Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	9. 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. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses, claims and/or counter-claims, and intends to vigorously defend itself or pursue its claims. Gaming licenses in Iowa are typically issued jointly to a gaming operator and a local charitable organization known as a QSO. The agreement between the Company’s gaming operator subsidiary in Iowa, Belle of Sioux City, L.P. (“Belle”), and its QSO, Missouri River Historical Development, Inc. (“MRHD”), expired in early July 2012. On July 12, 2012, when presented with an extension of the Company’s QSO/operating agreement for the Sioux City facility through March 2015, the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission (“IRGC”) failed to approve the extension and urged a shorter extension. In mid-August 2012, MRHD offered a revised contract to the Company that would require a yearly renewal from the IRGC and stated that MHRD would be able to continue searching for an operator for a new land-based casino. The Company rejected this contract offer and at the August 23, 2012 IRGC meeting urged the IRGC to reconsider the original extension offer through March 2015. The IRGC did not act on this request and, concluded that the casino can continue to operate without an effective operating agreement. The IRGC also announced at the July 12, 2012 meeting the schedule for requests for proposals for a new land-based Woodbury County casino. Applications and financing proposals were due by November 5, 2012. The Company submitted two proposals for a new gaming and entertainment destination in Woodbury County for the IRGC’s consideration. On April 18, 2013, the IRGC awarded the license to another gaming operator. The IRGC has indicated that it intends to permit the Company to continue operations at its Sioux City facility until such time as the new casino opens to the public, but not beyond. The Company is currently reviewing all of its options and will maintain an open dialogue with members of the IRGC, Sioux City officials, and its employees regarding the IRGC’s decision. The Belle has filed four lawsuits against the IRGC’s recent actions, namely refusing to consider the Belle’s request to replace MRHD with another non-profit partner and opening up the gaming license to bidding for a land-based casino, its failure to approve the 2015 extension agreement and any extension, announcing a process would be instituted to revoke the Belle’s license, and its selection of another gaming operator. In addition, the Belle filed suit against MRHD for a breach of contract and seeking to enjoin MRHD from disavowing the 2015 extension agreement it signed and the exclusivity obligations in the agreement. The injunction request was denied on October 29, 2012. A trial has been scheduled to begin in April 2014. Additionally, in June 2013, the Company filed a petition to request the appointment of a third party to receive and hold or distribute the funds to be paid to MRHD (for which oral argument was held in July 2013). 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 alleged 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 sought 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 (which was included in current assets at December 31, 2012) paid to the Kansas Lottery Commission in conjunction with the gaming application for the Cherokee County zone. The defendants filed motions to dissolve and reduce the attachment. Those motions were denied. Following discovery, both parties filed dispositive motions and the motions were argued on April 20, 2012. In September 2012, the judge ruled in favor of the County on its motion for summary judgment. At December 31, 2012, the Company accrued $6.4 million which was included in accrued expenses within the consolidated balance sheet, based on settlement discussions that took place in January 2013. In February 2013, the Company finalized the settlement with the County and the $25 million privilege fee was returned to the Company, net of the amount previously accrued. On June 13, 2013, the Company finalized an agreement to the terms of its previous non-binding memorandum of understanding with the State of Ohio. The Company has agreed to pay $110 million over a ten year period commencing in July 2013 for certain clarifications from the State of Ohio with respect to various financial matters and limits on competition within the ten year time period. Additionally, in return for being able to relocate its existing racetracks in Toledo and Grove City to Dayton and Austintown (located in the Mahoning Valley), respectively, the Company agreed to pay the state $7.5 million upon the opening of each facility, as well as eighteen semi-annual installment payments of $4.8 million beginning one year after the opening of each facility.

9. 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. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses, claims and/or counter-claims, and intends to vigorously defend itself or pursue its claims.

Gaming licenses in Iowa are typically issued jointly to a gaming operator and a local charitable organization known as a QSO. The agreement between the Company’s gaming operator subsidiary in Iowa, Belle of Sioux City, L.P. (“Belle”), and its QSO, Missouri River Historical Development, Inc. (“MRHD”), expired in early July 2012. On July 12, 2012, when presented with an extension of the Company’s QSO/operating agreement for the Sioux City facility through March 2015, the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission (“IRGC”) failed to approve the extension and urged a shorter extension. In mid-August 2012, MRHD offered a revised contract to the Company that would require a yearly renewal from the IRGC and stated that MHRD would be able to continue searching for an operator for a new land-based casino. The Company rejected this contract offer and at the August 23, 2012 IRGC meeting urged the IRGC to reconsider the original extension offer through March 2015. The IRGC did not act on this request and, concluded that the casino can continue to operate without an effective operating agreement. The IRGC also announced at the July 12, 2012 meeting the schedule for requests for proposals for a new land-based Woodbury County casino. Applications and financing proposals were due by November 5, 2012. The Company submitted two proposals for a new gaming and entertainment destination in Woodbury County for the IRGC’s consideration. On April 18, 2013, the IRGC awarded the license to another gaming operator. The IRGC has indicated that it intends to permit the Company to continue operations at its Sioux City facility until such time as the new casino opens to the public, but not beyond. The Company is currently reviewing all of its options and will maintain an open dialogue with members of the IRGC, Sioux City officials, and its employees regarding the IRGC’s decision. The Belle has filed four lawsuits against the IRGC’s recent actions, namely refusing to consider the Belle’s request to replace MRHD with another non-profit partner and opening up the gaming license to bidding for a land-based casino, its failure to approve the 2015 extension agreement and any extension, announcing a process would be instituted to revoke the Belle’s license, and its selection of another gaming operator. In addition, the Belle filed suit against MRHD for a breach of contract and seeking to enjoin MRHD from disavowing the 2015 extension agreement it signed and the exclusivity obligations in the agreement. The injunction request was denied on October 29, 2012. A trial has been scheduled to begin in April 2014. Additionally, in June 2013, the Company filed a petition to request the appointment of a third party to receive and hold or distribute the funds to be paid to MRHD (for which oral argument was held in July 2013).

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 alleged 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 sought 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 (which was included in current assets at December 31, 2012) paid to the Kansas Lottery Commission in conjunction with the gaming application for the Cherokee County zone. The defendants filed motions to dissolve and reduce the attachment. Those motions were denied. Following discovery, both parties filed dispositive motions and the motions were argued on April 20, 2012. In September 2012, the judge ruled in favor of the County on its motion for summary judgment. At December 31, 2012, the Company accrued $6.4 million which was included in accrued expenses within the consolidated balance sheet, based on settlement discussions that took place in January 2013. In February 2013, the Company finalized the settlement with the County and the $25 million privilege fee was returned to the Company, net of the amount previously accrued.

On June 13, 2013, the Company finalized an agreement to the terms of its previous non-binding memorandum of understanding with the State of Ohio. The Company has agreed to pay $110 million over a ten year period commencing in July 2013 for certain clarifications from the State of Ohio with respect to various financial matters and limits on competition within the ten year time period. Additionally, in return for being able to relocate its existing racetracks in Toledo and Grove City to Dayton and Austintown (located in the Mahoning Valley), respectively, the Company agreed to pay the state $7.5 million upon the opening of each facility, as well as eighteen semi-annual installment payments of $4.8 million beginning one year after the opening of each facility.