GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT, INC. - Quarter Report: 2005 July (Form 10-Q)
Table of Contents
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Form 10-Q
(Mark One) | ||
þ
|
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 | |
For the quarterly period ended July 3, 2005 | ||
OR | ||
o
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 | |
For the transition period from to |
Commission File No. 0-24993
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Minnesota | 41-1913991 | |
(State or other jurisdiction
|
(I.R.S. Employer | |
of incorporation or organization) | Identification No.) | |
130 Cheshire Lane
Minnetonka, Minnesota |
55305 (Zip Code) |
|
(Address of principal executive offices)
|
(952) 449-9092
(Registrants telephone number, including area code)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed
all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past
90 days. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated
filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange
Act). Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange
Act). Yes o No þ
As of December 9, 2005, there were 22,299,909 shares
of Common Stock, $0.01 par value per share, outstanding.
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
INDEX
2
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Consolidated Balance Sheets
July 3, 2005 and January 2, 2005
July 3, | January 2, | ||||||||
2005 | 2005 | ||||||||
(Unaudited) | |||||||||
(In thousands) | |||||||||
ASSETS | |||||||||
Current assets:
|
|||||||||
Cash and cash equivalents
|
$ | 24,436 | $ | 28,717 | |||||
(balance includes $5.6 million and $4.5 million of WPT
Enterprises, Inc. cash)
|
|||||||||
Short-term investments
|
26,566 | 28,930 | |||||||
(balance includes $26.6 million and $27.8 million of
WPT Enterprises, Inc. short-term investments)
|
|||||||||
Accounts receivable, net of allowance of $0.2 million and $0
|
1,402 | 2,038 | |||||||
Deferred tax asset
|
162 | 137 | |||||||
Prepaids
|
684 | 1,233 | |||||||
Other current assets
|
601 | 1,159 | |||||||
Total current assets
|
53,851 | 62,214 | |||||||
Property and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation
|
7,889 | 6,795 | |||||||
Long-term assets related to Indian casino projects
|
|||||||||
Notes receivable, Indian Tribes
|
73,803 | 67,066 | |||||||
Land held for development
|
15,783 | 15,433 | |||||||
Intangible asset related to acquisition of management contracts
|
43,247 | 41,096 | |||||||
Other
|
3,045 | 2,024 | |||||||
Total long-term assets related to Indian casino projects
|
135,878 | 125,619 | |||||||
Investments
|
5,259 | 6,093 | |||||||
Deferred tax asset
|
4,278 | 4,278 | |||||||
Other
|
4,414 | 4,090 | |||||||
Total assets
|
$ | 211,569 | $ | 209,089 | |||||
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY | |||||||||
Current liabilities:
|
|||||||||
Accounts payable
|
$ | 3,464 | $ | 780 | |||||
Income taxes payable
|
10,369 | 5,457 | |||||||
Accrued payroll and related costs
|
697 | 891 | |||||||
Deferred revenue
|
3,448 | 3,280 | |||||||
Other accrued expenses
|
5,946 | 3,449 | |||||||
Total liabilities
|
23,924 | 13,857 | |||||||
Commitments and contingencies
|
|||||||||
Common shares issued by subsidiary subject to repurchase
|
639 | 618 | |||||||
Minority interest
|
11,185 | 11,222 | |||||||
Shareholders equity:
|
|||||||||
Capital stock, $.01 par value; authorized
200,000 shares; 22,300 and 22,253 common shares issued and
outstanding at July 3, 2005, and January 2, 2005,
respectively
|
223 | 223 | |||||||
Additional paid-in capital
|
158,130 | 157,895 | |||||||
Retained earnings
|
17,510 | 25,280 | |||||||
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
|
(42 | ) | (6 | ) | |||||
Total shareholders equity
|
175,821 | 183,392 | |||||||
Total liabilities and shareholders equity
|
$ | 211,569 | $ | 209,089 | |||||
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
consolidated financial statements.
3
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Consolidated Statements of Loss
Three Months Ended | ||||||||||
July 3, | July 4, | |||||||||
2005 | 2004 | |||||||||
(Restated) | ||||||||||
(Unaudited) | ||||||||||
(In thousands, except | ||||||||||
loss per share) | ||||||||||
Revenues:
|
||||||||||
License fee income
|
$ | 5,341 | $ | 3,770 | ||||||
Host fees, sponsorship and other
|
1,260 | 948 | ||||||||
Total revenues
|
6,601 | 4,718 | ||||||||
Costs and expenses:
|
||||||||||
Selling, general and administrative
|
6,970 | 3,146 | ||||||||
Production costs
|
4,377 | 2,645 | ||||||||
Net impairment losses
|
| 5,833 | ||||||||
Depreciation
|
113 | 150 | ||||||||
Total costs and expenses
|
11,460 | 11,774 | ||||||||
Net unrealized loss on notes receivable
|
(956 | ) | (44 | ) | ||||||
Loss from operations
|
(5,815 | ) | (7,100 | ) | ||||||
Other income:
|
||||||||||
Interest income
|
364 | 43 | ||||||||
Total other income
|
364 | 43 | ||||||||
Loss before income taxes, equity in loss of investments and
minority interest
|
(5,451 | ) | (7,057 | ) | ||||||
Income tax provision (benefit)
|
352 | (469 | ) | |||||||
Loss before equity in loss on investments and minority interest
|
(5,803 | ) | (6,588 | ) | ||||||
Equity in loss of investments, net of tax
|
(7 | ) | (14 | ) | ||||||
Loss before minority interest
|
(5,810 | ) | (6,602 | ) | ||||||
Minority interest in net loss of subsidiary
|
159 | | ||||||||
Net loss
|
$ | (5,651 | ) | $ | (6,602 | ) | ||||
Loss per share, basic and diluted
|
$ | (0.25 | ) | $ | (0.30 | ) | ||||
Weighted average common shares outstanding
|
22,300 | 22,212 | ||||||||
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
consolidated financial statements.
4
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Loss
Three Months Ended | |||||||||
July 3, | July 4, | ||||||||
2005 | 2004 | ||||||||
(Restated) | |||||||||
(Unaudited) | |||||||||
(In thousands) | |||||||||
Net loss
|
$ | (5,651 | ) | $ | (6,602 | ) | |||
Other comprehensive loss, net of tax:
|
|||||||||
Unrealized gain on securities
|
6 | | |||||||
Comprehensive loss
|
$ | (5,645 | ) | $ | (6,602 | ) | |||
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
consolidated financial statements.
5
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Consolidated Statements of Loss
Six Months Ended | ||||||||||
July 3, | July 4, | |||||||||
2005 | 2004 | |||||||||
(Restated) | ||||||||||
(Unaudited) | ||||||||||
(In thousands, except | ||||||||||
loss per share) | ||||||||||
Revenues:
|
||||||||||
License fee income
|
$ | 8,804 | $ | 7,413 | ||||||
Host fees, sponsorship and other
|
1,901 | 1,445 | ||||||||
Total revenues
|
10,705 | 8,858 | ||||||||
Costs and expenses:
|
||||||||||
Selling, general and administrative
|
13,435 | 6,394 | ||||||||
Production costs
|
7,564 | 5,117 | ||||||||
Net impairment losses
|
| 5,833 | ||||||||
Depreciation
|
204 | 293 | ||||||||
Total costs and expenses
|
21,203 | 17,637 | ||||||||
Net unrealized gain on notes receivable
|
1,880 | 530 | ||||||||
Loss from operations
|
(8,618 | ) | (8,249 | ) | ||||||
Other income:
|
||||||||||
Interest income
|
814 | 91 | ||||||||
Other
|
| 42 | ||||||||
Total other income
|
814 | 133 | ||||||||
Loss before income taxes, equity in earnings of investments and
minority interest
|
(7,804 | ) | (8,116 | ) | ||||||
Income tax provision (benefit)
|
707 | (877 | ) | |||||||
Loss before equity in earnings of investments and minority
interest
|
(8,511 | ) | (7,239 | ) | ||||||
Equity in earnings of investments, net of tax
|
6 | 245 | ||||||||
Loss before minority interest
|
(8,505 | ) | (6,994 | ) | ||||||
Minority interest in net loss of subsidiary
|
735 | | ||||||||
Net loss
|
$ | (7,770 | ) | $ | (6,994 | ) | ||||
Loss per share, basic and diluted
|
$ | (0.35 | ) | $ | (0.32 | ) | ||||
Weighted average common shares outstanding
|
22,289 | 21,982 | ||||||||
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
consolidated financial statements.
6
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Loss
Six Months Ended | |||||||||
July 3, | July 4, | ||||||||
2005 | 2004 | ||||||||
(Restated) | |||||||||
(Unaudited) | |||||||||
(In thousands) | |||||||||
Net loss
|
$ | (7,770 | ) | $ | (6,994 | ) | |||
Other comprehensive loss, net of tax:
|
|||||||||
Unrealized loss on securities
|
(36 | ) | | ||||||
Comprehensive loss
|
$ | (7,806 | ) | $ | (6,994 | ) | |||
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
consolidated financial statements.
7
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
Six Months Ended | ||||||||||
July 3, | July 4, | |||||||||
2005 | 2004 | |||||||||
(Restated) | ||||||||||
(Unaudited) | ||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||
OPERATING ACTIVITIES:
|
||||||||||
Net loss
|
$ | (7,770 | ) | $ | (6,994 | ) | ||||
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash provided by (used
in) operating activities:
|
||||||||||
Depreciation
|
336 | 293 | ||||||||
Stock-based compensation expense
|
800 | 270 | ||||||||
Equity in earnings of investments
|
(6 | ) | (396 | ) | ||||||
Deferred income taxes
|
(25 | ) | (838 | ) | ||||||
Net impairment losses
|
| 5,833 | ||||||||
Unrealized gains on notes receivable
|
(1,879 | ) | (530 | ) | ||||||
Minority interest
|
(735 | ) | | |||||||
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
|
||||||||||
Accounts receivable
|
636 | 715 | ||||||||
Prepaid expenses
|
549 | | ||||||||
Other current assets
|
558 | | ||||||||
Income taxes
|
4,912 | 28 | ||||||||
Accounts payable
|
999 | (1,894 | ) | |||||||
Deferred revenue
|
168 | | ||||||||
Accrued expenses
|
2,303 | 1,470 | ||||||||
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities
|
846 | (2,043 | ) | |||||||
INVESTING ACTIVITIES:
|
||||||||||
Short-term investment securities
|
2,328 | | ||||||||
Payments for land held under contract for sale
|
| (251 | ) | |||||||
Advances on long-term assets related to Indian casino projects
|
(6,695 | ) | (8,157 | ) | ||||||
Payments to unconsolidated affiliates
|
(10 | ) | (226 | ) | ||||||
Proceeds from unconsolidated affiliates
|
850 | 1,683 | ||||||||
Payments for other long-term assets
|
(521 | ) | (391 | ) | ||||||
Decrease in other long-term assets
|
197 | | ||||||||
Purchase of property and equipment
|
(1,430 | ) | (286 | ) | ||||||
Net cash used in investing activities
|
(5,281 | ) | (7,628 | ) | ||||||
FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
|
||||||||||
Proceeds from sale of common stock
|
154 | 3,736 | ||||||||
Net cash provided by financing activities
|
154 | 3,736 | ||||||||
Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents
|
(4,281 | ) | (5,935 | ) | ||||||
Cash and cash equivalents beginning of period
|
28,717 | 25,340 | ||||||||
Cash and cash equivalents end of period
|
$ | 24,436 | $ | 19,405 | ||||||
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURES OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION:
|
||||||||||
Cash paid during the period for:
|
||||||||||
Income taxes
|
$ | 45 | $ | 13 | ||||||
Noncash operating activities:
|
||||||||||
Capitalized television costs related to unit options issued to
consultants
|
$ | | $ | 139 | ||||||
Acquisition of long-term assets and advances related to Indian
casino projects
|
$ | 1,685 | $ | 1,348 |
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed
consolidated financial statements.
8
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements
1. | BUSINESS OVERVIEW AND ACCOUNTING POLICIES |
Business Overview |
Lakes Entertainment, Inc. and Subsidiaries, a Minnesota
corporation (Lakes or the Company), has
development agreements for various Indian-owned casino
properties and intends to manage such casinos when applicable
regulatory approvals have been received and other contingencies
have been satisfied. Lakes is also involved in other businesses,
including development of a Company-owned casino and the
purchase/license or development of new table game concepts for
licensing to other casinos. In addition, as of July 3,
2005, Lakes owned approximately 62% of WPT Enterprises, Inc.
(WPTE), a separate publicly held media and
entertainment company principally engaged in the development,
production and marketing of poker-themed televised programming,
the licensing and sale of branded products and the sale of
corporate sponsorships. Lakes unaudited condensed
consolidated financial statements include the results of
operations of WPTE, and in recent periods, all of Lakes
revenues have been derived from WPTEs business.
Lakes, through various subsidiaries, has entered into the
following contracts for the development, and management of new
casino operations, all of which are subject to various
regulatory approvals and in some cases resolution of legal
proceedings:
| Lakes has contracts to develop and manage The Foothill Oaks Casino, to be built on the Rancheria of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians (Shingle Springs Tribe) in El Dorado County, California, adjacent to U.S. Highway 50, approximately 30 miles east of Sacramento, California (the Shingle Springs Casino). | |
| Lakes has contracts to develop and manage the Four Winds Casino resort to be built on land to be placed into trust for the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians (Pokagon Band) in New Buffalo Township, Michigan near Interstate 94. The casino location will be near the first Interstate 94 exit in southwestern Michigan and approximately 75 miles east of Chicago (the Pokagon Casino). | |
| Lakes has contracts to develop and manage a casino to be built on the Rancheria of the Jamul Indian Village (Jamul Tribe) located on State Highway 94, approximately 20 miles east of San Diego, California (the Jamul Casino). | |
| Lakes has consulting agreements and management contracts with three wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Pawnee Tribal Development Corporation (Pawnee TDC referred to collectively as the Pawnee Nation) in connection with assisting the Pawnee Nation in developing, equipping and managing three separate casino destinations. | |
| Lakes has consulting agreements and management contracts with the Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma (the Iowa Tribe) in connection with developing, equipping and managing a new casino and the Tribes existing Cimarron casino. |
Lakes entered into consulting agreements and management
contracts with the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas (the
Kickapoo Tribe) effective as of January 2005 to
improve the performance of the Kickapoo Tribes existing
Lucky Eagle Casino in Eagle Pass, Texas, located approximately
140 miles southwest of San Antonio. During the third
quarter of fiscal 2005 the Companys relationship with the
Kickapoo Tribe deteriorated and in November 2005, Lakes and the
Kickapoo Tribe terminated their business relationship
(Note 10).
Basis of Presentation |
The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements of the
Company have been prepared pursuant to the rules and regulations
of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
applicable to interim financial information. Accordingly,
certain information normally included in the annual financial
statements
9
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States has been condensed or omitted. For
further information, please refer to the annual audited
consolidated financial statements of the Company, and the
related notes, as restated Note 2 included within the
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended January 2, 2005, previously filed with the SEC on
December 2, 2005, from which the balance sheet information
as of that date is derived.
In the opinion of management, all adjustments considered
necessary for a fair presentation have been included, consisting
only of normal recurring adjustments. The results for the
current interim period are not necessarily indicative of the
results to be expected for the full year.
In addition to the restatements discussed in Note 3,
certain amounts, as previously reported, have been reclassified
to conform to the current period presentation.
2. | MANAGEMENTS FINANCIAL PLANS |
As of December 9, 2005, Lakes unaudited cash balance,
excluding WPTE cash, was approximately $5.5 million.
Lakes future quarterly corporate costs are expected to
approximate $3.5 million and future quarterly development
project-related costs are expected to approximate
$3.5 million, however, a portion of these costs are
discretionary and could be deferred if necessary. It is
anticipated that Lakes will require additional capital through
either public or private financings to fund operating expenses
and development project-related costs during the remainder of
2005 and 2006 and the Company is currently considering various
financing alternatives. The Company believes that its assets
provide sufficient collateral to obtain the necessary financing.
The assets of Lakes include common shares of WPTE that have an
estimated fair value of $82.6 million as of
December 9, 2005, based on the public trading price on that
date, which may not be indicative of what Lakes could realize in
a sale of its WPTE shares. The Company believes the shares of
WPTE could be the source or part of the collateral for the
additional financing. In addition, the Company continues to
pursue engaging an investment banking firm to explore strategic
alternatives for the Companys shares of common stock of
WPTE which may include the sale of part or all of such shares to
fund Lakes operational and development needs. See
Note 10 subsequent events regarding Financing
Facility.
3. | RESTATEMENT |
During 2005, as a result of discussions with the staff of the
SEC, the Company re-evaluated its accounting methodology
surrounding its contractual relationships with Indian tribes and
determined that it should have separately recognized the
separate elements of its development and management agreements
with the Indian tribes. Historically the Company recorded its
advances to Indian tribes as notes receivable and deferred
recognition of interest income due to the contingent repayment
terms of the notes. The Company has now determined that as
advances are made to the tribe pursuant to the development
relationship it should have given separate recognition to the
contractual notes receivable established and the related
interests in management contracts that are acquired in
conjunction with the development agreements. As a result the
accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial
statements for the three and six months ended July 4, 2004
have been restated from amounts previously reported to reflect
these accounting changes
10
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
retroactively. A summary of the effects of the restatement on
the results of operations for the quarterly period and six month
period ended July 4, 2004, follows (in thousands, except
per share data):
For the Six | ||||||||||||||||
For the Three | For the Three | Months Ended | For the Six | |||||||||||||
Months Ended | Months Ended | July 4, 2004, As | Months Ended | |||||||||||||
Consolidated Statement | July 4, 2004, As | July 4, 2004, | Previously | July 4, 2004, | ||||||||||||
of Earnings (Loss) | Previously Reported | Restated | Reported | Restated | ||||||||||||
Net impairment losses
|
$ | 6,407 | $ | 5,833 | $ | 6,407 | $ | 5,833 | ||||||||
Total costs and expenses
|
12,357 | 11,774 | 18,232 | 17,637 | ||||||||||||
Net unrealized gains (losses) on notes receivable
|
| (44 | ) | | 530 | |||||||||||
Loss from operations
|
(7,639 | ) | (7,100 | ) | (9,374 | ) | (8,249 | ) | ||||||||
Income tax benefit
|
(461 | ) | (469 | ) | (927 | ) | (877 | ) | ||||||||
Net loss
|
$ | (7,158 | ) | $ | (6,602 | ) | $ | (7,918 | ) | $ | (6,994 | ) | ||||
Basic loss per share
|
$ | (0.32 | ) | $ | (0.30 | ) | $ | (0.36 | ) | $ | (0.32 | ) | ||||
Diluted loss per share
|
$ | (0.32 | ) | $ | (0.30 | ) | $ | (0.36 | ) | $ | (0.32 | ) |
The following table illustrates the effect of the restatement on
retained earnings:
July 4, 2004 | ||||
Retained earnings, as previously reported
|
$ | 17,000 | ||
Restatement adjustment
|
5,327 | |||
Retained earnings, as restated
|
$ | 22,327 | ||
4. | STOCK BASED COMPENSATION |
The Company accounts for its employee stock option plans under
the recognition and measurement principles of Accounting
Principles Board Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock
Issued to Employees, and related Interpretations.
The following table illustrates the effect on net loss and loss
per share if the Company had applied the fair value recognition
provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation
(SFAS No. 123), to stock-based employee
compensation (in thousands, except per share data).
Three Months Ended | Six Months Ended | ||||||||||||||||
July 3, | July 4, | July 3, | July 4, | ||||||||||||||
2005 | 2004 | 2005 | 2004 | ||||||||||||||
Restated | Restated | ||||||||||||||||
Net loss:
|
$ | (5,651 | ) | $ | (6,602 | ) | $ | (7,770 | ) | $ | (6,994 | ) | |||||
As reported
|
|||||||||||||||||
Less: Total stock-based compensation expense determined under
the fair value method, net of related tax effects
|
(1,037 | ) | (361 | ) | (2,044 | ) | (717 | ) | |||||||||
Pro forma
|
$ | (6,688 | ) | $ | (6,963 | ) | $ | (9,814 | ) | $ | (7,711 | ) | |||||
Net loss per share, basic and diluted:
|
|||||||||||||||||
As reported
|
$ | (0.25 | ) | $ | (0.30 | ) | $ | (0.35 | ) | $ | (0.32 | ) | |||||
Pro forma
|
$ | (0.30 | ) | $ | (0.31 | ) | $ | (0.44 | ) | $ | (0.35 | ) |
11
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
5. | LOSS PER SHARE |
For all periods, basic loss per share, is calculated by dividing
the loss by the weighted average number of common shares
outstanding. The effects of stock options and warrants have not
been included in diluted loss per share for the three months
ended or six months ended July 3, 2005 and July 4,
2004 as the effect would have been anti-dilutive as a result of
losses.
