferred to the Bankruptcy Court based upon its relationship to the CEOC bankruptcy case.

On June 9, 2016, CEC, CEOC and the Hilton Parties entered into a settlement of the Hilton Parties’ claims (the “Settlement Agreement”). Under the settlement, Hilton will receive a general unsecured claim in CEOC’s bankruptcy case for an amount equal to $51 million plus 31.75% of amounts paid by Hilton to the Hilton Plan due after July 16, 2016. For periods following the effective date of CEOC’s plan of reorganization, CEC shall assume certain of CEOC’s obligations under the Allocation Agreement. In exchange, Hilton shall turn over to CEC the distributions on account of $24.5 million of Hilton’s claim in the CEOC bankruptcy. On June 21, 2016, the parties sought approval of the Settlement Agreement. The CEOC Bankruptcy Court approved the Settlement Agreement on July 19, 2016. The settlement amount is fully accrued in liabilities subject to compromise at CEOC, and the Settlement Agreement is subject to the effectiveness of CEOC’s plan of reorganization.

National Retirement Fund

In January 2015, a majority of the Trustees of the National Retirement Fund (“NRF”), a multi-employer defined benefit pension plan, voted to expel the five indirect subsidiaries of CEC which were required to make contributions to the legacy plan of the NRF (the “Five Employers”). The NRF contended that the financial condition of the Five Employers’ controlled group (the “CEC Controlled Group”) and CEOC’s then-potential bankruptcy presented an “actuarial risk” to the plan because, depending on the outcome of any CEOC bankruptcy proceedings, CEC might no longer be liable to the plan for any partial or complete withdrawal liability. As a result, the NRF claimed that the expulsion of the Five Employers constituted a complete withdrawal of the CEC Controlled Group from the plan. CEOC, in its bankruptcy proceedings, has to date not rejected the contribution obligations to the NRF of any of its subsidiary employers. The NRF has advised the CEC Controlled Group (which includes CERP) that the expulsion of the Five Employers has triggered a joint and several withdrawal liability with a present value of approximately $360 million, payable in 80 quarterly payments of about $6 million.

Prior to the NRF’s vote to expel the Five Employers, the Five Employers reiterated their commitments to remain in the plan and not seek rejection of any collective bargaining agreement in which the obligation to contribute to NRF exists. The Five Employers were current with respect to pension contributions at the time of their expulsion, and are current with respect to pension contributions as of today pursuant to the Standstill Agreement referred to below.

We have opposed the various NRF expulsion actions.

On January 8, 2015, prior to the NRF’s vote to expel the Five Employers, CEC filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “S.D.N.Y.”) against the NRF and its Board of Trustees, seeking a declaratory judgment that they did not have the authority to expel the Five Employers and thus allegedly trigger withdrawal liability for the CEC Controlled Group (the “CEC Action”). On December 25, 2015, the District Judge entered an order dismissing the CEC Action on the ground that CEC’s claims in this action must first be arbitrated under ERISA. CEC has appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Oral argument on this appeal was heard on January 30, 2017, and the Second Circuit has reserved decision on this appeal.

On March 6 and March 27, 2015, CEOC and certain of its subsidiaries filed in the CEOC bankruptcy proceedings two motions to void (a) the purported expulsion of the Five Employers and based thereon the alleged triggering of withdrawal liability for the non-debtor members of the CEC Controlled Group, and (b) a notice and payment demand for quarterly payments of withdrawal liability subsequently made by the NRF to certain non-debtor members of the CEC Controlled Group, respectively, on the ground that each of these actions violated the automatic stay (the “362 Motions”). On November 12, 2015, Bankruptcy Judge Goldgar issued a decision denying the 362 Motions on the ground that the NRF’s actions were directed at non-debtors and therefore did not violate the automatic stay. CEOC has appealed this decision to the federal district court in Chicago.

On March 6, 2015, CEOC commenced an adversary proceeding against the NRF and its Board of Trustees in the Bankruptcy Court (the “Adversary Proceeding”). On March 11, 2015, CEOC filed a motion in that Adversary Proceeding to extend the automatic stay in the CEOC bankruptcy proceedings to apply to the NRF’s expulsion of the Five Employers (the “105 Motion”). Judge Goldgar has not yet decided the 105 Motion.

On March 20, 2015, CEC, CEOC and CERP, on behalf of themselves and others, entered into a Standstill Agreement with the NRF and its Board of Trustees that, among other things, stayed each member of the CEC Controlled Group’s purported obligation to commence making quarterly payments of withdrawal liability and instead required the Five Employers to continue making monthly contribution payments to the NRF, unless and until each of the 362 Motions and the 105 Motion had been denied. As the 105 Motion has not yet been decided, the Standstill Agreement remains in effect.