6. | INCOME TAXES |
In accordance with SFAS No. 109, Lakes evaluated the
ability to utilize deferred tax assets arising from net
operating loss carry forwards, deferred tax assets and other
ordinary items and determined that a valuation allowance was
appropriate at July 3, and January 2, 2005. Lakes
evaluated all evidence and determined the negative evidence
relating to delays in casino projects and net losses generated
over the past three years outweighed the current positive
evidence that the Company believes exists surrounding its
ability to generate significant income from its long-term assets
related to Indian casino projects. Therefore, the Company
recorded a 100% valuation allowance against these items at
July 3, and January 2, 2005. However, the Company has
recognized a deferred tax asset related to capital losses during
2001 to 2004. The realization of these benefits is dependant on
the generation of capital gains. The Company believes it will
have sufficient capital gains in the foreseeable future to
utilize these benefits due to significant appreciation in its
investment in WPTE, which has a minimal cost basis. The Company
owns approximately 12.5 million shares of WPTE common stock
valued at approximately $82.6 million as of
December 9, 2005 based upon the closing stock price as
reported by Nasdaq on December 9, 2005 of $6.62.
The Company is currently under examination for income and
franchise tax matters. See Note 7 regarding the IRS Tax
Audit and the Louisiana Department of Revenue Litigation Tax
Matter.
7. COMMITMENTS AND
CONTINGENCIES:
Tribal Commitments |
The Companys development agreements with its tribal
partners require the Company to provide financial support
related to project development, in the form of loans.
Tribal Casino Development Advances/Commitments | ||||||||||||
As of July 3, 2005 | ||||||||||||
Pre-Construction | Land Held For | Remaining | ||||||||||
Advances | Development | Commitment | ||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||
Jamul Tribe
|
$ | 15,289 | $ | 6,612 | $ | 8,099 | ||||||
Shingle Springs Tribe
|
35,765 | 8,811 | 5,424 | |||||||||
Pokagon Band
|
45,365 | | 27,635 | |||||||||
Kickapoo Tribe*
|
645 | 304 | 1,051 | |||||||||
Pawnee Nation
|
688 | | | |||||||||
Iowa Tribe
|
83 | 55 | 862 |
* | Refer to Note 10 for further information regarding the Kickapoo Tribe project. |
For the Pokagon Casino project, the Company has agreed to
provide additional financing from its own funds if financing to
the Pokagon Band at an interest rate not to exceed 13% is not
available from third parties. If this occurs and Lakes is
required to provide all financing, this would be an additional
commitment of up to approximately $54 million. Based on
discussions with prospective lenders, management presently
believes that third-party financing will be available for this
project. However, there can be no assurance that third-party
financing will be available at the time the project begins
construction.
12
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Once the Pokagon Casino is open and Lakes is the manager of the
casino, the Company will be obligated to pay an amount to an
unrelated third party related to a settlement and release
agreement associated with Lakes obtaining the management
contract with the Pokagon Band. The obligation is payable
quarterly for five years so long as Lakes is the manager of the
casino, and the maximum liability over the five-year period is
approximately $11 million.
Lakes may be required to provide a guarantee of tribal debt
financing or otherwise provide support for the tribal
obligations related to any of the projects. Any guarantees by
Lakes will be recorded as a liability on the Companys
consolidated financial statements at the fair value of the
guarantee at its inception.
Common Shares Subject to Repurchase |
WPTE violated certain securities laws in connection with its
initial public offering by sending out written email
communications to individuals that did not contain all of the
information required to be in a prospectus and were not preceded
or accompanied by a prospectus meeting the requirements for a
prospectus. These violations could require WPTE to repurchase
shares sold in the offering to direct recipients of the email
communications for a period of up to one year at the offering
price plus interest. WPTE sold 75,200 shares in the
offering that were subject to such repurchase rights, and these
shares were classified as common shares subject to repurchase as
of July 3, 2005 and January 2, 2005. As of
August 9, 2005, the one-year anniversary of WPTEs
initial public offering, WPTEs repurchase obligation with
respect to such shares expired, and these shares were
reclassified as equity as of October 2, 2005.
IRS Tax Audit |
The Companys federal income tax returns are under audit by
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for the fiscal
years ended 2001 and 2000 related to the treatment of income
categorized as a capital gain. If the Company is unsuccessful in
sustaining its position the Company may be required to pay up to
approximately $3.2 million plus interest and penalties
related to tax on ordinary income, but this would be offset by
re-establishing capital losses that would then be available to
offset future capital gains, if any. The Company believes it
will have sufficient capital gains in the foreseeable future to
utilize these benefits due to significant appreciation in its
investment in WPTE. The Company owns approximately
12.5 million shares of WPTE common stock valued at
approximately $82.6 million as of December 9, 2005
based upon the closing stock price as reported by Nasdaq on
December 9, 2005 of $6.62. Lakes basis in the WPTE
common stock is minimal.
Leases |
The Company leases certain property and equipment, including an
airplane, under non-cancelable operating leases. The
Companys airplane lease contained a residual value
guarantee of $7.5 million. Rent expense, under
non-cancelable operating leases, exclusive of real estate taxes,
insurance, and maintenance expense was $0.4 million and
$0.1 million for the three-month period ended July 3,
2005 and July 4, 2004, respectively and $1.1 million
and $0.2 million for the six month period ended
July 3, 2005 and July 4, 2004. During 2004, the
Company determined that the value of the aircraft had decreased
to $6.1 million. Therefore, the Company began accruing the
expected deficiency over the remaining term of the lease This
resulted in additional expense of $0.6 million in the
fourth quarter of 2004 and $0.8 during the six months ended
July 3, 2005. At the end of the lease term in April 2005 a
determination of the actual deficiency was made and based on
that determination a payment of $1.4 million was made
during August 2005.
The airplane lease was amended on May 1, 2005, which allows
for a base term of one year and two one-year renewal terms.
Total future minimum lease payments due under this lease are
approximately $2.0 million payable ratably over the
three-year lease term. Under the lease agreement, the Company
has the option of renewing the lease, purchasing the airplane at
amounts which range from approximately $5.2 million to
13
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
$5.8 million or facilitating the sale of the aircraft at
the end of each term included in the up to three year lease
term; however at the conclusion of the lease, the Company is
required to purchase the airplane or facilitate the sale of the
airplane. The Companys airplane lease contains a residual
value guarantee of $5.2 million at the end of the three
year lease term.
Legal Proceedings |
Slot Machine Litigation |
In 1994, William H. Poulos filed a class-action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
against various parties, including Lakes predecessor Grand
Casinos and numerous other parties alleged to be casino
operators or slot machine manufacturers. This lawsuit was
followed by several additional lawsuits of the same nature
against the same, as well as additional defendants, all of which
were subsequently consolidated into a single class-action
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada. Following a court order dismissing all pending pleadings
and allowing the plaintiffs to re-file a single complaint, a
complaint has been filed containing substantially identical
claims, alleging that the defendants fraudulently marketed and
operated casino video poker machines and electronic slot
machines, and asserting common law fraud and deceit, unjust
enrichment and negligent misrepresentation and claims under the
federal Racketeering-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Various motions were filed by the defendants seeking to have
this new complaint dismissed or otherwise limited. In December
1997, the Court, in general, ruled on all motions in favor of
the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs then filed a motion seeking class
certification and the defendants opposed it. In June 2002, the
Court entered an order denying class certification. On
August 10, 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the District Courts denial of class
certification. On September 14, 2005, the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada granted the
defendants motions for summary judgment, and judgment was
entered against the plaintiffs on that same day. The defendants
have also filed motions seeking the payment of costs and
attorney fees and defendants have until December 28, 2005
to complete their briefing on the motions.
The Company has not recorded any liability for this matter as
currently an estimate of any possible loss cannot be made.
Management currently believes that the final outcome of this
matter is not likely to have a material adverse effect upon the
Companys consolidated financial statements.
Willard Eugene Smith Litigation |
On October 24, 2003, Lakes announced that it had been named
as one of a number of defendants in a counterclaim filed in
state court in Harris County, Texas by Willard Eugene Smith
involving Kean Argovitz Resorts, LLC (KAR) and related
persons and entities. In the counterclaim, Smith asserted that,
under an alleged oral agreement with Kevin Kean, he is entitled
to a percentage of fees to be received by the KAR Entities or
their principals relating to the Shingle Springs and Jamul
Casinos that Lakes subsidiaries are developing in
California. Smith also sought recovery of damages through the
remedy of either attachment of the management fees generated
from the projects or avoidance of buyout agreements between
Lakes and KAR based on their conduct with respect to the alleged
agreement. Trial for the above litigation commenced in April
2005. In May 2005, the jury in the state court case reached a
verdict in favor of Lakes and the other defendants. The jury in
the case found that there was no agreement with Smith relating
to the ongoing monthly payments for the percentage of management
fees. The jury also found that Smith was not entitled to
damages. As a result of the verdict against Smith, a second
phase of the trial, which would have sought to recover from
Lakes any damages awarded, will not be necessary. Smith filed a
Motion for a Partial Retrial on the issue of damages which was
denied automatically by operation of law. Smith failed to timely
file an appeal to the Texas Court of Appeals, so the judgment
has become final.
14
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
El Dorado County, California Litigation |
On January 3, 2003, El Dorado County filed an action in the
Superior Court of the State of California, seeking to prevent
the construction of a highway interchange that was approved by a
California state agency. The action, which was consolidated with
a similar action brought by Voices for Rural Living and others,
does not seek relief directly against Lakes. However, the
interchange is necessary to permit the construction of a casino
to be developed and managed by Lakes through a joint venture.
The casino will be owned by the Shingle Springs Tribe. The
matter was tried to the court on August 22, 2003.
On January 2, 2004, Judge Lloyd G. Connelly, Judge of the
Superior Court for the State of California, issued his ruling on
the matter denying the petition in all respects except one. As
to the one exception, the court sought clarification as to
whether the transportation conformity determination used to
determine the significance of the air quality impact of the
interchange operations considered the impact on attainment of
the state ambient air quality standard for ozone. The California
Department of Transportation (CalTrans) prepared and filed the
clarification addendum sought by the court. Prior to the
courts determination of the adequacy of the clarification,
El Dorado County and Voices for Rural Living appealed Judge
Connellys ruling to the California Court of Appeals on all
of the remaining issues.
A ruling with respect to the addendum was issued June 21,
2004 by the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento.
The ruling indicated that the addendum provided to the court by
CalTrans did not provide a quantitative showing to satisfy the
courts earlier request for a clarification on meeting the
state ambient ozone standard. The court recognized that the
information provided by CalTrans does qualitatively show that
the project may comply with the state standard, but concluded
that a quantitative analysis is necessary even though the court
recognized that the methodology for that analysis is not
readily apparent. In addition, the ruling specifically
stated, Moreover such methodology appears necessary for
the California Environmental Quality Act analysis of
transportation projects throughout the state, including
transportation projects for which respondents (i.e. CalTrans)
have approval authority. CalTrans, the Shingle Springs
Tribe and Lakes responded to the court with a revised submission
in August 2004. Representatives of the California Air Resources
Board and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments filed
declarations supporting the revised submission to the court.
Opposition to that revised submission was filed, a hearing on
the revised submission took place on August 20, 2004, and
the court again found the revised submission of CalTrans, the
Shingle Springs Tribe and Lakes to be inadequate. That ruling
was separately appealed to the California Court of Appeals (the
Court) and an oral argument for these appeals and
the appeals of El Dorado County and Voices of Rural Living was
held before the Court on August 29, 2005. The Court issued
its decision on these appeals on November 8, 2005. The
Court ruled in favor of CalTrans appeal, rejecting the El
Dorado Countys argument that the transportation conformity
analysis did not conform to state standards. The Court also
rejected all but two of the legal claims asserted in the appeal
by El Dorado County and Voices for Rural Living against the
environmental impact report (EIR) prepared by
CalTrans for the interchange that will connect Highway 50 to the
Shingle Springs Rancheria. For the remaining two issues, the
Court held that CalTrans must supplement its environmental
analysis by adding some discussion to the air quality chapter to
further explain the projects contribution to overall
vehicular emissions in the region, and that CalTrans also must
evaluate whether a smaller casino and hotel would reduce
environmental impacts. The Court acknowledged CalTrans lacks
jurisdiction to require the Tribe to develop a smaller casino,
but nevertheless required some discussion of this alternative in
the interchange EIR.
The Company has not recorded any liability for this matter as
management believes the Courts rulings will ultimately
allow the project to commence. However there can be no assurance
that the final outcome of this matter is not likely to have a
material adverse effect upon the Companys unaudited
condensed consolidated financial statements.
15
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Grand Casinos, Inc. Litigation |
In connection with the establishment of Lakes as a public
corporation on December 31, 1998, via a distribution of its
common stock to the shareholders of Grand Casinos, the Company
and Grand Casinos entered into an agreement governing the
sharing or allocation of tax benefits accruing to Grand Casinos
and certain affiliated companies of Grand Casinos. Lakes
asserted claims against Grand Casinos for amounts to which Lakes
believed it was entitled under the tax sharing agreement. On
December 1, 2004, Lakes entered into a settlement agreement
with Grand Casinos and its parent company, Park Place
Entertainment Corporation (now known as Caesars Entertainment,
Inc.), pursuant to which Lakes received $11.3 million in
December 2004 in satisfaction of its prior claim and its future
rights to the tax benefits that were the subject of the dispute.
Lakes will be required to provide reimbursement for its share of
the disallowed benefits. This settlement income has been
recorded as other income in the consolidated statement of loss
for the year ended January 2, 2005. Lakes has not recorded
any tax related to the settlement payment of $11.3 million,
as Lakes believes this settlement is not taxable to Lakes.
Louisiana Department of Revenue Litigation Tax Matter |
The Louisiana Department of Revenue maintains a position that
Lakes owes additional Louisiana corporation income tax for the
period ended January 3, 1999 and the tax years ended
December 31, 1999 through December 31, 2001 and
additional Louisiana corporation franchise tax for the tax years
ended December 31, 2000 through December 31, 2002.
This determination is the result of an audit of Louisiana tax
returns filed by Lakes for the tax periods at issue and relates
to the reporting of income earned by Lakes in connection with
the managing of two Louisiana-based casinos. On
December 20, 2004, the Secretary of the Department of
Revenue of the State of Louisiana filed a petition to collect
taxes against Lakes in the 19th Judicial District Court,
East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, Docket No. 527596,
Section 23. In the petition to collect taxes the Department
of Revenue of the State of Louisiana asserts that additional
corporation income tax and corporation franchise tax in the
amount of $8.6 million, excluding interest, are due by
Lakes for the taxable periods set forth above. Lakes maintains
that it has remitted the proper Louisiana corporation income tax
and Louisiana corporation franchise tax for the taxable periods
at issue. On February 14, 2005, Lakes filed an answer to
the petition to collect taxes asserting all proper defenses and
maintaining that no additional taxes are owed and that the
petition to collect taxes should be dismissed. Management
intends to vigorously contest this action by the Louisiana
Department of Revenue. However, Lakes may be required to pay up
to the $8.6 million assessment plus interest if Lakes is
not successful in this matter. The Company has recorded a
reserve related to this examination, which is reflected as part
of income taxes payable on the Companys consolidated
balance sheets.
Other Litigation |
Lakes is involved in various other inquiries, administrative
proceedings, and litigation relating to contracts and other
matters arising in the normal course of business. While any
proceeding or litigation has an element of uncertainty,
management currently believes that the final outcome of these
matters is not likely to have a material adverse effect upon the
Companys consolidated financial statements.
8. | SEGMENT INFORMATION |
Lakes principal business is the development and management
of gaming related properties. Additionally, the Company is the
majority owner of WPTE owning approximately 62% of WPTEs
outstanding common stock. Substantially, all operations of the
Company and WPTE are conducted in the United States. Episodes of
the World Poker Tour television series produced by WPTE are
distributed internationally by a third party distributor. The
segments reported below (in millions) are the segments of the
Company for which separate financial information is available
and for which operating results are evaluated by the chief
operating decision-maker in deciding how to allocate resources
and in assessing performance. The amounts in the Corporate and
16
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Eliminations column below have not been allocated to the other
segments because these costs are not easily allocable and to do
so would not be practical.
Industry Segments | ||||||||||||||||
Indian | ||||||||||||||||
Casino | WPT | Corporate & | Total | |||||||||||||
Projects | Enterprises, Inc. | Eliminations | Consolidated | |||||||||||||
Total assets as of July 3, 2005
|
$ | 138.0 | $ | 36.3 | $ | 37.3 | $ | 211.6 | ||||||||
Total assets as of January 2, 2005
|
127.2 | 37.1 | 44.8 | 209.1 | ||||||||||||
For the Three Months Ended July 3, 2005
|
||||||||||||||||
Revenue
|
$ | | $ | 6.6 | $ | | $ | 6.6 | ||||||||
Net earnings (loss)
|
(1.5 | ) | (0.4 | ) | (3.8 | ) | (5.7 | ) | ||||||||
Depreciation expense
|
| | 0.1 | 0.1 | ||||||||||||
For the Six Months Ended July 3, 2005
|
||||||||||||||||
Revenue
|
$ | | $ | 10.7 | $ | | $ | 10.7 | ||||||||
Net earnings (loss)
|
1.0 | (2.0 | ) | (6.8 | ) | (7.8 | ) | |||||||||
Depreciation expense
|
| 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | ||||||||||||
For the Three Months Ended July 4, 2004, restated
|
||||||||||||||||
Revenue
|
$ | | $ | 4.7 | $ | | $ | 4.7 | ||||||||
Net earnings (loss)
|
(5.4 | ) | 0.9 | (2.1 | ) | (6.6 | ) | |||||||||
Depreciation expense
|
| | 0.1 | 0.1 | ||||||||||||
For the Six Months Ended July 4, 2004, restated
|
||||||||||||||||
Revenue
|
$ | | $ | 8.9 | $ | | $ | 8.9 | ||||||||
Net earnings (loss)
|
(4.9 | ) | 1.7 | (3.8 | ) | (7.0 | ) | |||||||||
Depreciation expense
|
| 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
9. | IMPAIRMENT CHARGES |
During the second quarter of 2004, the BIA issued its final
determination denying the application of the Nipmuc Nation of
Massachusetts (Nipmuc Nation) for federal
recognition. Although the Nipmuc Nation is appealing the
determination with the BIA, Lakes made a decision to discontinue
funding the project. Lakes recorded an unrealized loss on notes
receivable of $0.8 million related to the fair value of the
note receivable from the Nipmuc Nation. Lakes also recorded an
impairment charge of $5.8 million related to other
long-term assets related to the Nipmuc Nation Indian casino
project.
10. | SUBSEQUENT EVENTS |
Membership Interest in Metroflag Polo, LLC |
On July 15, 2005, the Company received a $5.0 million
payment from Metroflag Polo, LLC (Metroflag), in
full satisfaction of the Companys membership interest in
Metroflag, which approximated the carrying value of the asset on
the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet. Accordingly,
no gain or loss will be recorded in future periods related to
this transaction.
Kickapoo Project |
Lakes entered into consulting agreements and management
contracts with the Kickapoo Tribe effective January 2005 to
improve the performance of the gaming operations conducted at
the Kickapoo Tribes
17
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
existing Lucky Eagle Casino in Eagle Pass, Texas, located
approximately 140 miles southwest of San Antonio.
During the third quarter of fiscal 2005 the Companys
relationship with the Kickapoo Tribe deteriorated and in
November 2005, Lakes and the Kickapoo Tribe terminated their
business relationship. During the three months and six months
ended July 3, 2005, the Company recorded unrealized losses
of $1.3 million and $1.8 million, respectively,
related to the Kickapoo project. During the third quarter of
fiscal 2005, the Company recognized an impairment charge of
$0.1 million related to the intangible asset related to the
acquisition of the management contract. In addition the Company
recognized unrealized losses related to advances made for
project costs and project costs incurred that Lakes may be
required to pay as a result of the terminated relationship in
the amounts of $0.3 million and $3.8 million,
respectively during the third quarter of fiscal 2005. As of
October 2, 2005, Lakes owns approximately 18 acres of
land near the Kickapoo site with a cost basis of approximately
$0.7 million.
The Company is negotiating with the Kickapoo Tribe to resolve
all of the financial terms of the contracts including repayment
of the advances, payment of unpaid project costs incurred, a
possible sale of the land owned by Lakes to the Kickapoo Tribe,
and to formally terminate the gaming operations consulting
agreement, management contract, and related ancillary agreements
relating to the project.
Financing Facility |
On December 16, 2005, Lakes closed on a $20 million
financing facility with the Lyle Berman Family Partnership (the
Partnership). An initial draw of $10 million
was made under the facility on December 16, 2005, and the
remaining $10 million can be drawn in $5 million
increments over time as needed. Any funds drawn under the
facility bear interest at the rate of 12% per annum and are
due and payable on the third anniversary of the first advance
drawn. No commitment fees, closing fees or loan servicing fees
were assessed or paid in connection with the facility. Lakes may
prepay the facility in whole or in part without penalty. Lyle
Berman, Lakes Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, does
not have an ownership or other beneficial interest in the
Partnership. Neil Sell, a Director of Lakes, is one of the
trustees of the irrevocable trusts that are the partners in the
Partnership.
The financing facility is secured by substantially all of the
personal property of Lakes and its subsidiaries other than WPTE,
including all fees or rights to cash flow from Lakes
casino projects, as well as by its real property located at 130
Cheshire Lane, Minnetonka, Minnesota (which is the location of
the Companys principal offices), its real estate mortgage
from the Pokagon Band and its shares of WPTE. The financing
facility is also guaranteed by certain of the Companys
subsidiaries other than WPTE. The facility permits Lakes to
separately sell up to 3.5 million WPTE shares without
application of the proceeds from such sale to pay down draws
under the financing facility so long as the per share price of
WPTE shares does not fall below $3.00 per share, in which
case the pro rata portion of the proceeds shall be applied to
the financing facility based upon the difference between the
share price and the minimum share price of $3.00. The sale of
WPTE shares above 3.5 million shares will trigger mandatory
prepayment of the financing facility.
In consideration for the financing facility, Lakes issued to the
Partnership warrants for the purchase of up to 2 million
shares of its common stock at a purchase price of $7.88 per
share that expire in December 2012. The warrants contain
customary demand and piggyback registration rights for the
shares of common stock underlying the warrants. The warrants
will not become exercisable if Lakes borrowings under the
facility do not exceed $10 million in the aggregate and all
amounts owed under the facility are repaid in full on or before
February 28, 2006. In addition, Lakes agreed to use its
best efforts to cause WPTE to file a registration statement by
no later than April 15, 2006 thus allowing for the possible
resale of all WPTE shares pledged by Lakes to the Partnership.
If Lakes were to sell more than the 3.5 million shares of
WPTE, such proceeds would first be used to pay down the
financing facility. Lakes has agreed to pay substantially all of
the costs incurred in the preparation and filing of such
registration statement.
18
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
WPTE Investment in PokerTek |
At October 2, 2005, WPTE had a nominal investment,
consisting of a 15% ownership interest in (carried at cost), and
a loan receivable from PokerTek, a company that offers an
electronic poker table called the PokerPro system that provides
a fully automated poker room environment to tribal and
commercial casinos and card clubs. On October 14, 2005,
PokerTek announced a public offering of 2,000,000 shares of
common stock at a price of $11 per share. Concurrently with
the public offering, WPTEs ownership interest was diluted
to 11.7% (1,080,000 shares), and PokerTek repaid WPTE the
outstanding loan amount at its maturity value of $185,000.
WPTEs shares in PokerTek are restricted, thus prohibiting
any sale of such shares in the market for six months.
Nevertheless, in accordance with Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 115, Accounting for
Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities, WPTE will
adjust its investment to fair market value and classify it as
available for sale in the fourth quarter of 2005,
since WPTE does not expect to have any cash needs or plans to
sell these shares in the foreseeable future. Accordingly, WPTE
will record net unrealized gains and losses from this investment
in a separate component of shareholders equity
(i.e. within the accumulated other comprehensive
earnings line item in the stockholders equity
section of the balance sheet) beginning in the fourth quarter of
2005.
WPTE Lawsuit With the Travel Channel |
On September 19, 2005, WPTE filed suit in the California
Superior Court seeking to keep the Travel Channel, LLC
(TRV) from interfering with WPTEs prospective
contractual relationship with third party networks in connection
with the sale of the broadcast rights to the Professional Poker
Tour (PPT), and to clarify and enforce WPTEs
rights with respect to the World Poker Tour television episodes.
Under WPTEs existing agreement with TRV for the World
Poker Tour program (the WPT Agreements), TRV is
afforded the right to negotiate exclusively with WPTE with
respect to certain types of programming developed by WPTE during
a 60 day period. Pursuant to the WPT Agreements, WPTE
submitted the PPT to TRV and began negotiations but failed to
reach an agreement with TRV within the allotted negotiation
window. Consequently, WPTE began discussions with other
networks. While WPTE later revived its attempts to reach a deal
with TRV after TRVs exclusive bargaining window had ended,
WPTE ultimately received an offer from ESPN. WPTE submitted this
offer to TRV pursuant to TRVs contractual last right to
match the deal as specified under the WPT Agreements.
Thereafter, TRV sent letters to WPTE and ESPN asserting, among
other things, that WPTE was not entitled to complete a deal for
the PPT with a third party. Following TRVs letters, WPTE
filed suit on September 19, 2005, alleging that TRV
breached the WPT Agreements and interfered with WPTEs
prospective contractual relationship with ESPN, and seeking a
judicial declaration of WPTEs rights under the WPT
Agreements to produce non-World Poker Tour branded programs
covering poker tournaments. Subsequent to WPTE filing, ESPN
withdrew its offer to WPTE to acquire the broadcast rights to
the PPT. On September 22, 2005, TRV and Discovery
Communications, Inc. filed an answer and cross-complaint and
subsequently filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and an
anti-SLAPP motion, both of which were denied on
November 10, 2005. Despite WPTEs dispute with TRV,
WPTE remains committed to fulfilling its obligations to TRV in
connection with the World Poker Tour series.
19
Table of Contents
ITEM 2. | MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS |
The following Managements Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations reflect the
adjustments relating to the restatement described in Note 3
in the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.
Overview
Lakes develops Indian-owned casino properties and intends to
manage such casinos when applicable regulatory approvals have
been received and we have satisfied other contingencies. Lakes
currently has development and management agreements with five
separate tribes for one new casino operation in Michigan, two in
California, and with two tribes in Oklahoma for five various
casino projects. Lakes is also involved in other businesses,
including development of a non-Indian casino and the development
of new table games for licensing to casinos. In addition, as of
July 3, 2005, Lakes owned approximately 62% of WPTE, a
separate publicly held media and entertainment company
principally engaged in the development, production and marketing
of gaming themed televised programming, the licensing and sale
of branded products and the sale of corporate sponsorships.
Lakes consolidated financial statements include the
results of operations of WPTE, and in recent periods, all of
Lakes revenues have been derived from WPTEs business.
Financial Overview
In the first and second quarters of the fiscal year ended
January 1, 2006 (fiscal 2005) and the first and
second quarters of the fiscal year ended January 2, 2005
(fiscal 2004), all of Lakes consolidated
revenues have been derived from the WPTE business, mainly from
license fees for domestic telecast of World Poker Tour
television episodes (WPT) and product licensing fees
associated with the World Poker Tour brand and logo. There were
minimal product licensing revenues in fiscal 2004. License fees
have depended on the number of episodes delivered to The Travel
Channel (TRV) in a particular period. Revenues from
other parts of the WPTE business are relatively small but
continue to grow.
Results of Operations
Six Months Ended July 3, 2005 Compared to the Six Months Ended July 4, 2004 |
Revenues |
All revenues in fiscal 2005 and fiscal 2004 were related to WPTE
business. Total revenues increased $1.8 million in fiscal
2005 to $10.7 million for the six months ended July 3,
2005 from $8.9 million for the six months ended
July 4, 2004. Domestic television license revenues
decreased by $1.6 million in the first six months of fiscal
2005 compared to the first six months of fiscal 2004. The
reduction in domestic television license revenue reported in the
first six months of fiscal 2005 reflected the delivery of only
13 episodes of Season Three compared to 18 Season Two episodes
that were delivered during the fiscal 2004 period. International
television licensing revenues increased by $0.9 million for
the six months ended July 3, 2005, compared to the six
months ended July 4, 2004, as WPTE increased distribution
to more territories in the current period. Revenues for the six
months ended July 3, 2005, also included $2.1 million
more in product licensing revenues than the six months ended
July 4, 2004 as WPTE licensees had substantially more
product in the marketplace in fiscal 2005.
TRV exercised its option for Seasons Three and Four in May 2004
and March 2005, respectively, and has additional options for the
following three seasons (Seasons Five through Seven) under which
WPTE would receive fixed license fees for each episode WPTE
produces. For each season covered by an option exercised by TRV,
TRV will have exclusive rights to exhibit the programs in that
season an unlimited number of times on its television network
(or any other television network owned by the Discovery Channel)
in the U.S. for four years.
20
Table of Contents
Costs and Expenses |
Production costs are associated with WPTE costs of producing
television series. WPTE cost of revenues increased by
$2.4 million in the first six months of fiscal 2005 as
compared to the first six months of fiscal 2004, and
accordingly, overall gross margins were 29.3% in the first six
months of fiscal 2005 compared to 42.2% in the first six months
of fiscal 2004. Cost of revenues for the first six months of
fiscal 2005 included approximately $3.0 million related to
the premiere season of the PPT, as well as $4.6 million in
production costs for Season Three episodes of the WPT. PPT
production costs were expensed in this period rather than being
capitalized because WPTE does not capitalize television
production costs until a licensing agreement has been executed
or WPTE has a firm commitment of revenue for the series. For the
first six months of fiscal 2004, cost of revenues of
$5.1 million was related primarily to the production of
Season Two episodes of the WPT. There were no PPT production
costs incurred during the first six months of fiscal 2004.
Additionally, cost of revenues in the first six months of fiscal
2005 included approximately $1.0 million of non-cash
compensation expense related to consultant stock options
compared to $0.3 million in the first six months of fiscal
2004. Excluding the non-cash compensation expenses and PPT
production costs expensed during the first six months of fiscal
2005, gross margin for the first six months of fiscal 2005 would
have been 66.4% compared to 45.2% for the corresponding period
in fiscal 2004, with the higher margin in fiscal 2005 due to
increased revenues from product licensing, international
licensing, and sponsorship.
Selling, general and administrative expenses increased by
$7.0 million to $13.4 million for the six months ended
July 3, 2005 from $6.4 million for the six months
ended July 4, 2004. WPTE selling, general and
administrative costs increased by $3.6 million for the six
months ended July 3, 2005, compared to the six months ended
July 4, 2004. This increase is primarily due to additional
headcount costs, product licensing commissions and legal and
audit fees incurred during the fiscal 2005 period associated
with business development, increased product licensing revenues,
growth and regulatory compliance costs related to being an
independent public company following WPTEs initial public
offering in the third quarter of 2004. Lakes selling,
general and administrative costs were $7.9 million for the
six months ended July 3, 2005 and $4.5 million for the
six months ended July 4, 2004. This increase of
$3.4 million is primarily due to $0.8 million in
additional rent expense related to a deficiency in the
guaranteed residual value of the aircraft the Company leases,
$1.2 million related to increased head count and related
costs due to the new managed casino projects in Texas and
Oklahoma and $1.3 million in professional service fees
related to the new casino projects in Texas and Oklahoma as well
as regulatory compliance costs.
Net unrealized gain on notes receivable |
Net unrealized gain on notes receivable was $1.9 million
and $0.5 million for the six months ended July 3, 2005
and July 4, 2004, respectively, related to the adjustment
to fair value of the Companys notes receivable from Indian
Tribes. These fair value calculations are determined based on
current assumptions related to the projects as discussed below
under Accounting for long-term assets related to Indian
casino projects. This increase is primarily related to
increasing our estimate of the probability of the Pokagon Casino
opening from 75% to 85% in the first six months of fiscal 2005
due to the favorable federal judge ruling in March 2005 (see
further discussion below under the caption Description of
each Indian casino project and evaluation of critical
milestones Pokagon Band specifically, the
discussion regarding the critical milestone Usable land
placed in trust by Federal government. The increase in
the Pokagon notes receivable unrealized gain was partially
offset by an unrealized loss of $1.8 million related to
amounts advanced or project costs incurred on behalf of the
Kickapoo Tribe. During the third quarter of fiscal 2005 the
Companys relationship deteriorated with the Kickapoo
Tribe, resulting in an unrealized loss on notes receivable of
$4.1 million. As of October 2, 2005, Lakes owns
approximately 18 acres of land near the Kickapoo site with
a cost basis of approximately $0.7 million. As a result of
the terminated business relationship with the Kickapoo Tribe,
Lakes intends to negotiate with the Kickapoo Tribe to reach an
agreement to resolve all of the financial terms of the contracts
including repayment of the advances, payment of the unpaid
project costs incurred, possible sale of the land owned by Lakes
to the tribe, and to formally terminate the gaming operations
consulting agreement, management contract, and related ancillary
agreements relating to the project.
21
Table of Contents
Other |
Other income increased $0.7 million. Interest income was
$0.8 million for the six months ended July 3, 2005
compared to $0.1 million for the same period in the prior
year. This increase is primarily due to an increase in cash and
equivalents and short-term investments related to WPTE raising
proceeds and becoming a public entity in August 2004 and cash
settlements and cash proceeds from real estate sales received by
Lakes in fiscal 2004.
Taxes |
The Company recorded a tax provision of $0.7 million for
the six-month period ended July 3, 2005 compared to a tax
benefit of $0.9 million for the six-month period ended
July 4, 2004. The loss before income taxes, equity in
earnings of investments and minority interest was
$7.8 million for the six months ended July 3, 2005
compared to a loss of $8.1 million for the six months ended
July 4, 2004. In accordance with Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 109, Accounting for Income
Taxes (SFAS No. 109), Lakes evaluated the ability
to utilize deferred tax assets relating to net operating loss
carry forwards, deferred interest on advances made to Indian
tribes and other ordinary items and determined that a valuation
allowance was appropriate. Lakes evaluated all evidence and
determined the net losses generated over the past three years
outweighed the current positive evidence that the Company
believes exists surrounding its ability to generate significant
income from its long-term assets related to Indian casino
projects and its investments in its non-Indian casino business.
The Company recorded a 100% valuation allowance against these
items at July 3, 2005 and January 2, 2005. In
addition, the Company recognized a deferred tax asset for
capital losses related to asset impairment charges. The
realization of these benefits is dependent on the generation of
capital gains. The Company believes it will have sufficient
capital gains in the future to utilize these benefits.
Losses per common share and net losses |
For the six months ended July 3, 2005, basic and diluted
losses per common share were $0.35, compared to basic and
diluted losses of $0.32 per common share, for the same
period in the prior year. Net loss for the six months ended
July 3, 2005 was $7.8 million compared to
$7.0 million for the six months ended July 4, 2004.
Three Months Ended July 3, 2005 Compared to the Three Months Ended July 4, 2004 |
Revenues |
All revenues in fiscal 2005 and fiscal 2004 were related to WPTE
business. Total revenues increased by $1.9 million for the
three months ended July 3, 2005 as compared to the same
period in the prior year. Domestic television license revenues
decreased by $0.1 million in the three months ended
July 3, 2005 compared to the three months ended
July 4, 2004. The reduction in domestic television license
revenue reported in the second quarter of 2005 reflected the
delivery of eight Season Three episodes compared to nine Season
Two episodes delivered during the second quarter of fiscal 2004.
International television licensing revenues increased by
$0.6 million for the three months ended July 3, 2005
compared to the three months ended July 4, 2004 as WPTE
increased distribution to more territories in the current
period. Revenues for the three months ended July 3, 2005
also included $1.1 million more in product licensing
revenues than the three months ended July 4, 2004 as WPTE
licensees had substantially more product in the marketplace in
fiscal 2005.
Costs and Expenses |
Production costs are associated with WPTE costs of producing
television series. WPTE cost of revenues increased by
$1.7 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2005 as
compared to the second quarter of fiscal 2004, and accordingly,
overall gross margins were 33.7% in the second quarter of fiscal
2005 compared to 43.9% in the second quarter of fiscal 2004.
Cost of revenues for the second quarter of fiscal 2005 included
approximately $1.6 million related to the premiere season
of the PPT, as well as $2.8 million in production costs for
Season Three episodes of the WPT. PPT production costs were
expensed in this period rather than
22
Table of Contents
being capitalized because WPTE does not capitalize television
production costs until a licensing agreement has been executed
or WPTE has a firm commitment of revenue for the series. For the
second quarter of fiscal 2004, cost of revenues of
$2.6 million was related primarily to the production of
Season Two episodes of the WPT. There was no PPT production
costs incurred during the second quarter of fiscal 2004.
Additionally, cost of revenues in the second quarter of fiscal
2005 included approximately $0.6 million of non-cash
compensation expense related to consultant stock options
compared to $0.2 million in the second quarter of fiscal
2004. Excluding the non-cash compensation expenses and PPT
production costs expensed during quarter, gross margin for the
second quarter of fiscal 2005 would have been 65.8% compared to
47.7% for the corresponding period in fiscal 2004, with the
higher margin in fiscal 2005 due to increased revenues from
product licensing, international licensing, and sponsorship.
Selling and administrative expenses increased by
$3.8 million for the three months ended July 3, 2005,
compared to the three months ended July 4, 2004.
WPTEs selling general and administrative expenses
increased by $1.7 million primarily due to additional
headcount costs, product licensing commissions, and legal and
audit fees incurred during the fiscal 2005 period associated
with business development, increased product licensing revenues,
growth and regulatory compliance costs related to being an
independent public company following WPTEs initial public
offering in the third quarter of fiscal 2004. Lakes
selling general and administrative expenses increased by
$2.1 million for the three months ended July 3, 2005,
compared to the three months ended July 4, 2004 primarily
due to $0.7 million related to increased head count and
related costs due to the new casino projects, $1.0 million
in professional service fees related to the new casino projects
as well as regulatory compliance costs, $0.2 million in
development costs associated with an Automated System For
Playing Live Casino Table Games and $0.2 million in
additional rent expense on the Companys airplane it leases.
Impairment losses were $5.8 million during the three months
ended July 4, 2004. During the three months ended
July 4, 2004 the Company recognized a $5.8 million
impairment charge related to long-term assets related to the
Nipmuc Nation project. Lakes also recorded an unrealized loss on
notes receivable of $0.8 million related to the fair value
of the note receivable from the Nipmuc Nation. In June 2004, the
BIA issued its final determination denying the Nipmuc
Nations application for federal recognition. Although the
Nipmuc Nation is appealing the determination with the BIA, Lakes
made a decision to discontinue funding the project in the second
quarter of fiscal 2004. At that time, Lakes recorded the
impairment charge and an unrealized loss on notes receivable.
Should the Nipmuc Nation become federally recognized and
successfully open a casino operation (with or without
Lakes assistance) Lakes is entitled to receive payment in
full of its advances and deferred interest.
Net unrealized loss on notes receivable |
Net unrealized loss on notes receivable was $1.0 million
and $0 for the three months ended July 3, 2005 and
July 4, 2004, respectively, related to the adjustment to
fair value of the Companys notes receivable from Indian
Tribes. These fair value calculations are determined based on
current assumptions related to the projects as discussed below
under Accounting for long-term assets related to Indian
casino projects. The unrealized loss for the three months
ended July 3, 2005 is primarily due to an unrealized loss
of $1.3 million related to amounts advanced or costs
incurred on behalf of the Kickapoo Tribe during the three months
ended July 3, 2005. These fair value calculations are
determined based on current assumptions related to the projects
as discussed below under Accounting for long-term assets
related to Indian casino projects. During the third
quarter of fiscal 2005 the Companys relationship
deteriorated with the Kickapoo Tribe, resulting in an unrealized
loss on notes receivable of $4.1 million. As of
October 2, 2005, Lakes owns approximately 18 acres of
land near the Kickapoo site with a cost basis of approximately
$0.7 million. As a result of the terminated business
relationship with the Kickapoo Tribe, Lakes intends to negotiate
with the Kickapoo Tribe to reach an agreement to resolve all of
the financial terms of the contracts including repayment of the
advances, payment of the unpaid project costs incurred, possible
sale of the land owned by Lakes to the tribe, and to formally
terminate the gaming operations consulting agreement, management
contract, and related ancillary agreements relating to the
project. The unrealized loss is offset by unrealized gains of
$0.3 million on the Companys other Indian casino
projects.