If both the 105 Motion and CEC’s appeal of the CEC Action are denied, then CEC could be required to pay to the NRF joint and several withdrawal liability with a present value of approximately $360 million, payable in 80 quarterly payments of about $6 million each while CEC simultaneously arbitrates whether the NRF and its Board of Trustees had the authority to expel the Five Employers and trigger withdrawal liability for the CEC Controlled Group.

On March 18, 2015, before the Standstill Agreement was executed, the NRF and its fund manager commenced a collection action in the S.D.N.Y. against CEC, CERP and all non-debtor members of the CEC Controlled Group for the payment of the first quarterly payment of withdrawal liability, which the NRF contended was due on March 15, 2015 (the “NRF Action”). On December 25, 2015, the District Judge entered an Order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to deny defendants’ motion to dismiss over the defendants’ objections on the ground that the defendants’ arguments must first be arbitrated under ERISA. On February 26, 2016, the NRF and its fund manager filed a motion for summary judgment against CEC and CERP for payment of the first quarterly payment of withdrawal liability and for interest, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On November 7, 2016, the District Judge entered an Order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to grant partial summary judgment to the NRF Action plaintiffs over CEC and CERP’s objections on the ground that CEC and CERP’s further arguments must also first be arbitrated under ERISA. CEC and CERP filed a Notice of Appeal to protect their rights in response to this Order. Subsequently, the District Judge determined that no final order or judgment was entered, and thus the Notice of Appeal was premature. Accordingly, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the appeal without prejudice to any party’s rights to appeal a final, appealable judgment that may later be entered in the case.

On December 5, 2016, an interlocutory judgment was entered against CEC and CERP comprising the first quarterly payment of withdrawal liability referred to above, interest and liquidated damages under ERISA‎. On December 19, 2016, a CEC and CERP filed a motion to certify a final judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for immediate appeal and to stay the NRF Action plaintiffs’ motions to amend and for summary judgment, as described below. On January 11, 2017, the District Court granted the motion to certify a final judgment under Rule 54(b) in the amount of $9 million, but denied the motion for a stay, and a judgment in that amount was entered the next day. CEC has appealed this decision to the Second Circuit, and has bonded the judgment pending appeal.

On December 23, 2016, the NRF Action plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint to add claims for the second through eighth quarterly payments of withdrawal liability, which the NRF Action plaintiffs contended were past due, as well as for injunctive relief requiring the defendants to pay all further quarterly payments as they purportedly became due. Also on December 23, 2016, the NRF Action plaintiffs simultaneously filed a motion for summary judgment against CEC and CERP for payment of the second through eighth quarterly payments of withdrawal liability, for interest, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and for injunctive relief requiring the defendants to pay all further quarterly payments as they purportedly became due. These motions have not yet been fully submitted to the District Court.

We believe our legal arguments against the actions undertaken by NRF are strong and will pursue them vigorously, and will defend vigorously against the claims raised by the NRF in the NRF Action. Since settlement discussions with the NRF are continuing and no material discovery has yet been performed with respect to any of the above actions, we cannot currently provide assurance as to the ultimate outcome of the matters at issue.

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. In October 2013, CEOC’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 was 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 in January 2014. Additionally, we were informed in October 2013 that a federal grand jury investigation regarding anti-money laundering practices of the Company and its subsidiaries had been initiated. CEC and Caesars Palace have been cooperating with FinCEN, the Department of Justice and the Nevada Gaming Control Board (the “GCB”) on this matter. On September 8, 2015, FinCEN announced a settlement pursuant to which Caesars Palace agreed to an $8 million civil penalty for its violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, which penalty shall be treated as a general unsecured claim in Caesars Palace’s bankruptcy proceedings. In addition, Caesars Palace agreed to conduct periodic external audits and independent testing of its AML compliance program, report to FinCEN on mandated improvements, adopt a rigorous training regime, and engage in a “look-back” for suspicious transactions. The terms of the FinCEN settlement were approved by the Bankruptcy Court on October 19, 2015.

CEOC and the GCB reached a settlement on the same facts as above, wherein CEC agreed to pay $1.5 million and provide to the GCB the same information that is reported to FinCEN and to resubmit its updated AML policies. On September 17, 2015, the settlement agreement was approved by the Nevada Gaming Commission. CEOC continues to cooperate with the Department of Justice in its investigation of this matter.

Caesars 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.