23
Table of Contents
Taxes |
The Company recorded a tax provision of $0.4 million during
the three months ended July 3, 2005 compared to a tax
benefit of $0.5 million during the three months ended
July 4, 2004. The loss before income taxes, equity in
earnings (loss) of investment and minority interest was
$5.5 million for the three months ended July 3, 2005
compared to a loss of $7.1 million for the three months
ended July 4, 2004. In accordance with Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 109, Accounting for
Income Taxes (SFAS No. 109), Lakes evaluated the
ability to utilize deferred tax assets relating to net operating
loss carry forwards, deferred interest on advances made to
Indian tribes and other ordinary items and determined that a
valuation allowance was appropriate. Lakes evaluated all
evidence and determined the net losses generated over the past
three years outweighed the current positive evidence that the
Company believes exists surrounding its ability to generate
significant income from its long-term assets related to Indian
casino projects and its investments in its non-Indian casino
business. The Company recorded a 100% valuation allowance
against these items at July 3, 2005 and January 2,
2005. In addition, the Company recognized a deferred tax asset
for capital losses related to asset impairment charges. The
realization of these benefits is dependent on the generation of
capital gains. The Company believes it will have sufficient
capital gains in the future to utilize these benefits.
Losses per common share and net losses |
For the three months ended July 3, 2005, basic and diluted
losses per common share were $0.25, compared to basic and
diluted losses of $0.30 per common share, for the same
period in the prior year. Net loss for the three months ended
July 3, 2005 was $5.7 million compared to
$6.6 million for the three months ended July 4, 2004.
The decrease in net loss is primarily due to the impairment
charge of $5.8 million recognized during the three months
ended July 4, 2004 offset by increased selling, general and
administrative expenses, increased production costs, an increase
in the tax provision and increased other expenses primarily
related to unrealized losses on notes receivable during the
three months ended July 3, 2005.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
At July 3, 2005, Lakes unaudited condensed
consolidated balance sheet included unrestricted cash and cash
equivalents and short-term investment balances of
$51.0 million. Included in this amount was Lakes cash
of $18.8 million. Also included were WPTE cash of
$5.6 million and WPTE short-term investments of
$26.6 million. WPTE cash and investments will not be used
in Lakes business. As of July 3, 2005, Lakes
has had no operating revenues from casino operations since the
expiration of the management contract with the Coushatta Tribe
in January 2002.
In August and September 2004, WPTE raised a total of
approximately $32.4 million in cash proceeds from its
initial public offering, net of underwriting discounts and
estimated offering expenses. WPTEs cash resources are
expected to be used for WPTEs business and will not be
available for Lakes casino projects or other non-WPTE
businesses. The initial public offering resulted in the
termination of Lakes obligation to fund WPTE operations
under a limited revolving note receivable. As of July 3,
2005, Lakes holds approximately 12.5 million shares or
approximately 62% of WPTEs common stock. Lakes will
be subject to Rule 144 regarding volume limitations for
sales of WPTE common stock.
The Companys primary source of cash for its development of
casino projects during fiscal 2004 and during fiscal 2005 has
been from the planned sale of assets. During fiscal 2004, the
2022 Ranch land, which was owned by Lakes and its joint venture
partner Land Baron West, LLC, was sold. Lakes received cash in
the amount of approximately $2.5 million related to the
sale of the land as well as through the settlement of a title
dispute. Lakes received proceeds of $5.9 million in fiscal
2004 in connection with the sale of the Polo Plaza and adjacent
Travelodge property and an additional $5.0 million received
during 2005, pursuant to an option agreement with Metroflag. We
expect that proceeds from the sale of assets will decrease in
future periods. Additionally in December 2004, Lakes received
$11.3 million in settlement of a tax sharing agreement with
Grand Casinos. For a discussion of Lakes current efforts
to secure financing for its operational and development needs
see Note 10.
24
Table of Contents
Our management contracts with our tribal partners require that
we provide financial support for project development in the form
of loans. These loans are interest bearing; however, the loans
and related interest are not due until the casino is built and
has established profitable operations. In the event that the
casinos are not built, our only recourse is to attempt to
liquidate assets of the development, if any, excluding any land
in trust. A portion of the advances due from the Pokagon Band in
the approximate amount of $24.1 million resulted from funds
advanced by the Company for the Pokagon Bands purchase of
the land. The Company has a first deed of trust against this
property, which will be relinquished when the BIA places the
land into trust.
We currently believe that our existing casino development
projects included in the table below (except for the project
with the Kickapoo Tribe see Note 10) will be
constructed and achieve profitable operations; however, no
assurance can be made that this will occur. If this does not
occur, it is likely that Lakes would incur substantial or
complete losses on its notes receivable from Indian tribes and
related intangible assets associated with the acquisition of the
management contracts. In addition, if Lakes current casino
development projects are not completed or, upon completion, fail
to successfully compete in the highly competitive market for
gaming activities, Lakes may lack the funds to compete for and
develop future gaming or other business opportunities and
Lakes business could be adversely affected to the extent
that it may be forced to cease its operations entirely.
Following is a table summarizing remaining contractual
obligations as of July 3, 2005 (in millions):
Payment Due by Period | |||||||||||||||||||||
Less Than | More Than | ||||||||||||||||||||
Contractual Obligations | Total | 1 Year | 1-3 Years | 3-5 Years | 5 Years | ||||||||||||||||
Remaining casino development commitment(1)(3)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Jamul
|
$ | 8.1 | $ | 2.2 | $ | 5.9 | $ | | $ | | |||||||||||
Shingle Springs
|
5.4 | 2.3 | 3.1 | | | ||||||||||||||||
Pokagon(2)
|
27.6 | 1.8 | 25.8 | | | ||||||||||||||||
Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas(1)(8)
|
1.1 | 1.1 | |||||||||||||||||||
Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma(1)
|
0.8 | 0.8 | |||||||||||||||||||
Pawnee Nation(1)
|
0.4 | 0.4 | |||||||||||||||||||
Operating leases(4)
|
3.5 | 1.9 | 1.3 | 0.3 | | ||||||||||||||||
WPTE operating leases(5)
|
2.9 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.5 | ||||||||||||||||
WPTE purchase obligations(6)
|
0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | | | ||||||||||||||||
WPTE employee obligations(7)
|
1.0 | 0.8 | 0.2 | | | ||||||||||||||||
$ | 51.1 | $ | 12.0 | $ | 37.3 | $ | 1.3 | $ | 0.5 | ||||||||||||
(1) | Lakes anticipates that it will require additional capital through public or private financings or the sale of some or all of Lakes shares of WPTE to meet the remaining casino development commitments. See table below detailing tribal casino development commitments. |
(2) | For the Pokagon Casino project, the Company has agreed to provide additional financing from its own funds if financing at an interest rate not to exceed 13% is not available from third parties. If this occurs and Lakes is required to provide all financing, this would be an additional commitment of up to approximately $54 million. Currently, it appears that third party financing will be available for this project. However, there can be no assurance that third party financing will be available and that Lakes will not be required to provide this additional financing. The Company will be obligated to pay an amount to an unrelated third party once the Pokagon Casino is open and Lakes is the manager of the casino. The amount is payable quarterly for five years and is only payable if Lakes is the manager of the casino. The payment is part of a settlement and release agreement associated with Lakes obtaining the management contract with the Pokagon Band. The maximum liability over the five-year period is approximately $11 million. |
25
Table of Contents
(3) | Lakes may be required to provide a guarantee of tribal debt financing or otherwise provide support for the tribal obligations related to any of the projects. Any guarantees by Lakes or similar off-balance sheet liabilities will increase Lakes potential exposure in the event of a default by any of these tribes. No such guarantees or similar off-balance sheet liabilities existed at July 3, 2005. |
(4) | The Company leases an airplane, under a non-cancelable operating lease expiring April 30, 2005. The lease was amended on May 1, 2005. The new term is for a period of up to three years. |
(5) | Operating lease obligations include rent payments on WPTEs corporate office space. Monthly lease payments began at approximately $38,000 and escalate to approximately $45,000 over the six-year lease term. The amount set forth in the table above assumes monthly lease payments through May 2011. |
(6) | Purchase obligations include the following: Contractual obligations related to the establishment of our internet gaming site of $270,000 and a monthly retainer of $13,750 for investor relations services through September 2005. |
(7) | Employee obligations include the base salaries payable to Steven Lipscomb, Audrey Kania and Robyn Moder under their respective employment agreements. |
(8) | Lakes entered into consulting agreements and management contracts with the Kickapoo Tribe effective January 2005 to improve the performance of the gaming operations conducted at the Kickapoo Tribes existing Lucky Eagle Casino in Eagle Pass, Texas, located approximately 140 miles southwest of San Antonio. During the third quarter of fiscal 2005 the Companys relationship with the Kickapoo Tribe deteriorated and in November 2005, Lakes and the Kickapoo Tribe terminated their business relationship. |
Casino Development Advances/ Commitments
As of July 3, 2005
Commitments in | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lakes Cash | Excess of | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Land Held | Total | Remaining | and | Available Cash | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pre-Construction | for | Total | Funding | Funding | Short-Term | and Short-Term | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Advances | Development | Funded | Commitment | Commitment | Investments | Investments | ||||||||||||||||||||||
(In millions) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jamul Tribe(a)
|
$ | 15.3 | $ | 6.6 | $ | 21.9 | $ | 30.0 | $ | 8.1 | ||||||||||||||||||
Shingle Springs Tribe(b)
|
35.8 | 8.8 | 44.6 | 50.0 | 5.4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Pokagon Band(c)
|
45.4 | | 45.4 | 73.0 | 27.6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Kickapoo Tribe(d)
|
0.6 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 2.0 | 1.1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Iowa Tribe(e)
|
0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 1.0 | 0.8 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Pawnee Tribe(f)
|
0.7 | | 0.7 | 1.1 | 0.4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
$ | 97.9 | $ | 15.8 | $ | 113.7 | $ | 157.1 | $ | 43.4 | $ | 18.8 | $ | 24.6 | |||||||||||||||
(a) | Lakes plans to continue making advances on the remaining commitment to the Jamul Tribe on a monthly basis until the casino opens. Lakes plans to make advances of $1.1 million and $7.0 million during the third and fourth quarter of fiscal 2005 and fiscal 2006, respectively, to fulfill its remaining commitment to the Jamul Tribe. | |
(b) | Lakes plans to continue making advances on the remaining commitment to the Shingle Springs Tribe on a monthly basis until the casino opens. Lakes plans to make advances of $1.2 million and $4.2 million during the third and fourth quarters of fiscal 2005 and fiscal 2006, respectively, to fulfill its remaining commitment to the Shingle Springs Tribe. | |
(c) | Lakes plans to continue making advances on the remaining commitment to the Pokagon Band on a monthly basis until the casino opens. Lakes plans to make advances of $0.9 million, $15.9 million and $10.8 million during the third and fourth quarters of fiscal 2005, fiscal 2006 and fiscal 2007, respectively, to fulfill its remaining commitment to the Pokagon Band. |
26
Table of Contents
(d) | Lakes entered into consulting agreements and management contracts with the Kickapoo Tribe effective January 2005 to improve the performance of the gaming operations conducted at the Kickapoo Tribes existing Lucky Eagle Casino in Eagle Pass, Texas, located approximately 140 miles southwest of San Antonio. During the third quarter of fiscal 2005 the Companys relationship with the Kickapoo Tribe deteriorated and in November 2005, Lakes and the Kickapoo Tribe terminated their business relationship. During the third quarter of fiscal 2005, the Company recognized an impairment charge of $0.1 million related to the intangible asset related to the acquisition of the management contract. In addition the Company recognized unrealized losses related to advances made for project costs and project costs incurred that Lakes may be required to pay as a result of the terminated relationship in the amounts of $0.3 million and $3.8 million, respectively, during the third quarter of fiscal 2005. As of October 2, 2005, Lakes owns approximately 18 acres of land near the Kickapoo site with a cost basis of approximately $0.7 million. Lakes intends to negotiate with the Kickapoo Tribe to reach an agreement to resolve all of the financial terms of the contracts including repayment of the advances, payment of unpaid project costs incurred, possible sale of the land owned by Lakes to the Kickapoo Tribe, and to formally terminate the gaming operations consulting agreement, management contract, and related ancillary agreements relating to the project. | |
(e) | Lakes plans to advance the remaining $0.8 million it has committed to the Iowa Tribe during fiscal 2005. In December 2005 the Iowa Tribe closed on third party financing related to the Cimarron Casino and repaid Lakes all amounts advanced related to that project. Additional amounts have and will be advanced to the Iowa Tribe for the new casino project based upon an approved budget yet to be finalized. | |
(f) | During the third quarter of fiscal 2005, Lakes made a commitment of $1.1 million to the Pawnee Nation based upon an approved budget related to the Trading Post project. Lakes plans to advance the remaining $0.4 million it has committed to the Pawnee Nation during fiscal 2005. Additional amounts will continue to be advanced to the Pawnee Nation for the new casino project and Travel Plaza project based upon an approved budget yet to be finalized. |
During fiscal 2005, Lakes corporate costs, excluding WPTE,
which is not expected to require additional capital from Lakes,
will approximate $12.5 million. Development project-related
costs are expected to approximate $24.0 million during
fiscal 2005. Lakes unaudited cash balance, excluding WPTE
cash was approximately $5.5 million as of December 9,
2005. Lakes on-going quarterly corporate costs are
expected to approximate $3.5 million and on-going quarterly
development project-related costs are expected to approximate
$3.5 million, however a portion of these costs are
discretionary and could be deferred if necessary. Additionally,
the Company may be required to pay taxes, ranging from $0 to
approximately $12 million plus interest and penalties, in
fiscal 2006 related to two tax matters. It is anticipated that
Lakes will require additional capital through public or private
financings or the sale of some or all of Lakes shares of
WPTE to meet operating expenses and development project-related
costs during the remainder of fiscal 2005 and 2006 and the
Company is currently considering various financing alternatives.
In December 2005, Lakes obtained a $20 million financing
facility from the Lyle Berman Family Partnership and received a
$10 million draw on this facility on December 16, 2005
(see Note 10). Lakes plans to continue pursuing other
financing alternatives and the Company believes the assets of
Lakes provide sufficient collateral to obtain the necessary
financing. The assets of Lakes include common shares of WPTE
that have an estimated fair value of $82.6 million as of
December 9, 2005, based on the public trading price, on
that date, which may not be indicative of what Lakes could
realize in a sale of its shares. The Company believes the shares
of WPTE could be the source or part of the collateral for the
additional financing.
Our major use of cash over the past three years has been
pre-construction financing provided to our tribal partners.
Lakes also anticipates that it may incur additional
pre-construction costs which would require the Company to obtain
additional sources of financing. These development costs do not
include construction-related costs that would be incurred if any
of the projects were to begin construction during the next
twelve months. Management anticipates that it will be necessary
to raise additional capital when any of the projects begin
construction and believes such financing will be available based
on preliminary discussions with prospective lenders. However,
such financings may not be available when needed on terms
acceptable to Lakes or at all. Moreover, any additional equity
financings may be dilutive to Lakes shareholders, and any
27
Table of Contents
debt financing may involve additional restrictive covenants. An
inability to raise such funds when needed might require Lakes to
delay, scale back or eliminate some of its expansion and
development goals.
In addition, the construction of the Companys Indian
casino projects may depend on the ability of the tribes to
obtain financing for the projects. If such financing cannot be
obtained on acceptable terms, it may not be possible to complete
these projects, which could have a material adverse effect on
Lakes results of operations and financial condition. In
order to assist the tribes, Lakes may be required to guarantee
the tribes debt financing or otherwise provide support for
the tribes obligations. Guarantees by Lakes, if any, will
increase Lakes potential exposure in the event of a
default by any of these tribes.
For the Pokagon Casino project, the Company has agreed to
finance all phases of the project entirely from its own funds if
financing at an interest rate of 13% or less is not available
from the capital markets. If this occurs and Lakes is required
to provide all financing, this would be an additional commitment
of up to approximately $54 million. Currently, management
believes that third-party financing will be available for this
project. However, there can be no assurance third-party
financing will be available and that Lakes will not be required
to provide this additional financing.
As a part of the transaction establishing Lakes as a separate
public company on December 31, 1998, the Company agreed to
indemnify Grand Casinos through December 28, 2004 against
all costs, expenses and liabilities incurred in connection with
or arising out of certain pending and threatened claims and
legal proceedings against Grand Casinos and to pay all related
settlements and judgments. The indemnification period expired
December 28, 2004 and Lakes does not have any further
obligations. Lakes incurred no costs related to this matter in
2004.
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
Our consolidated unaudited financial statements and accompanying
notes are prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. Preparing
financial statements requires management to make estimates and
assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets,
liabilities, revenue, and expenses. These estimates and
assumptions are affected by managements application of
accounting policies. The significant accounting policies that
Lakes believes are the most critical to aid in fully
understanding and evaluating its reported financial results
include the following: revenue recognition, long-term assets
related to Indian casino projects and income taxes.
Revenue recognition: Revenue from the management of
Indian-owned casino gaming facilities is recognized in
accordance with our policy described below under the caption
Accounting for long-term assets related to Indian casino
projects.
Revenue from the domestic and international distribution of
WPTEs television series is recognized as earned under the
following criteria established by the American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants Statement of Position
(SOP) No. 00-2, Accounting by Producers or
Distributors of Films:
| Persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists; | |
| The show/episode is complete, and in accordance with the terms of the arrangement, has been delivered or is available for immediate and unconditional delivery; | |
| The license period has begun and the customer can begin its exploitation, exhibition or sale; | |
| The sellers price to the buyer is fixed and determinable; and | |
| Collectibility is reasonably assured. |
In accordance with the terms of the TRV agreement, WPTE
recognizes domestic television license revenues upon the receipt
and acceptance of completed episodes. However, due to
restrictions and practical limitations applicable to WPTEs
operating relationships with foreign networks, WPTE currently
does not consider collectibility of international television
license revenues to be reasonably assured, and accordingly, WPTE
does not recognize such revenue until the distributor has
received payment. Additionally, WPTE presents international
distribution license fee revenues net of the distributors
fees, as the distributor is the primary obligor in the
transaction with the ultimate customer pursuant to the Financial
Accounting Standards
28
Table of Contents
Board (FASB) Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) 99-19,
Reporting Revenue Gross as a Principal versus Net as an
Agent.
Product licensing revenues are recognized when the underlying
royalties from the sales of the related products are earned.
WPTE recognizes minimum revenue guarantees ratably over the term
of the license or as earned royalties based on actual sales of
the related products, if greater. WPTE presents product
licensing fees gross of licensing commissions, which are
recorded as selling and administrative expenses as WPTE is the
primary obligor in the transaction with the ultimate customer
pursuant to EITF 99-19.
Online gaming revenues are recognized monthly based on detailed
statements received from WagerWorks, WPTEs online gaming
partner, for online poker and casino activity throughout the
previous month. In accordance with EITF 99-19, WPTE
presents online gaming revenues gross of WagerWorks costs,
including WagerWorks management fee, royalties, credit card
processing and chargebacks that are recorded as cost of
revenues, since WPTE has the ability to adjust price and
specifications of the online gaming site, WPTE bears the
majority of the credit risk and WPTE is responsible for the
sales and marketing of the gaming site.
Event hosting fees are paid by host casinos for the privilege of
hosting the events and are recognized as the episodes that
feature the host casino are aired, and sponsorship revenues are
recognized as the episodes that feature the sponsor are aired.
Licensing advances and guaranteed payments collected, but not
yet earned, by WPTE, as well as casino host fees and sponsorship
receipts collected prior to the airing of episodes, are
classified as deferred revenue in the accompanying balance
sheets.
Deferred television costs: WPTE accounts for deferred
television costs in accordance to SOP No. 00-2. Deferred
television costs include capitalizable direct costs, production
overhead and development costs and are stated at the lower of
cost or net realizable value based on anticipated revenue. WPTE
has not currently anticipated any revenues in excess of those
subject to existing contractual relationships, since WPTE has
insufficient operating history to enable such anticipation.
Accordingly, television costs related to the new PPT series will
continue to be expensed as incurred until a licensing agreement
has been executed or WPTE has a firm commitment of revenue for
the series. Marketing, distribution and general and
administrative costs are expensed as incurred. Capitalized
television production costs for each episode are expensed as
revenues are recognized upon delivery and acceptance by the
Travel Channel of the completed episode. Management of WPTE
currently estimates that 92% of capitalized deferred television
costs at July 3, 2005, are expected to be expensed in
connection with episode deliveries by the end of fiscal 2005.
Accounting for long-term assets related to Indian casino
projects:
Notes Receivable: |
Lakes is involved as the exclusive developer and manager of
Indian-owned casino projects. The Company has formal procedures
governing its evaluation of opportunities for potential
development projects that it follows before entering into
agreements to provide financial support for the development of
these properties. Lakes determines that there is probable future
economic benefit prior to recording any asset related to the
Indian casino project. No asset related to an Indian casino
project is recognized unless it is considered probable that the
project will be built and result in an economic benefit to Lakes
sufficient to recover the asset. Lakes initially evaluates the
following six factors involving critical milestones that affect
the probability of developing and operating a casino:
| Has the U.S. Governments Bureau of Indian Affairs federally recognized the tribe as a tribe? | |
| Does the tribe hold or have the right to acquire land to be used for the casino site? | |
| Has the Department of the Interior put the land into trust for purposes of being used as a casino site? | |
| Has the tribe entered into a gaming agreement with the state in which the land is located, if required by the state? |
29
Table of Contents
| Has the tribe obtained approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of the management agreement? | |
| Do other legal and political obstacles exist that could block development of the project and, if so, what is the likelihood of the tribe successfully prevailing? |
In addition to the above factors, Lakes also considers economic
and qualitative factors affecting Lakes future economic
benefits from the project, including the following:
| An evaluation by Company management of the financial projections of the project given the projects geographic location and the feasibility of the projects success given such location; | |
| The structure and stability of the tribal government; | |
| The scope of the proposed project, including the physical scope of the contemplated facility and the expected financial scope of the related development; | |
| An evaluation of the proposed projects ability to be built as contemplated and the likelihood that financing will be available; and | |
| The nature of the business opportunity to Lakes, including whether the project would be a financing, development and/or management opportunity. |
The development phase of each relationship commences with the
signing of the respective contracts and continues until the
casinos open for business; thereafter, the management phase of
the relationship, governed by the management contract, continues
for a period of up to seven years. Lakes, as developer and
manager, has the exclusive right and obligation to develop,
manage, operate and maintain the casino and to train tribal
members and others in the operation and maintenance of the
casino during the term of the contract. The Company also makes
advances to the tribes to fund certain portions of the projects,
which bear interest generally at prime plus 1% or 2%. Repayment
of the advances and accrued interest is only required if the
casino is successfully opened and distributable profits are
available from the casino operations. Under the management
contract Lakes typically earns a management fee calculated as a
percentage of the net income of the operations. In addition,
repayment of the loans and the managers fees under the
management contracts are subordinated to certain other financial
obligations of the respective operations. Generally, the order
of priority of payments from the casinos cash flows is as
follows: a certain minimum monthly priority payment to the
tribe, repayment of various senior debt associated with
construction and equipping of the casino with interest accrued
thereon, repayment of various debt with interest accrued thereon
due to Lakes, management fee to Lakes, and other obligations,
with the remaining funds distributed to the tribe.
The Company accounts for its advances to the tribes and its
management contracts as separate elements. The advances made to
the tribes are accounted for as structured notes in accordance
with the guidance contained in Emerging Issues Task Force
Consensus No. 96-12 Recognition of Interest Income and
Balance Sheet Classification of Structured Notes (EITF
No. 96-12). Because repayment of the notes is required only
if a casino is successfully opened, Lakes advances may be
at risk to not be repaid for reasons other than failure of the
borrower to pay the contractual amounts due because if the
casinos are not built the notes will not become contractually
due. Accordingly, pursuant to the guidance in EITF
No. 96-12, Lakes records its advances to tribes at
estimated fair value. Because the stated rate of the notes
receivable alone is not commensurate with the risk inherent in
these projects, the estimated fair value of the notes receivable
is generally less than the amount advanced. At the date of each
advance, the difference between the estimated fair value of the
note receivable and the actual amount advanced is recorded as an
intangible asset related to the acquisition of the management
contract. Subsequent to the initial recording, the two assets
are accounted for separately.
Subsequent to its initial recording at estimated fair value, the
note receivable portion of the advance is adjusted to its
current fair value at each balance sheet date based on current
assumptions related to the projects. The notes receivable are
not adjusted to an amount in excess of the face value of the
note plus accrued interest. Changes in fair value are recorded
as unrealized gains or losses on notes receivable in the
Companys statement of operations.
30
Table of Contents
The determination of fair value requires that assumptions be
made and judgments be applied regarding casino opening dates,
interest rates, discount rates and probabilities of the projects
opening based on a review of critical milestones. If casino
opening dates, interest rates, discount rates or the
probabilities of the projects opening change significantly, the
estimated fair value of the related note receivable is adjusted
accordingly and the Company could experience unrealized gains or
losses that could be material.
Upon opening of the casino Lakes may conclude that it is no
longer reasonably possible that the advances to Indian tribes
would be at risk to not be repaid for reasons other than failure
of the borrower to pay the contractual amounts due. In such
situations, the notes receivable will be accounted for under the
effective interest method upon opening of the casino and will no
longer be adjusted to fair value at each balance sheet date. Any
difference between the then estimated fair value of the advances
and the amount contractually due under the notes will be
amortized into income using the effective interest method over
the remaining term of the note. Such notes would then be
evaluated for impairment pursuant to Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 114 Accounting by
Creditors for Impairment of a Loan.
Intangible Assets Related to Acquisition of Management Contracts: |
Intangible assets related to the acquisition of the management
contracts are accounted for using the guidance in Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 142 Goodwill and
Other Intangible Assets (FASB No. 142). Pursuant to
that guidance, the assets are periodically evaluated for
impairment based on the estimated cash flows from the management
contract on an undiscounted basis. In the event the carrying
value of the intangible assets, in combination with the carrying
value of land held for development and other assets associated
with the Indian casino projects described below, were to exceed
the undiscounted cash flow, an impairment would be recorded.
Such an impairment would be measured based on the difference
between the fair value and carrying value of the assets. Lakes,
in accordance with FASB No. 142, will amortize the
intangible assets related to the acquisition of the management
contracts under the straight-line method over the lives of the
contracts which will commence when the related casinos open. In
addition to the intangible asset associated with the cash
advances to tribes described above, these assets include actual
costs incurred to acquire Lakes interest in the projects
from third parties.
Land Held for Development |
Included in land held for development is land held for possible
transfer to Indian tribes for use in certain of the future
casino resort projects. In the event that this land is not
transferred to the tribes, the Company can sell it. Lakes
evaluates these assets for impairment in combination with
intangible assets related to acquisition of management contracts
and other assets related to the Indian casino projects as
discussed above.
Other |
Included in this category are costs incurred related to the
Indian casino projects, which have not yet been included as part
of the notes receivable because of timing of the payment of
these costs. These amounts will ultimately be allocated between
notes receivable and intangible assets related to the
acquisition of management contracts and will be evaluated for
changes in fair value or impairment, respectively, as described
above. These amounts vary from period to period due to timing of
payment of these costs.
In addition, Lakes incurs certain costs related to the projects
that are not included in notes receivable, which are expensed as
incurred. These costs include salaries, travel and certain legal
costs.
31
Table of Contents
The consolidated balance sheets as of July 3, 2005
(unaudited) and January 2, 2005 include long-term
assets related to Indian casino projects of $135.9 million
and $125.6 million, respectively, primarily related to
three separate projects. The amounts are summarized by project
(in thousands) as follows:
July 3, 2005 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Shingle | ||||||||||||||||||||
Pokagon | Springs | Jamul | ||||||||||||||||||
Band | Tribe | Tribe | Other | Total | ||||||||||||||||
(Unaudited) | ||||||||||||||||||||
Notes receivable, at fair value
|
$ | 39,432 | $ | 23,636 | $ | 10,142 | $ | 593 | $ | 73,803 | ||||||||||
Intangible assets related to acquisition of management contracts
|
17,942 | 17,849 | 7,172 | 284 | 43,247 | |||||||||||||||
Land held for development
|
| 8,811 | 6,612 | 360 | 15,783 | |||||||||||||||
Other
|
65 | 1,337 | 667 | 976 | 3,045 | |||||||||||||||
Total long-term assets related to the Indian casino project
|
$ | 57,439 | $ | 51,633 | $ | 24,593 | $ | 2,213 | $ | 135,878 | ||||||||||
January 2, 2005 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Shingle | ||||||||||||||||||||
Pokagon | Springs | Jamul | ||||||||||||||||||
Band | Tribe | Tribe | Other | Total | ||||||||||||||||
Notes receivable, at fair value
|
$ | 35,931 | $ | 21,775 | $ | 9,345 | $ | 15 | $ | 67,066 | ||||||||||
Intangible assets related to acquisition of management contracts
|
17,604 | 16,698 | 6,789 | 5 | 41,096 | |||||||||||||||
Land held for development
|
| 8,772 | 6,661 | | 15,433 | |||||||||||||||
Other
|
71 | 1,315 | 638 | | 2,024 | |||||||||||||||
Total long-term assets related to the Indian casino project
|
$ | 53,606 | $ | 48,560 | $ | 23,433 | $ | 20 | $ | 125,619 | ||||||||||
The key assumptions used to estimate the fair value of the notes
receivable are estimated casino opening date, projected interest
rates, discount rates and probability of projects opening. The
estimated casino opening date used in the valuation reflects the
weighted average of three scenarios: a base case (which is based
on the Companys forecasted casino opening date) and one
and two years out from the base case. The projected interest
rates are based upon the one year U.S Treasury Bill spot yield
curve per Bloomberg and the specific assumptions on contract
term, stated interest rate and casino opening date. The discount
rate for the projects is based on the yields available on
certain financial instruments at the valuation date, the risk
level of equity investments in general, and the specific
operating risks associated with open and operating gaming
enterprises similar to each of the projects. In estimating this
discount rate, market data of other public gaming related
companies was considered. The probability applied to each
project is based upon a weighting of four different scenarios
with the fourth scenario assuming the casino never opens. The
first three scenarios assume the casino opens but applies
different opening dates as discussed above. The probability
weighting applied to each scenario captures the element of risk
in these projects and is based upon the status of each project,
review of the critical milestones and likelihood of achieving
the milestones.
32
Table of Contents
The following table provides the key assumptions used to
estimate the fair value of the notes receivable (dollars in
thousands):
Pokagon Band:
As of July 3, 2005 | As of January 2, 2005 | |||
Face value of note (principal and interest)
|
$58,482 ($45,366 principal and $13,116 interest) | $55,747 ($44,550 principal and $11,197 interest) | ||
Estimated months until casino opens (weighted average of three
scenarios)
|
33 months | 33 months | ||
Projected interest rate until casino opens
|
7.4% | 6.8% | ||
Projected interest rate during the loan repayment term
|
7.7% | 8.2% | ||
Discount rate
|
15% | 15% | ||
Repayment terms of note
|
60 months | 60 months | ||
Probability rate of casino opening (weighting of four scenarios)
|
85% | 75% |
A portion of the notes due from the Pokagon Band include funds
advanced of approximately $24.1 million by the Company for
the Pokagon Bands purchase of land. The Company has a
first deed of trust against substantially all of this property,
which will be relinquished when the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) places the land into trust.
The estimated probability rate was increased from 75% to 85%
during the three months ended April 3, 2005, due to an
evaluation of all critical milestones and due to the favorable
federal judge ruling issued in March 2005 that will allow the
land to be taken into trust by the Federal Government.
Subsequently the Taxpayers of Michigan Against Casinos
(TOMAC) filed for an appeal. The appeal hearing date
was held on December 8, 2005 and a decision is pending. Due
to the delay related to this litigation the weighted average
estimated casino opening date was extended from December 2007 to
April 2008 during the three-month period ended July 3, 2005.
TOMAC commenced the litigation against the Federal Government in
2001 after the U.S. Department of Interior issued a finding
of no significant impact and recommended that land be taken into
trust on behalf of the Pokagon Band. The land in trust issue has
been the most significant critical milestone delaying the
opening of the casino.
See further discussion included below under Description
of each Indian casino project and evaluation of critical
milestones Pokagon Band.
33
Table of Contents
Shingle Springs Tribe:
As of July 3, 2005 | As of January 2, 2005 | |||
Face value of note (principal and interest)
|
$42,393 ($35,765 principal and $6,628 interest) | $38,156 ($33,076 principal and $5,080 interest) | ||
Estimated months until casino opens (weighted average of three
scenarios)
|
36 months | 36 months | ||
Projected interest rate until casino opens
|
8.4% | 7.9% | ||
Projected interest rate during the loan repayment term
|
8.5% | 8.7% | ||
Discount rate
|
15% | 15% | ||
Projected repayment terms of note*
|
24 months | 24 months | ||
Probability rate of casino opening (weighting of four scenarios)
|
70% | 70% |
* | Payable in varying monthly installments based on contract terms subsequent to the casino opening. |
As a result of delays related to litigation surrounding access
to the reservation via an interchange, the weighted average
estimated casino opening date was extended from April 2008 to
July 2008 during the three-month period ended July 3, 2005
(see further discussion below included under the caption
Description of each Indian casino project and evaluation
of critical milestones Shingle Springs).
Jamul Tribe:
As of July 3, 2005 | As of January 2, 2005 | |||
Face value of note (principal and interest)
|
$18,819 ($15,289 principal and $3,530 interest) | $17,306 ($14,467 principal and $2,839 interest) | ||
Estimated months until casino opens (weighted average of three
scenarios)
|
36 months | 36 months | ||
Projected interest rate until casino opens
|
8.4% | 7.9% | ||
Projected interest rate during the loan repayment term
|
8.8% | 8.7% | ||
Discount rate
|
15% | 15% | ||
Repayment terms of note
|
84 months | 84 months | ||
Probability rate of casino opening (weighting of four scenarios)
|
75% | 75% |
As a result of delays related to getting land contiguous to the
reservation placed into trust, the weighted average estimated
casino opening date was extended from April 2008 to July 2008
during the quarterly period ended July 3, 2005. Because of
the slow process, during August of 2005, the Jamul Tribe and
Lakes formally announced plans to build the casino on the
approximately six acres of reservation land held by the Jamul
Tribe. Reservation land qualifies for gaming without going
through a land in trust process (see further discussion below
included under the caption Description of each Indian
casino project and evaluation of critical milestones
Jamul Tribe).
The fair value estimation requires that assumptions be made and
judgments be applied regarding estimated casino opening dates,
projected interest rates, discount rates and probabilities of
the projects opening. If the assumptions used in the fair value
calculation change significantly the Company could be exposed to
unrealized gains or losses that could be material.
34
Table of Contents
The following table represents a sensitivity analysis prepared
by the Company of the notes receivable from the Jamul Tribe,
Pokagon Band and Shingle Springs Tribe, based upon a change in
the probability rate of the casino opening by five percentage
points and the estimated casino opening date by one year:
July 3, 2005 | Sensitivity Analysis | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fair Value | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes | 5% Less | One Year | 5% Increased | One Year | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Receivable | Probable | Delay | Both | Probability | Sooner | Both | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Pokagon
|
$ | 39,432,132 | $ | 37,351,065 | $ | 37,094,098 | $ | 35,150,562 | $ | 41,513,200 | $ | 41,935,614 | $ | 44,163,945 | ||||||||||||||
Shingle Springs
|
$ | 23,636,132 | $ | 21,920,408 | $ | 22,259,674 | $ | 20,642,269 | $ | 25,351,856 | $ | 25,096,262 | $ | 26,916,281 | ||||||||||||||
Jamul
|
$ | 10,142,412 | $ | 9,478,018 | $ | 9,571,322 | $ | 8,945,000 | $ | 10,806,806 | $ | 10,748,217 | $ | 11,452,998 | ||||||||||||||
$ | 73,210,676 | $ | 68,749,491 | $ | 68,925,094 | $ | 64,737,831 | $ | 77,671,861 | $ | 77,780,093 | $ | 82,533,224 | |||||||||||||||
January 2, 2005 | Sensitivity Analysis | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fair Value | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes | 5% Less | One Year | 5% Increased | One Year | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Receivable | Probable | Delay | Both | Probability | Sooner | Both | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Pokagon
|
$ | 35,931,000 | $ | 33,957,913 | $ | 33,825,802 | $ | 29,583,071 | $ | 37,904,088 | $ | 38,197,409 | $ | 40,321,591 | ||||||||||||||
Shingle Springs
|
$ | 21,775,000 | $ | 20,252,095 | $ | 20,453,118 | $ | 19,024,633 | $ | 23,297,905 | $ | 23,184,255 | $ | 24,807,821 | ||||||||||||||
Jamul
|
$ | 9,345,000 | $ | 8,734,015 | $ | 8,776,784 | $ | 8,203,679 | $ | 9,955,986 | $ | 9,950,775 | $ | 10,602,146 | ||||||||||||||
$ | 67,051,001 | $ | 62,944,022 | $ | 63,055,704 | $ | 56,811,384 | $ | 71,157,979 | $ | 71,332,440 | $ | 75,731,558 | |||||||||||||||
The assumption changes used in the sensitivity analysis above
are hypothetical. The effect of the variation in the probability
assumption and estimated opening date on the estimated fair
value of the notes receivable from Indian tribes were calculated
without changing any other assumptions; in reality, changes in
these factors may result in changes in another. For example, the
change in probability could be associated with a change in
discount rate, which might magnify or counteract the
sensitivities.
The following represents the nature of the advances to the
tribes. The table represents the total amount of advances, which
represent the principal amount of the notes receivable, as of
July 3, 2005 and January 2, 2005. The notes receivable
are carried on the consolidated balance sheets at July 3,
2005 (unaudited) and January 2, 2005 at their
estimated fair value of $73.8 million and
$67.1 million, respectively.
Balance at July 3, 2005 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Shingle | ||||||||||||||||||||
Advances Principal Balance | Pokagon | Springs | Jamul | Other | Total | |||||||||||||||
Note receivable, pre-construction(a)
|
$ | 21,265 | $ | 35,765 | $ | 14,339 | $ | | $ | 71,369 | ||||||||||
Note receivable, non - gaming land(b)
|
13,176 | | | | 13,176 | |||||||||||||||
Note receivable, land(b)
|
10,925 | | 950 | | 11,875 | |||||||||||||||
Note receivable, other
|
| | | 771 | 771 | |||||||||||||||
$ | 45,366 | $ | 35,765 | $ | 15,289 | $ | 771 | $ | 97,191 | |||||||||||
Balance at January 2, 2005 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Shingle | ||||||||||||||||||||
Advances Principal Balance | Pokagon | Springs | Jamul | Other | Total | |||||||||||||||
Note receivable, pre-construction(a)
|
$ | 20,449 | $ | 33,076 | $ | 13,517 | $ | | $ | 67,042 | ||||||||||
Note receivable, non - gaming land(b)
|
13,176 | | | | 13,176 | |||||||||||||||
Note receivable, land(b)
|
10,925 | | 950 | | 11,875 | |||||||||||||||
Note receivable, other
|
| | | 20 | 20 | |||||||||||||||
$ | 44,550 | $ | 33,076 | $ | 14,467 | $ | 20 | $ | 92,113 | |||||||||||
(a) | Lakes advances funds to the tribes, which are related to certain costs incurred to develop the casino project. These costs relate to construction costs, legal fees in connection with various regulatory approvals |
35
Table of Contents
and litigation, environmental costs and design consulting, and Lakes, in order to obtain the development agreement and management contract, agrees to advance a monthly amount used by the tribe for a variety of tribal expenses. | ||
(b) | Lakes purchased land to be used and transferred to the tribe in connection with the casino project. At Pokagon, a portion of the land will be used by the tribe separate from the casino project land. |
The notes receivable for pre-construction advances consist of
the following principal amounts advanced to the tribes at
July 3, 2005 and January 2, 2005 (in thousands):
Pokagon | July 3, 2005 | January 2, 2005 | |||||||
Monthly stipend
|
$ | 8,875 | $ | 8,125 | |||||
Construction
|
2,581 | 2,580 | |||||||
Legal
|
1,381 | 1,379 | |||||||
Environmental
|
650 | 645 | |||||||
Design
|
7,778 | 7,720 | |||||||
Total principal amount of pre-construction advances
|
$ | 21,265 | $ | 20,449 | |||||
Shingle Springs | July 3, 2005 | January 2, 2005 | |||||||
Monthly stipend
|
$ | 5,790 | $ | 4,980 | |||||
Construction
|
1,621 | 1,605 | |||||||
Legal
|
11,324 | 10,290 | |||||||
Environmental
|
1,586 | 1,577 | |||||||
Design
|
9,254 | 9,120 | |||||||
Gaming license
|
3,326 | 3,226 | |||||||
Lobbyist
|
2,864 | 2,278 | |||||||
Total principal amount of pre-construction advances
|
$ | 35,765 | $ | 33,076 | |||||
Jamul | July 3, 2005 | January 2, 2005 | |||||||
Monthly stipend
|
$ | 3,604 | $ | 3,319 | |||||
Construction
|
159 | 159 | |||||||
Legal
|
2,960 | 2,606 | |||||||
Environmental
|
1,652 | 1,628 | |||||||
Design
|
3,659 | 3,640 | |||||||
Gaming license
|
474 | 429 | |||||||
Lobbyist
|
1,831 | 1,736 | |||||||
Total principal amount of pre-construction advances
|
$ | 14,339 | $ | 13,517 | |||||
Lakes evaluation of impairment related to long-term assets related to Indian casino projects, excluding the notes receivable, which are valued at estimated fair value: |
Management periodically evaluates the intangible assets, land
held for development and other costs associated with each of the
projects for impairment. The assets are periodically evaluated
for impairment based on the estimated cash flows from the
management contract on an undiscounted basis. In the event the
carrying value of the intangible assets, in combination with the
carrying value of land held for development and other assets
associated with the Indian casino projects were to exceed the
undiscounted cash flow, an impairment would be recorded. Such
impairment would be measured based on the difference between the
fair value and carrying value of the assets.
36
Table of Contents
The financial models prepared by management for each project are
based upon the scope of each of the projects, which are
supported by a feasibility study as well as a market analysis
where the casino will be built. Lakes (as its predecessor
Grand Casinos Inc.) began developing Indian casino projects in
1990 and demonstrated success from the day the first Indian
casino opened in 1991 through the expiration of its Coushatta
management contract in 2002. This success legitimizes many of
the key assumptions supporting the financial models. Projections
for each applicable casino development were developed based on
analysis of published information pertaining to the particular
markets in which the Companys Indian casinos will be
located. In addition, Lakes has many years of casino operations
experience within the Company which provides a basis for its
revenue expectations. The projections were prepared by Lakes not
for purposes of the valuation at hand but rather for purposes of
Lakes and the tribes business planning.
The primary assumptions included within managements
financial model for each Indian casino project is as follows:
Pokagon Band |
July 3, 2005 | January 2, 2005 | |||
No. of class III slot machines
|
3,000 | 3,000 | ||
No. of table games
|
100 | 100 | ||
No. of poker tables
|
20 | 20 | ||
Win/class III slot machine/day
1st year
|
$275 | $275 | ||
Win/table game/day
1st year
|
$1,300 | $1,300 | ||
Win/poker game/day
1st year
|
$1,000 | $1,000 | ||
Expected increase (decrease) in management fee cash flows
|
Year 2 - (6.4%) (Decrease due to repayment of senior debt) Year 3 - 1.9% Year 4 - 3.6% Year 5 - 2.8% |
Year 2 - (6.4%) (Decrease due to repayment of senior debt) Year 3 - 1.9% Year 4 - 3.6% Year 5 - 2.8% |
With regard to the Pokagon Casino project in southwest Michigan,
the competitive market consists primarily of five Northern
Indiana riverboats. The State of Indiana publicly reports
certain results from these riverboat casinos which supports the
underlying assumptions in our projections. Specifically, the
Northern Indiana trailing twelve months market average for slot
machine revenue has consistently been above $300 win per unit
per day or greater than $105,000 per machine per year which
exceeds the $275 win per unit per day that we used in our
Pokagon Casino projections. Of the five casinos in the market,
two locations produced a win per unit less than our projections
with three casinos producing win per unit revenue amounts
greater than our forecast. The closest casino to our location
consistently produces approximately $330 win per unit per day.
37
Table of Contents
Jamul Tribe |
July 3, 2005 | January 2, 2005 | |||
No. of class III slot machines
|
349 | 349 | ||
No. of class II slot machines
|
1,651 | 1,651 | ||
No. of table games
|
65 | 65 | ||
No. of poker tables
|
10 | 10 | ||
Win/class III slot machine/day
1st year
|
$285 | $285 | ||
Win/class II slot machine/day
1st year
|
$200 | $200 | ||
Win/table game/day
1st year
|
$1,100 | $1,100 | ||
Win/poker table/day
1st year
|
$650 | $650 | ||
Expected increase (decrease) in management fee cash flows
|
Year 2 - (8.8%) (Decrease due to repayment of senior debt) Year 3 - 2.8% Year 4 - 2.9% Year 5 - 1.9% Year 6 - 2.8% Year 7 - 1.5% |
Year 2 - (8.8%) (Decrease due to repayment of senior debt) Year 3 - 2.8% Year 4 - 2.9% Year 5 - 1.9% Year 6 - 2.8% Year 7 - 1.5% |
The San Diego market contains other Indian-owned casinos in
the surrounding area, each of which is self-managed. Because of
the proprietary nature of those operations no public information
is readily attainable. However, based on the apparent successful
nature of their operations (large casinos which continually
expand, new hotel developments, new golf courses, etc.) coupled
with our knowledge of their operations, we feel that our
forecast of operations is within the revenue metrics of the
market.
Shingle Springs Tribe |
July 3, 2005 | January 2, 2005 | |||
No. of class III slot machines
|
349 | 349 | ||
No. of class II slot machines
|
1,651 | 1,651 | ||
No. of table games
|
100 | 100 | ||
No. of poker tables
|
20 | 20 | ||
Win/class III slot machine/day 1
st year
|
$350 | $350 | ||
Win/class II slot machine/day 1
st year
|
$250 | $250 | ||
Win/table game/day
1st year
|
$1,275 | $1,275 | ||
Win/poker table/day
1st year
|
$624 | $624 | ||
Expected increase (decrease) in management fee cash flows
|
Year 2 - (8.9%) (Decrease due to repayment of senior debt) Year 3 - 3.6% Year 4 - 3% Year 5 - 5.1% Year 6 - (17%) (Management fees were reduced in years six and seven) Year 7 - 10.8% |
Year 2 - (8.9%) (Decrease due to repayment of senior debt) Year 3 - 3.6% Year 4 - 3% Year 5 - 5.1% Year 6 - (17%) (Management fees were reduced in years six and seven) Year 7 - 10.8% |
In the Shingle Springs Sacramento market, there is one other
Indian casino that is managed by another public company.
Management took into consideration available information related
to this other Indian casino when projecting management fees from
the Shingle Springs Casino. Based on the apparent successful
nature
38
Table of Contents
of their operations coupled with our knowledge of their
operations, we feel that our forecast of operations is within
the revenue metrics of the market.
As of July 3, 2005 and January 2, 2005 no impairment
was recognized on the Pokagon, Shingle Springs or Jamul projects.
Description of each Indian casino project and evaluation of
critical milestones:
Pokagon Band |
Business arrangement: |
Lakes, in July 1999, entered into a development agreement and
management contract with the Pokagon Band, a federally
recognized tribe with a compact with the State of Michigan, to
develop and manage a casino on approximately 675 acres in
southwest Michigan. The first phase of the casino is planned to
include approximately 3,000 slot machines, 100 table games,
various restaurant and bar venues, enclosed parking, a childcare
facility and arcade, and various other resort amenities.
The development agreement provides for Lakes to advance up to
approximately $73.0 million for purchase of land and for
the initial development phase of the project. The development
agreement for the Pokagon project also provides that to the
extent the Pokagon Band is unable to raise additional funding
from third parties at an interest rate not to exceed 13%, Lakes
will be required to provide additional financing of up to
approximately $54.0 million. Based on extensive discussions
with prospective lenders, it appears that third party financing
will be available for this project; however, there can be no
assurance that third party financing will be available at the
time construction for the project begins. Lakes is not required
to fund these amounts; however, if Lakes discontinued the
funding prior to fulfilling the obligation, Lakes would forfeit
the rights under the management contract.
Lakes will receive approximately 24% of net income up to a
certain level and 19% of the net income over that level, as a
management fee. The term of the management contract is currently
planned for five years beginning when the casino opens to the
public and may extend for a total of seven years under certain
circumstances. Payment of Lakes management fee will be
subordinated to senior indebtedness of the Pokagon casino. The
Pokagon Band may terminate the management contract after five
years from the opening of the casino if any of certain required
elements of the project have not been developed or certain
financial commitments to the Pokagon Band have not been met. The
Pokagon Band may also buy out the management contract provisions
after two years from the opening date. The buyout amount is
calculated based upon the previous 12 months of management
fees earned multiplied by the remaining number of years under
the management contract, discounted back to the present value at
the time the buyout occurs. The management fee and length of
contract are subject to regulatory approval. If the land were
taken into trust in 2006 then the casino could open as early as
late 2007.
The Company will be obligated to pay an amount to an unrelated
third party once the Pokagon Casino is open and Lakes is the
manager of the casino. The amount is payable quarterly for five
years and is only payable if Lakes is the manager of the casino.
The payment is part of a settlement and release agreement
associated with Lakes obtaining the management contract with the
Pokagon Band. The maximum liability over the five-year period is
approximately $11 million.
39
Table of Contents
Lakes evaluation of critical milestones: |
The following table outlines the status of each of the following
primary milestones necessary to complete the Pokagon project as
of the end of fiscal year 2003 and 2004 and as of July 3,
2005. Both the positive and negative evidence was reviewed
during Lakes evaluation of the critical milestones.
Critical Milestone | December 28, 2003 | January 2, 2005 | July 3, 2005 | |||
Federal recognition of the tribe
|
Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
Possession of usable land corresponding with needs based on
the Companys project plan
|
Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
Usable land placed in trust by Federal government
|
No The Pokagon Band and Lakes continued to provide support for the case and in January 2003 the federal judge dismissed all issues except for the final issue and requested additional information from the BIA. | No The additional information was submitted by the BIA in August 2004 and the lawsuit was still pending resolution as of January 2, 2005. | No The additional information was submitted by the BIA in August 2004 and the lawsuit was still pending resolution as of January 2, 2005. Subsequently in March 2005 the federal judge dismissed the last remaining issue filed by Taxpayers of Michigan Against Casinos (TOMAC) and ruled in favor of the Pokagon Band allowing the land to be placed into trust by the BIA. During the required 60 day waiting period, TOMAC filed for an appeal. An agreement has been reached between the Department of Justice and TOMAC to not take the land into trust during the appeal process in exchange for TOMAC agreeing to a fast track hearing process. The appeal hearing date was held on December 8, 2005 and a decision is pending. |
40
Table of Contents
Critical Milestone | December 28, 2003 | January 2, 2005 | July 3, 2005 | |||
Usable county agreement, if applicable
|
Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
Usable state compact that allows for gaming consistent with
that outlined in the Companys project plan
|
Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
NIGC approval of management contract in current and desired
form
|
No, submitted to the NIGC for review in 2000. | No, submitted to the NIGC for review in 2000 and approval is expected at approximately the same time the land is being placed into trust by the BIA. | No, submitted to the NIGC for review in 2000 and approval is expected at approximately the same time the land is being placed into trust by the BIA. | |||
Resolution of all litigation and legal obstacles
|
No, pending litigation regarding land in trust see below. | No, pending litigation regarding land in trust see below. | No, pending litigation regarding land in trust see below. | |||
Financing for construction
|
No, however the Tribe engaged an investment banker to assist with obtaining financing. | No, however the Tribe engaged an investment banker to assist with obtaining financing. | No, however the Tribe engaged an investment banker to assist with obtaining financing. | |||
Any other significant project milestones or contingencies,
the outcome of which could have a material affect on the
probability of project completion as planned
|
No others known at this time by Lakes. | No others known at this time by Lakes. | No others known at this time by Lakes. |
Lakes evaluation and conclusion regarding the above critical milestones and progress: |
The Pokagon Band became a federally recognized tribe through an
act of Congress prior to them entering into any agreements with
Lakes. As part of this congressional action the Federal
Government mandated that the Pokagon Band shall have
land taken into trust on their behalf.
In 1999, Lakes entered into a development agreement and
management contract with the Pokagon Band. At that time the
Pokagon Band was federally recognized and they had a compact
with the State of Michigan. During 1999 and 2000, Lakes
purchased land on behalf of the Pokagon Band.
In January 2001, the U.S. Department of Interior issued a
finding of no significant impact and recommended that land be
taken into trust on behalf of the Pokagon Band. During the
required 30-day waiting period a lawsuit was filed by the TOMAC
against the federal government to stop the land in trust
process. Lakes and the Pokagon Band continued to provide support
for this case and believed it would be resolved in favor of the
Band. The first hearing before the federal judge took place on
December 2001. In March 2002, the judge eliminated several of
TOMACs assertions and continued to review the remaining
issues. In January 2003, the Judge dismissed all remaining
issues except for one and requested additional information from
the federal government (BIA) to support their
conclusions on that one issue. Due to the fact that all issues
except for one had been dismissed, Lakes continued to believe
that it was probable that the land would be taken into trust and
that the casino would open. The BIA submitted the additional
information in August
41
Table of Contents
2004; and in March 2005, the federal judge dismissed the last
remaining issue filed by TOMAC making it possible for the land
to be taken into trust for the gaming project. During the
required 60-day waiting period, TOMAC filed for an appeal. An
agreement has been reached between the Department of Justice and
TOMAC to not take the land into trust during the appeal process
in exchange for TOMAC agreeing to a fast track
hearing process. The appeal hearing date was held on
December 8, 2005 and a decision is pending. The federal
lawsuit has been the most significant item delaying the opening
of the casino. Lakes believes the outcome of this appeal will be
favorable because of the sequence of events that have occurred
in favor of the project to date, the existing state of the law
and most recently, the March 2005 dismissal of the last
remaining item in the lawsuit by the federal judge. The federal
judge dismissed claims that the BIA had not completed a
sufficient environmental assessment of the proposed casino site.
Lakes believes this decision will be upheld during the appeal
process because the evidence provided to the federal judge
(including legal arguments), which was the federal judges
basis for his favorable decision as to the sufficiency of the
environmental assessment as it relates to the Pokagon project,
has been reviewed by third-party advisors of both the Pokagon
Band and Lakes, and we and our advisors continue to believe the
environmental assessment that has been performed meets all
necessary requirements for the land to be taken into trust. We
expect approval of the management contract by the NIGC at
approximately the same time the land is taken into trust by the
BIA. Once the land is taken into trust, Lakes will help the
Pokagon Band build and manage their casino development.
Construction of the project could begin in mid to late 2006 with
an expected opening date twelve months following the start of
construction.
Shingle Springs |
Business arrangement: |
Plans for the Shingle Springs Casino project include an
approximately 238,000 square-foot facility (including
approximately 80,000 square feet of casino space) to be
located adjacent to the planned Shingle Springs Rancheria exit,
approximately 35 miles east of downtown Sacramento, on
U.S. Highway 50. The Shingle Springs Casino is currently
planned to feature approximately 2,000 gaming devices and
approximately 100 table games, as well as restaurants, enclosed
parking and other facilities.
Lakes acquired its initial interest in the development and
management contracts for the Shingle Springs Casino from Kean
Argovitz Resorts- Shingle Springs, LLC (KAR
Shingle Springs) in 1999 and formed a joint venture, in
which the contracts were held, between Lakes and KAR
Shingle Springs. On January 30, 2003, Lakes purchased the
remaining KAR Shingle Springs partnership
interest in the joint venture. In connection with the purchase
transaction, Lakes entered into separate agreements with the two
individual owners of KAR Shingle Springs (Kevin M.
Kean and Jerry A. Argovitz). Under the agreement with
Mr. Kean, Mr. Kean may elect to serve as a consultant
to Lakes during the term of the casino management contract if he
is found suitable by relevant gaming regulatory authorities. In
such event, Mr. Kean will be entitled to receive annual
consulting fees equal to 15% of the management fees received by
Lakes from the Shingle Springs Casino operations, less certain
costs of these operations. If Mr. Kean is not found
suitable by relevant gaming regulatory authorities or otherwise
elects not to serve as a consultant, he will be entitled to
receive annual payments of $1 million from the Shingle
Springs Casino project during the term of the respective casino
management contract (but not during any renewal term of such
management contract).
Under the agreement with Mr. Argovitz, if he is found
suitable by relevant gaming regulatory authorities he may elect
to re-purchase his respective original equity interest in the
Lakes subsidiary and then be entitled to obtain a 15%
equity interest in Lakes management contract with the
Shingle Springs Casino. If he is not found suitable or does not
elect to purchase equity interests in the Lakes
subsidiary, Mr. Argovitz would receive annual payments of
$1 million from the Shingle Springs Casino project from the
date of election through the term of the respective casino
management contract (but not during any renewal term of such
management contract).
The development agreement provides for Lakes to make certain
pre-construction advances to the Shingle Springs Tribe in the
form of a transition loan and land loan up to a maximum amount
of $50.0 million. Lakes
42
Table of Contents
is not required to fund these amounts; however, if Lakes
discontinued the funding prior to fulfilling the obligation,
Lakes would forfeit the rights under the management contract.
The agreement provides for Lakes to arrange for financing or, in
its discretion, loan to the Shingle Springs Tribe in the form of
a facility loan, funds for the costs of construction and initial
costs of operation up to a maximum currently of
$300 million. In addition, Lakes will assist in the design,
development and construction of the facility as well as manage
the pre-opening, opening and continued operations of the casino
and related amenities for a period of seven years. As
compensation for its management services, Lakes will receive a
management fee between 21% and 30% of net income of the
operations annually for the first five years, with a declining
percentage in years six and seven, as that term is defined by
the management contract. Payment of Lakes management fee
will be subordinated to senior indebtedness of the Shingle
Springs Casino and minimum priority payment to the Shingle
Springs Tribe. The Shingle Springs Tribe may terminate the
agreement after five years from the opening of the casino if any
of certain required elements of the project have not been
developed. The management contract includes provisions that
allow the Shingle Springs Tribe to buy out the management
contract after four years from the opening date. The buyout
amount is calculated based upon the previous twelve months of
management fees earned multiplied by the remaining number of
years under the contract, discounted back to the present value
at the time the buyout occurs.
Lakes Evaluation of the Critical Milestones: |
The following table outlines the status of each of the following
primary milestones necessary to complete the Shingle Springs
project as of the end of fiscal year 2003 and 2004 and as of
July 3, 2005. Both the positive and negative evidence was
reviewed during Lakes evaluation of the critical
milestones.
Critical Milestone | December 28, 2003 | January 2, 2005 | July 3, 2005 | |||
Federal recognition of the tribe
|
Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
Possession of usable land corresponding with needs based on
the Companys project plan
|
Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
Usable land placed in trust by Federal government
|
Not necessary, as land is reservation land. | Not necessary, as land is reservation land. | Not necessary, as land is reservation land. | |||
Usable county agreement, if applicable
|
N/A | N/A | N/A | |||
Usable state compact that allows for gaming consistent with
that outlined in the Companys project plan
|
Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
NIGC approval of management contract in current and desired
form
|
No, submitted to the NIGC for review in 2000. | Yes approval received in 2004. | Yes approval received in 2004. |
43
Table of Contents
Critical Milestone | December 28, 2003 | January 2, 2005 | July 3, 2005 | |||
Resolution of all litigation and legal obstacles
|
No, Federal and state litigation regarding approval of highway
interchange, environmental issues and other issues. See below. |
No, Federal and state litigation regarding approval of highway
interchange, environmental issues and other issues. See below. |
No, Federal and state litigation regarding approval of highway
interchange, environmental issues and other issues. See below. |
|||
Financing for construction
|
No, however the Tribe has engaged investment banks to assist with obtaining financing. | No, however the Tribe has engaged investment banks to assist with obtaining financing. | No, however the Tribe has engaged investment banks to assist with obtaining financing. | |||
Any other significant project milestones or contingencies,
the outcome of which could have a material affect on the
probability of project completion as planned
|
No others known at this time by Lakes. | No others known at this time by Lakes. | No others known at this time by Lakes. |
Lakes evaluation and conclusion regarding the above critical milestones and progress: |
The Shingle Springs Tribe is a federally recognized tribe, has a
compact with the State of California and owns approximately
160 acres of reservation land on which the casino can be
built. During July 2004, Lakes received notification from the
NIGC that the development and management contract between the
Shingle Springs Tribe and Lakes, allowing Lakes to manage a
Class II and Class III casino, was approved by the
NIGC.
In January 2005, Lakes received a favorable ruling from the
federal court on all federal issues with respect to the casino
development planned by the Shingle Springs Tribe. El Dorado
County is appealing the federal favorable ruling related to the
project.
The most significant milestone yet to be achieved for this
project is commercial access to the reservation on which the
casino will be built. The Shingle Springs Tribe received state
regulatory approval of a necessary interchange to access the
tribal land during 2002. Neighboring El Dorado County and
another local group commenced litigation in federal and state
courts against the California regulatory agencies attempting to
block the approval of the interchange. During January of 2004,
the California Superior Court ruled in favor of the California
Department of Transportation (CalTrans) on all of El
Dorado Countys claims challenging CalTrans
environmental review of the proposed casino project except that
the court asked for clarification on one issue. The one
remaining issue in the state case questions the state standards
for ozone requirements of all of CalTrans projects throughout
California. El Dorado County, Voices for Rural Living, CalTrans
and the Shingle Springs Tribe filed an appeal and oral arguments
on these appeals was heard in August 2005. In November 2005, the
California Court of Appeal (Court) issued its
decision on these appeals. The Court ruled in favor of
CalTrans appeal, rejecting the El Dorado Countys
argument that the transportation conformity analysis did not
conform to state standards. The Court also rejected all but two
of the legal claims asserted in the appeal by El Dorado County
and Voices for Rural Living against the environmental impact
report (EIR) prepared by CalTrans for the
interchange that will connect Highway 50 to the Shingle Springs
Rancheria. For the remaining two issues, the Court held that
CalTrans must supplement its environmental analysis by adding
some discussion to the air quality chapter to further explain
the projects contribution to overall vehicular emissions
in the region, and that CalTrans also must evaluate whether a
smaller casino and hotel would reduce environmental impacts. The
Court acknowledged CalTrans lacks jurisdiction to require the
Shingle Springs Tribe to develop a smaller casino, but
nevertheless required some discussion of this alternative in the
interchange EIR.
44
Table of Contents
Lakes has monitored the lawsuit in California state court
closely, and Lakes believes it is likely that the state court
action will be ultimately resolved in favor of the project
because the current ruling not only jeopardizes a significant
amount of other transportation projects in the state of
California, but also because it is contrary to California law.
Under state and federal environmental rules, if just one project
is stopped or postponed as a result of an environmental ruling
similar to the one in this matter, all other ongoing and planned
transportation projects likely would be required to satisfy the
same air quality requirements imposed by the trial court in
order to proceed and they could not do so, resulting in the loss
of funding for such projects. Lakes believes that this final
issue in state court will ultimately be overcome because the
trial court ruling is not only without precedent, but it is
contrary to existing case and statutory law. Accordingly, and in
light of the trial court rulings far-reaching and
devastating impact on ongoing road projects, Lakes expects the
trial courts ruling will be reversed on appeal, meaning
this project and other road projects in the area will be allowed
to move forward. Construction of the interchange and casino
could begin as early as the third quarter of 2006 with an
estimated opening date approximately 14 months after the
start of the construction.
Under the form of tribal-state compact first signed by the State
of California with both the Jamul and Shingle Springs tribes in
1999, each tribe is allowed to operate up to 350 Class III
slot machines without licenses from the state. This form of
compact allows tribes to operate up to an additional 1,650
Class III slot machines by obtaining licenses for the
devices from the state. Under these tribal-state compacts, there
is a state-wide limitation on the aggregate number of
Class III slot machine licenses that are available. Tribes
who have entered into new tribal-state compacts or amendments to
the 1999 form of tribal-state compact in general are allowed to
operate an unlimited number of Class III slot machines
without the need for obtaining additional licenses, subject to
the payment of additional fees to the state, including, in
recent cases, fees based on a percentage of slot net
win. Currently, neither the Jamul Tribe nor the Shingle
Springs Tribe have amended their tribal-state compacts. If the
compacts are not renegotiated and amended, the tribes could
operate under their existing compacts which allows for up to 350
Class III gaming devices and an unlimited number of
Class II gaming devices. Management believes that this
number of gaming devices is adequate to equip the planned
developments. Therefore, Lakes believes the availability of
additional slot licenses is not an issue that could prevent the
projects from progressing. The Shingle Springs project is
currently planned to open with 349 Class III slot machines
and approximate 1,650 Class II devices.
Jamul Tribe |
Business arrangement: |
The Jamul Tribe has an approximate six-acre reservation on which
the casino project is currently planned to be built. The
reservation is located near San Diego, California. Plans
for the casino include approximately 2,000 gaming devices and
approximately 85 table games along with various restaurants and
related amenities.
Lakes acquired its initial interest in the development agreement
and management contracts for the Jamul casino from Kean Argovitz
Resorts-Jamul, LLC (KAR Jamul) in 1999
and formed a joint venture in which the contracts were held
between Lakes and KAR Jamul. On January 30,
2003, Lakes purchased the remaining KAR Jamuls
partnership interest in the joint venture. In connection with
the purchase transaction, Lakes entered into separate agreements
with the two individual owners of KAR Jamul
(Mr. Kean and Mr. Argovitz). The term of the contract
is expected to be five or seven years. Under the agreement with
Mr. Kean, Mr. Kean may elect to serve as a consultant
to Lakes during the term of the casino management contract if he
is found suitable by relevant gaming regulatory authorities. In
such event, Mr. Kean will be entitled to receive annual
consulting fees equal to 20% of the management fees received by
Lakes from the Jamul Casino operations, less certain costs of
these operations. If Mr. Kean is not found suitable by
relevant gaming regulatory authorities or otherwise elects not
to serve as a consultant, he will be entitled to receive annual
payments of $1 million from the Jamul Casino project during
the term of the respective casino management contract (but not
during any renewal term of such management contract).
Under the agreement with Mr. Argovitz, if he is found
suitable by relevant gaming regulatory authorities he may elect
to re-purchase his respective original equity interest in the
Lakes subsidiary and then be entitled to obtain a 20%
equity interest in Lakes management contract with the
Jamul Tribe. If he is not found
45
Table of Contents
suitable or does not elect to purchase equity interests in the
Lakes subsidiary, Mr. Argovitz may elect to receive
annual payments of $1 million from the Jamul Casino project
from the date of election through the term of the respective
casino management contract (but not during any renewal term of
such management contract).
The development agreement provides for Lakes to make certain
pre-construction advances to the Jamul Tribe of up to
$30 million. Lakes is not required to fund these amounts;
however, if Lakes discontinued the funding prior to fulfilling
the obligation, Lakes would forfeit the rights under the
management contract. Lakes will receive a management fee between
18% and 30% of net income of the operations annually for seven
years, subject to regulatory approval of the management contract
and subject to a minimum priority monthly payment to the Jamul
Tribe.
The Jamul Tribe may terminate the management contract after five
years from the opening date of the casino if any of certain
required elements of the project have not been developed. The
management contract includes provisions that allow the Jamul
Tribe to buy out the management contract after four years from
the opening date. The buyout amount is calculated based upon the
previous 12 months of management fees earned multiplied by
the remaining number of years under the contract, discounted
back to the present value at the time the buyout occurs.
46
Table of Contents
Lakes Evaluation of the Critical Milestones: |
The following table outlines the status of each of the following
primary milestones necessary to complete the Jamul project as of
the end of fiscal year 2003 and 2004 and as of July 3,
2005. Both the positive and negative evidence was reviewed
during Lakes evaluation of the critical milestones.
Critical Milestone | December 28, 2003 | January 2, 2005 | July 3, 2005 | |||
Federal recognition of the tribe
|
Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
Possession of usable land corresponding with needs based on
the Companys project plan
|
Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
Usable land placed in trust by Federal government
|
Yes, six acres is reservation land held by the Jamul Tribe on which the casino will be built. There is an additional 82 acres contiguous to the reservation land pending BIA approval to be placed into trust that could be used for additional development of the project. The Jamul Tribe and Lakes were in the process of preparing an EIS, as described below and completing the land in trust application. | Yes, six acres is reservation land held by the Jamul Tribe on which the casino will be built. There is an additional 82 acres contiguous to the reservation land pending BIA approval to be placed into trust that could be used for additional development of the project. The Jamul Tribe and Lakes prepared an EIS and trust application, which has been submitted to, reviewed and recommended for approval by the regional office of the BIA. The Washington, D.C. office of the BIA is currently reviewing the submission. | Yes, six acres is reservation land held by the Jamul Tribe on which the casino will be built. There is an additional 82 acres contiguous to the reservation land pending BIA approval to be placed into trust that could be used for additional development of the project. The Jamul Tribe and Lakes prepared an EIS and trust application, which has been submitted to, reviewed and recommended for approval by the regional office of the BIA. The Washington, D.C. office of the BIA is currently reviewing the submission. | |||
Usable county agreement, if applicable
|
N/A | N/A | N/A | |||
Usable state compact that allows for gaming consistent with
that outlined in the Companys project plan
|
Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
NIGC approval of management contract in current and desired
form
|
No, submitted for approval by the NIGC in 2000 and approval is not expected to occur until the process to place land in trust by the BIA is complete. | No, submitted for approval by the NIGC in 2000. We are in communication with the NIGC and have responded to initial comments. Approval is not expected until the process to place land in trust by the BIA is complete. | No, submitted for approval by the NIGC in 2000. We are in communication with the NIGC and have responded to initial comments. Approval is not expected until the process to place land in trust by the BIA is complete. |
47
Table of Contents
Critical Milestone | December 28, 2003 | January 2, 2005 | July 3, 2005 | |||
Resolution of all litigation and legal obstacles
|
N/A there has been some local opposition regarding the project, although no formal legal action has been taken. | N/A, there has been some local opposition regarding the project, although no formal legal action has been taken. | N/A, there has been some local opposition regarding the project, although no formal legal action has been taken. | |||
Financing for construction
|
No | No, however, preliminary discussions with investment bankers regarding assisting in obtaining financing have taken place. | No, however, preliminary discussions with investment bankers regarding assisting in obtaining financing have taken place. | |||
Any other significant project milestones or contingencies,
the outcome of which could have a material affect on the
probability of project completion as planned
|
No others known at this time by Lakes. | No others known at this time by Lakes. | No others known at this time by Lakes. |
Lakes evaluation and conclusion regarding the above critical milestones and progress: |
The Jamul Tribe is a federally recognized tribe with a compact
with the State of California and has an approximate six acre
reservation on which the casino is planned to be built. The
primary effort in this project has been to place approximately
82 acres of land contiguous to the reservation into trust
for gaming. Lakes acquired 101 acres of land contiguous to
the six acres of reservation land of which 19 acres relate
to land with certain easements, which will not be accepted into
trust. The trust application, including an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), has been prepared, submitted to,
reviewed and recommended for approval by the regional office of
the BIA. The Washington, D.C. office of the BIA is
currently reviewing the submission to determine if the land
should be taken into trust. There has been some local opposition
regarding the project. An EIS is more rigorous to complete than
a more typical EA (Environmental Assessment). The EIS was more
intense and took longer to prepare but is considered a better
method to address all potential environmental concerns
surrounding this project and to mitigate potential future
opposition that may delay the project.
The process of getting the land contiguous to the reservation
placed into trust has been slow. Therefore, during August of
2005, the Jamul Tribe and Lakes formally announced plans to
build the casino on the approximately six acres of reservation
land held by the Jamul Tribe. Reservation land qualifies for
gaming without going through a land in trust process. The
approximate size of the casino and related guest amenities will
not change in total, as the casino was always planned to be
built on the reservation land. The approximate six-acre project
would be built on various levels to accommodate essentially all
of the same amenities that were planned for the project on the
larger parcel of land. Therefore, the design of the project
would change significantly from a complex of lower-level
buildings spread out over a larger area to a multi-level resort
built on a smaller parcel of land. Total square footage, nature
or cost of the project are not expected to change significantly
as it will be primarily the same project being built on a
smaller footprint.
Lakes has consulted with third-party advisors as to the
architectural feasibility of the alternative plan and has been
assured that the project can be successfully built on the
reservation land. The Company has completed economic models for
each alternative and concluded that either would result in a
successful operation assuming that adequate financing can be
obtained. Therefore, the Company believes this project will
48
Table of Contents
be successfully completed. The development agreement and
management contract is subject to approval by the NIGC and is
currently in the review process. A consulting agreement with the
Jamul Tribe is also under consideration. Construction of the
casino could begin in late 2006 with an estimated opening date
of the casino 12 months thereafter.
Under the form of tribal-state compact first signed by the State
of California with both the Jamul and Shingle Springs tribes in
1999, each tribe is allowed to operate up to 350 Class III
slot machines without licenses from the state. This form of
compact allows tribes to operate up to an additional 1,650
Class III slot machines by obtaining licenses for the
devices from the state. Under these tribal-state compacts, there
is a state-wide limitation on the aggregate number of
Class III slot machine licenses that are available to
tribes. Certain tribes have entered into new tribal-state
compacts or amendments to the 1999 form of tribal-state compact
that allow them to operate an unlimited number of Class III
slot machines without the need for obtaining additional
licenses, subject to the payment of additional fees to the
state, including in recent cases, fees based on a percentage of
slot net win. Currently, neither the Jamul tribe nor
the Shingle Springs tribe have amended their tribal-state
compacts. If the compacts are not renegotiated and amended the
tribes could operate under their existing compacts which allow
for up to 350 Class III gaming devices and an unlimited
number of Class II gaming devices. This number of gaming
devices is adequate to equip the planned developments.
Therefore, Lakes believes the availability of additional slot
licenses is not an issue that could prevent the projects from
progressing. The Jamul project is currently planned to open with
349 Class III slot machines and approximate 1,650
Class II devices.
Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma |
Business arrangement: |
In January 2005, Lakes entered into three gaming development and
consulting agreements (collectively Pawnee Development and
Consulting Agreements) and three separate management
contracts (collectively Pawnee Management Contracts)
with three wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Pawnee Tribal
Development Corporation (Pawnee TDC) referred to
collectively as the Pawnee Nation. in connection
with assisting the Pawnee Nation in developing, equipping and
managing three separate casino destinations.
The largest of the casino resort developments will be located on
approximately 800 acres of Indian gaming land owned by the
Pawnee Nation in northern Oklahoma near the Kansas border. This
project is planned to include a large first class casino, hotel
and meeting space, multiple restaurants and bar venues, an
entertainment and event center, a golf course and various other
casino resort amenities. The first phase of the project is
planned to include approximately 1,200 gaming devices, 24 table
games, a poker room, various restaurants and bars, a 150-room
hotel and parking.
The Pawnee Nation currently operates a Travel Plaza
at the intersection of U.S. Highway 412 and State
Highway 18, approximately 25 miles from Stillwater,
Oklahoma. The Pawnee Nation intends to expand the Travel Plaza
to include gaming and has engaged Lakes to assist with this
project. When expanded, the planned project will open with
approximately 150 gaming devices, four table games, and a full
service restaurant and bar.
As compensation for the performance of its obligations under the
management contract for each of these two locations, Lakes shall
be entitled to receive a fee of 30% of net income of the
respective casino (as defined in the contracts) for a period of
five to seven years, depending on the scope of the facilities,
less any amounts earned by any Company affiliate for consulting
on the two projects. The management contracts are subject to
approval of the NIGC and certain other conditions.
The Pawnee Nation also operates its Trading Post
Casino, which currently includes approximately 65 gaming
devices along with a retail convenience store and gas station in
the town of Pawnee, Oklahoma. Lakes will assist in the
management of this project and in its expansion if the Pawnee
Nation decides to expand the casino. As compensation for its
management services on this project, Lakes will receive a
management fee of approximately 30% of net income, as defined in
the agreement, based on the incremental net income produced at
this location during the length of the management contract,
expected to be from five
49
Table of Contents
to seven years, depending on the scope of the facilities, less
any amounts earned by any Company affiliate for consulting on
the two projects subject to regulatory approval and certain
other conditions.
Prior to the approval of the Pawnee Management Contracts by the
NIGC, Lakes will provide services under the Pawnee Development
and Consulting Agreements to each of the three Pawnee casino
projects. Under these agreements Lakes will provide advances to
the Pawnee Nation, if needed, from time to time to each
particular project for preliminary development costs as agreed
to by Lakes and the Pawnee Nation. Any advances made will accrue
interest at prime plus two percent and be repayable in 24 equal
monthly installments beginning on the
25th day
following the opening date for the project if the loan has not
previously been repaid through the project permanent financing.
The Pawnee Development and Consulting Agreements are for
12 years from the effective date of the agreements or until
the project development fees and the project preliminary
development loans have been fully paid, whichever date is later,
subject to early termination. In addition to interest earned on
the project preliminary development loan, Lakes will receive a
development fixed fee equal to three percent of project costs at
each location and a monthly consulting flat fee for each of the
three projects of $5,000 for the Trading Post location, $25,000
for the Travel Plaza location and $250,000 for the new casino,
per month for 120 months. The above development fixed fees
shall be paid on the opening date of each of the projects. No
monthly consulting fixed fee is earned or paid prior to the
opening date of the project. After the opening date of the
project the monthly consulting fixed fee shall be due and paid
commencing on the
25th day
of the following calendar month and each successive month.
The Pawnee Development and Consulting Agreements and Pawnee
Management Contracts are subject to NIGC review and include
provisions for an early buyout of the Pawnee Development and
Consulting Agreements and the Pawnee Management Contracts by the
Pawnee Nation.
Arrangement with Consultant. The Company has executed an
agreement stipulating that Kevin Kean will be compensated for
his consulting services (relating to the Pawnee Nation) rendered
to the Company. Under this arrangement, subject to Mr. Kean
obtaining certain regulatory approvals, Mr. Kean will
receive 20 percent of the Companys fee compensation,
earned under the Pawnee Development and Consulting Agreements
and Pawnee Management Contracts with the Pawnee Nation (i.e.,
six percent of the incremental total net income or
20 percent of the Companys 30 percent share).
This agreement provides that payments will be due to
Mr. Kean when the Company is paid by the Pawnee Nation.
50
Table of Contents
Lakes Evaluation of the three Pawnee Nation Projects: |
The following table outlines the status of each of the following
primary milestones necessary to complete the Pawnee Nation
projects as of July 3, 2005:
Critical Milestone | New Casino Project | Travel Plaza | Trading Post | |||
Federal recognition of the tribe
|
Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
Possession of usable land corresponding with needs based on
the Companys project plan
|
Yes, the Tribe currently holds land in trust where the new casino will be built. | Yes, the Tribe is currently leasing land from tribal members, which is held in trust for the individual tribal members by the United States Government. The lease will need to be approved by the BIA. | Yes, the Trading Post is currently open. | |||
Usable land placed in trust by Federal government
|
Yes, the Tribe currently holds land in trust where the Chilocco Casino will be built. | Yes, the Tribe is currently leasing land from tribal members, which is held in trust for the individual tribal members by the United States Government. The lease will need to be approved by the BIA. | Yes, the Trading Post is currently open. | |||
Usable county agreement, if applicable
|
N/A | N/A | N/A | |||
Usable state compact that allows for gaming consistent with
that outlined in the Companys project plan
|
Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
NIGC approval of management contract in current and desired
form
|
No, submitted to the NIGC for review on March 22, 2005. An EA will be prepared in order for the management contract to be approved. | No, submitted to the NIGC for review on March 22, 2005. An EA will be prepared in order for the management contract to be approved. | No, submitted to the NIGC for review on March 22, 2005. | |||
Resolution of all litigation and legal obstacles
|
None at this time. | None at this time. | None at this time. |
51
Table of Contents
Critical Milestone | New Casino Project | Travel Plaza | Trading Post | |||
Financing for construction
|
No, preliminary discussions with lending institutions has occurred. | No, preliminary discussions with lending institutions has occurred. | None needed. | |||
Any other significant project milestones or contingencies,
the outcome of which could have a material affect on the
probability of project completion as planned
|
No others known at this time by Lakes. | The acquisition of other tribal land needs to be approved by the BIA. | No others known at this time by Lakes. |
Lakes evaluation and conclusion regarding the above critical milestones and progress: |
Long-term assets have been recorded as it is considered probable
that the three Pawnee Nation Projects will result in economic
benefit to Lakes sufficient to recover Lakes investment.
Based upon the above status of all primary milestones and the
projected fees to be earned under the consulting agreements and
management contracts, no impairment has been recorded. The
Pawnee Trading Post is currently open and operating and the
refurbishments were completed in the fourth quarter of fiscal
2005. The Pawnee Travel Plaza is currently open and expansion
could be completed to include gaming as early as mid 2006. The
Pawnee new casino project could open as early as mid 2007.
Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma |
Business arrangement: |
On March 15, 2005, the Company, through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries, entered into consulting agreements and management
contracts with the Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, a federally
recognized Indian Tribe, and The Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, a
federally-chartered corporation (collectively, the Iowa
Tribe). The agreements are effective as of
January 27, 2005. The Company will provide consulting
services to assist the Iowa Tribe with two separate casino
destinations in Oklahoma including (i) assisting in
developing a new first class casino and ancillary amenities and
facilities to be located on Indian land approximately
25 miles northeast of Oklahoma City along Route 66 (the
Development Project); and (ii) assisting with
operational efforts at the Iowa Tribes existing Cimarron
Casino, located in Perkins Oklahoma (the Cimarron
Casino). The Company will also provide management services
for the Tribes casino operations at each location subject
to regulatory approval.
Each of the projects has a gaming consulting agreement
(Iowa Consulting Agreement) and a management
contract (Iowa Management Contract), independent of
the other project. Key terms relating to the agreements for the
projects are as follows:
The Development Project. For its gaming development
consulting services under the Iowa Consulting Agreement related
to the Development Project, the Company will receive a
development fee of two percent of the project costs of the
Development Project, paid upon the opening of the Development
Project, and a flat monthly fee of $500,000 for a period of
120 months commencing upon the opening of the project.
The Company has agreed to make advances to the Iowa Tribe,
subject to a project budget to be agreed upon by the Company and
the Iowa Tribe and certain other conditions. The development
loan will be for preliminary development costs under the
Development Project budget. The Company has also agreed to use
reasonable efforts to assist the Iowa Tribe in obtaining
permanent financing for any projects developed under the Iowa
Consulting Agreement.
The Iowa Management Contract for the Development Project is
subject to the approval of the NIGC and certain other
conditions. For its performance under the Iowa Management
Contract, the Company will be
52
Table of Contents
entitled to receive management fees of approximately 30% of net
income, as defined in the agreement, for each month during the
term of the Iowa Management Contract less any amounts earned by
any Company affiliate for consulting on the Development Project.
The Iowa Management Contract term is seven years from the first
day that the Company is able to commence management of the
Development Project gaming operations under all legal and
regulatory requirements (the Commencement Date),
provided that the Iowa Tribe has the right to buy out the
remaining term of the Iowa Management Contract after the
Development Project has been in continuous operation for
60 months, for an amount based on the then present value of
estimated future management fees. If the Iowa Tribe elects to
buy-out the contract, all outstanding amounts owed to Lakes
become payable if not already paid. Subject to certain
conditions, the Company agrees to make advances for the
Development Projects working capital requirements, if
needed, during the first six months after the Commencement Date.
The advances are to be repaid through an operating note payable
from revenues generated by future operations of the Development
Project bearing interest at two percent over the prime rate. The
Company also agrees to fund any shortfall in certain minimum
monthly Development Project payments to the Iowa Tribe by means
of non-interest bearing advances under the same operating note.
Cimarron Casino. The Company has entered into a separate
gaming consulting agreement (Cimarron Consulting
Agreement) and management contract (Cimarron
Management Contract) with the Iowa Tribe with respect to
the Cimarron Casino. Many of the material provisions of these
two agreements are similar to those for the Development Project,
except that: (i) the Cimarron Consulting Agreement is
primarily for services related to the existing operations (with
the possibility of further development); (ii) the Company
will provide up to a $1 million business improvement loan
rather than a preliminary development loan; (iii) the fee
under the Cimarron Consulting Agreement will consist entirely of
a limited flat monthly fee of $50,000; and (iv) the annual
fee under the Cimarron Management Contract will be 30% of net
income in excess of $4 million (reduced by any amounts
earned by any Company affiliate for consulting services under
the Cimarron Consulting Agreement).
Arrangement with Consultant. The Company has executed an
agreement stipulating that Kevin Kean will be compensated for
his consulting services (relating to the Iowa Tribe) rendered to
the Company. Under this arrangement, subject to Mr. Kean
obtaining certain regulatory approvals, Mr. Kean will
receive 20 percent of the Companys fee compensation
that is received under the Iowa Consulting Agreement, Cimarron
Consulting Agreement, Iowa Management Contract and Cimarron
Management Contract with the Iowa Tribe (i.e., six percent of
the incremental total net income or 20 percent of the
Companys 30 percent share). This agreement provides
that payments will be due to Mr. Kean when the Company is
paid by the Iowa Tribe.
Lakes Evaluation of the two Iowa Tribe Projects: |
The following table outlines the status of each of the following
primary milestones necessary to complete the Iowa Tribe projects
as of July 3, 2005:
Development Project | Cimarron Casino | |||
Federal recognition of the tribe
|
Yes | Yes | ||
Possession of usable land corresponding with needs based on
the Companys project plan
|
Yes, the Iowa Tribe is currently leasing and acquiring land from tribal members, which is held in trust for the individual tribal members by the United States Government. These transactions will need to be approved by the BIA. | Yes, currently an open casino. |
53
Table of Contents
Development Project | Cimarron Casino | |||
Usable land placed in trust by Federal government
|
Yes, the Iowa Tribe is currently leasing and acquiring land from tribal members, which is held in trust for the individual tribal members by the United States Government. These transactions will need to be approved by the BIA. | Yes, currently an open casino. | ||
Usable county agreement, if applicable
|
N/A | N/A | ||
Usable state compact that allows for gaming consistent with
that outlined in the Companys project plan
|
Yes | Yes | ||
NIGC approval of management contract in current and desired
form
|
No, submitted to the NIGC for review on April 22, 2005. An EA will be prepared in order for the management contract to be approved. | No, submitted to the NIGC for review on April 22, 2005. | ||
Resolution of all litigation and legal obstacles
|
Yes, the acquisition of other tribal land needs to be approved by the BIA. | No | ||
Financing for construction
|
No, preliminary discussions with lending institutions have occurred. | Third party financing arrangements for the refurbishment project are in negotiations. | ||
Any other significant project milestones or contingencies,
the outcome of which could have a material affect on the
probability of project completion as planned
|
No others known at this time by Lakes. | No others known at this time by Lakes. |
Lakes evaluation and conclusion regarding the above critical milestones and progress: |
Long-term assets have been recorded as it is considered probable
that the two Iowa Tribe Projects will result in economic benefit
to Lakes sufficient to recover Lakes investment. Based upon the
above status of all primary milestones and the projected fees to
be earned under the consulting agreements and management
contracts, no impairment has been recorded. The Cimarron Casino
is currently open and refurbishment of the casino could be
completed as early as mid 2006. The Development Project could
open as early as mid 2007.
Kickapoo Tribe |
Lakes entered into consulting agreements and management
contracts with the Kickapoo Tribe effective January 2005 to
improve the performance of the gaming operations conducted at
the Kickapoo Tribes existing Lucky Eagle Casino in Eagle
Pass, Texas, located approximately 140 miles southwest of
San Antonio. During the third quarter of fiscal 2005 the
Companys relationship with the Kickapoo Tribe deteriorated
and in November 2005, Lakes and the Kickapoo Tribe terminated
their business relationship. During the three months and six
months ended July 3, 2005, the Company recorded unrealized
losses of $1.3 million and $1.8 million, respectively,
related to the Kickapoo project. During the third quarter of
fiscal 2005, the Company recognized an impairment charge of
$0.1 million related to the intangible asset related to the
acquisition of the management contract. In addition the Company
recognized unrealized losses related to advances made for
project costs and project cost incurred that Lakes may be
required to pay as a result of the terminated relationship in
the amounts of $0.3 million and $3.8 million,
respectively, during the third quarter
54
Table of Contents
of fiscal 2005. As of October 2, 2005, Lakes owns
approximately 18 acres of land near the Kickapoo site with
a cost basis of approximately $0.7 million. As a result of
the terminated business relationship with the Kickapoo Tribe,
Lakes intends to negotiate with the Kickapoo Tribe to reach an
agreement to resolve all of the financial terms of the contracts
including repayment of the advances, payment of the unpaid
project costs incurred, possible sale of the land owned by Lakes
to the tribe, and to formally terminate the gaming operations
consulting agreement, management contract, and related ancillary
agreements relating to the project.
Income Taxes
The Company accounts for income taxes under the provisions of
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 109,
Accounting for Income Taxes. Under this method, the
Company determines deferred tax assets and liabilities
based upon the difference between the financial statement and
tax bases of assets and liabilities using enacted tax rates in
effect for the year in which the differences are expected to
affect taxable income. The tax consequences of most events
recognized in the current years consolidated financial
statements are included in determining income taxes currently
payable. However, because tax laws and financial accounting
standards differ in their recognition and measurement of assets,
liabilities, equity, revenue, expenses, gains and losses,
differences arise between the amount of taxable income and
pretax financial income for a year and between the tax bases of
assets or liabilities and their reported amounts in the
consolidated financial statements.
Because it is assumed that the reported amounts of assets and
liabilities will be recovered and settled, respectively, a
difference between the tax basis of an asset or a liability and
its reported amount in the balance sheet will result in a
taxable or a deductible amount in some future years when the
related liabilities are settled or the reported amounts of the
assets are recovered, hence giving rise to deferred tax assets
and liabilities. The Company must then assess the likelihood
that deferred tax assets will be recovered from future taxable
income and to the extent management believes that recovery is
not likely, they must establish a valuation allowance. The
Company has established a valuation allowance against all
non-capital deferred income tax assets as of July 3, 2005
and January 2, 2005. The Company has established deferred
tax assets related to unrealized investment losses and related
carryovers as of July 3, 2005 and January 2, 2005. The
Company believes it will have sufficient capital gains in the
foreseeable future to utilize these benefits due to significant
appreciation in its investment in WPTE. The Company owns
approximately 12.5 million shares of WPTE common stock
valued at approximately $82.6 million as of
December 9, 2005 based upon the closing stock price as
reported by Nasdaq on December 9, 2005 of $6.62.
Lakes basis in the WPTE common stock is minimal.
Common stock subject to repurchase
WPTE violated certain securities laws in connection with its
initial public offering by sending out written email
communications to individuals that did not contain all of the
information required to be in a prospectus and were not preceded
or accompanied by a prospectus meeting the requirements for a
prospectus. These violations could require WPTE to repurchase
shares sold in the offering to direct recipients of the email
communications for a period of up to one year at the offering
price plus interest. WPTE sold 75,200 shares in the
offering that were subject to such repurchase rights, and these
shares are classified on our balance sheet as of July 3,
2005 and January 2, 2005 as common stock subject to
repurchase. As of August 9, 2005, the one-year anniversary
of WPTEs initial public offering, WPTEs repurchase
obligation with respect to such shares expired, and these shares
were reclassified as equity as of October 2, 2005.
Stock-based compensation:
We account for equity-based employee compensation under the
recognition and measurement principles of Accounting Principles
Board (APB) Opinion No. 25, Accounting for
Stock Issued to Employees and related Interpretations.
However, Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 123 (revised 2004), Share-Based Payment
(SFAS No. 123R) was issued in December 2004 and
requires that compensation cost related to share-based employee
compensation transactions be recognized in the financial
statements. Share-based employee compensation transactions
within the scope of SFAS No. 123R include stock
options, restricted stock plans, performance-based awards, stock
appreciation rights and employee share purchase
55
Table of Contents
plans. We have not completed our evaluation or determined the
future impact of adopting SFAS No. 123R, which may be
material to our results of operations when adopted no later than
January 1, 2006. See Note 5 to our unaudited condensed
consolidated financial statements included under Item 1 of
this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for more information
about Lakes accounting for compensation expenses,
including the pro-forma effects on the periods presented had we
applied SFAS 123, Accounting for Stock-Based
Compensation.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In December 2004, the FASB issued Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 153, Exchanges of
Non-monetary Assets An Amendment of APB Opinion
No. 29, Accounting for Non-monetary
Transactions. SFAS No. 153 eliminates the
exception from fair value measurement for non-monetary exchanges
of similar productive assets in paragraph 21(b) of APB
Opinion No. 29, and replaces it with an exception for
exchanges that do not have commercial substance.
SFAS No. 153 is effective for fiscal periods beginning
after June 15, 2005, and has not had a material impact on
the Companys financial statements.
In December 2004, the FASB issued Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised 2004), Share-Based
Payment (SFAS No. 123(R)), which amends FASB Statement
No. 123 and supersedes APB Opinion No. 25,
Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees,
SFAS No. 123(R) requires all companies to measure
compensation expense for all share-based payments (including
employee stock options) at fair value and recognize the expense
over the related service period. Additionally, excess tax
benefits, as defined in SFAS No. 123(R), will be
recognized as an addition to paid-in capital and will be
reclassified from operating cash flows to financing cash flows
in the consolidated statements of cash flows.
SFAS No. 123(R) will be effective January 1,
2006. We are currently evaluating the effect that
SFAS No. 123(R) will have on our financial position,
results of operations and operating cash flows.
In May 2005, the FASB issued SFAS No. 154,
Accounting Changes and Error Corrections, a replacement of
APB Opinion No. 20 and SFAS No. 3.
SFAS No. 154 replaces APB Opinion No. 20,
Accounting Changes and SFAS No. 3, Reporting
Accounting Changes in Interim Financial Statements and
changes the requirement for the accounting for and reporting of
a change in accounting principles. SFAS No. 154
applies to all voluntary changes in accounting principles. It
also applies to changes required by an accounting pronouncement
in the unusual instance that the pronouncement does not include
specific transition provisions. When a pronouncement includes
specific transition provisions, those provisions should be
followed. The provisions of SFAS No. 154 will be
effective for accounting changes made in the fiscal year
beginning after December 15, 2005. We do not presently
expect to enter into any accounting changes in the foreseeable
future that would be affected by adopting SFAS No. 154
when it becomes effective.
Seasonality
The Company believes that the operations of all casinos to be
managed by the Company will be affected by seasonal factors,
including holidays, weather and travel conditions. WPTEs
license revenues are affected by the timetable for delivery of
episodes to TRV.
Regulation and Taxes
The Company is subject to extensive regulation by state gaming
authorities. The Company will also be subject to regulation,
which may or may not be similar to current state regulations, by
the appropriate authorities in any jurisdiction where it may
conduct gaming activities in the future. Changes in applicable
laws or regulations could have an adverse effect on the Company.
The gaming industry represents a significant source of tax
revenues. From time to time, various federal legislators and
officials have proposed changes in tax law, or in the
administration of such law, affecting the gaming industry. It is
not possible to determine the likelihood of possible changes in
tax law or in the administration of such law. Such changes, if
adopted, could have a material adverse effect on the
Companys results of operations and financial results.
56
Table of Contents
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
The Company has no off-balance sheet arrangements that have or
are reasonably likely to have a current or future effect on its
financial condition, changes in financial condition, revenues or
expenses, results of operations, liquidity, capital expenditures
or capital resources that is material to investors, except for
the financing commitments previously discussed and except for
Lakes investments in unconsolidated affiliates.
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a
safe harbor for forward-looking statements. Certain
information included in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
and other materials filed or to be filed by the Company with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (as well as information
included in oral statements or other written statements made or
to be made by the Company) contain statements that are
forward-looking, such as plans for future expansion and other
business development activities as well as other statements
regarding capital spending, financing sources and the effects of
regulation (including gaming and tax regulation) and competition.
Such forward looking information involves important risks and
uncertainties that could significantly affect the anticipated
results in the future and, accordingly, actual results may
differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking
statements made by or on behalf of the Company.
These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to,
the relisting of Lakes common stock on the Nasdaq Stock
Market; need for current financing to meet Lakes
operational and development needs; those relating to the
inability to complete or possible delays in completion of
Lakes casino projects, including various regulatory
approvals and numerous other conditions which must be satisfied
before completion of these projects; possible termination or
adverse modification of management contracts; Lakes operates in
a highly competitive industry; possible changes in regulations;
reliance on continued positive relationships with Indian tribes
and repayment of amounts owed to Lakes by Indian tribes;
possible need for future financing to meet Lakes expansion
goals; risks of entry into new businesses; reliance on
Lakes management; and the fact that the WPTE shares held
by Lakes are currently not liquid assets, and there is no
assurance that Lakes will be able to realize value from these
holdings equal to the current or future market value of WPTE
common stock. Because Lakes consolidated results of
operations include the results of WPTE operations, Lakes is also
subject to risks and uncertainties relating to WPTE that may
have a material effect on the Companys consolidated
results of operations or the market value of the WPTE shares
held by the Company, including WPTEs significant
dependence on the Travel Channel as a source of revenue; the
potential that WPTEs television programming will fail to
maintain a sufficient audience; difficulty of predicting the
growth of WPTEs online casino business, which is a
relatively new industry with an increasing number of market
entrants; the uncertainty of the regulatory environment for
online gaming, which may affect WPTEs ability to pursue
its online gaming business fully or cause WPTEs activities
to be found to be in violation of applicable United States or
foreign regulations; the risk that competitors with greater
financial resources or marketplace presence might develop
television programming that would directly compete with
WPTEs television programming; the risk that WPTE may not
be able to protect its entertainment concepts, current and
future brands and other intellectual property rights; risks
associated with future expansion into new or complementary
businesses; the termination or impairment of WPTEs
relationships with key licensing and strategic partners; and
WPTEs dependence on its senior management team. For
further information regarding the risks and uncertainties, see
the Business Risk Factors section of the
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended January 2, 2005.
ITEM 3. | QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK |
The Companys financial instruments include cash and cash
equivalents and marketable securities. The Companys main
investment objectives are the preservation of investment capital
and the maximization of after-tax returns on its investment
portfolio. Consequently, the Company invests with only
high-credit-quality issuers and limits the amount of credit
exposure to any one issuer. The Company does not use derivative
instruments for speculative or investment purposes.
57
Table of Contents
The Companys cash and cash equivalents are not subject to
significant interest rate risk due to the short maturities of
these instruments. As of July 3, 2005, the carrying value
of the Companys cash and cash equivalents approximates
fair value. The Company also holds short-term investments
consisting of marketable debt securities (principally consisting
of commercial paper, corporate bonds, and government securities)
having a weighted average duration of one year or less.
Consequently, such securities are not subject to significant
interest rate risk.
The Companys primary exposure to market risk associated
with changes in interest rates involves the Companys
long-term assets related to Indian casino projects in the form
of notes receivable due from its tribal partners for the
development and construction of Indian-owned casinos. The loans
earn interest based upon a defined reference rate. The floating
interest rate will generate more or less interest income if
interest rates rise or fall.
Lakes notes receivable from Indian tribes related to
properties under development bear interest generally at prime
plus one percent or two percent, however, the interest is only
payable if the casino is successfully opened and distributable
profits are available from casino operations. Lakes records its
notes receivable at fair value and subsequent changes in fair
value are recorded as income or expense in the Companys
consolidated statement of operations. As of July 3, 2005,
Lakes had $73.8 million of notes receivable, at fair value
with a floating interest rate (principal amount of
$97.2 million, excluding advances to the Kickapoo Tribe).
Based on the applicable current reference rates and assuming all
other factors remain constant, interest income for a twelve
month period would be approximately $7.6 million. A
reference rate increase of 100 basis points would result in
an increase in interest income of $1.0 million. A
100 basis point decrease in the reference rate would result
in a decrease of $1.0 million in interest income over the
same twelve-month period.
ITEM 4. | CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES |
Under the supervision and with the participation of our
management, including our chief executive officer and chief
financial officer, we conducted an evaluation of our disclosure
controls and procedures, as such term is defined under
Rules 13a-15(e) or Rule 15d 15(e)
promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as of the
end of the period covered by this quarterly report. Based on
their evaluation, our chief executive officer and chief
financial officer concluded that Lakes Entertainment,
Inc.s disclosure controls and procedures are effective.
There have been no significant changes (including corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies or material
weaknesses) in our internal control over financial reporting
during the three months ended July 3, 2005 that have
materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially
affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Part II
Other Information
ITEM 1. | LEGAL PROCEEDINGS |
Slot Machine Litigation
In 1994, William H. Poulos filed a class-action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
against various parties, including Lakes predecessor,
Grand Casinos, and numerous other parties alleged to be casino
operators or slot machine manufacturers. This lawsuit was
followed by several additional lawsuits of the same nature
against the same, as well as additional defendants, all of which
were subsequently consolidated into a single class-action
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada. Following a court order dismissing all pending pleadings
and allowing the plaintiffs to re-file a single complaint, a
complaint has been filed containing substantially identical
claims, alleging that the defendants fraudulently marketed and
operated casino video poker machines and electronic slot
machines, and
58
Table of Contents
asserting common law fraud and deceit, unjust enrichment and
negligent misrepresentation and claims under the federal
Racketeering-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Various
motions were filed by the defendants seeking to have this new
complaint dismissed or otherwise limited. In December 1997, the
Court, in general, ruled on all motions in favor of the
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs then filed a motion seeking class
certification and the defendants opposed it. In June 2002, the
District Court entered an order denying class certification. On
August 10, 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the District Courts denial of class
certification. On September 14, 2005, the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada granted the
defendants motions for summary judgment, and judgment was
entered against the plaintiffs on that same day. The defendants
have also filed motions seeking the payment of costs and
attorney fees and defendants have until December 28, 2005
to complete their briefing on the motions.
The Company has not recorded any liability for this matter as
currently an estimate of any possible loss cannot be made.
Management currently believes the final outcome of this matter
is not likely to have a material adverse effect upon the
Companys consolidated financial statements.
Willard Eugene Smith Litigation
On October 24, 2003, Lakes announced that it had been named
as one of a number of defendants in a counterclaim filed in
state court in Harris County, Texas by Willard Eugene Smith
involving Kean Argovitz Resorts, LLC (KAR) and related
persons and entities. In the counterclaim, Smith asserted that,
under an alleged oral agreement with Kevin Kean, he is entitled
to a percentage of fees to be received by the KAR Entities or
their principals relating to the Shingle Springs and Jamul
Casinos that Lakes subsidiaries are developing in
California. Smith also sought recovery of damages through the
remedy of either attachment of the management fees generated
from the projects or avoidance of buyout agreements between
Lakes and KAR based on their conduct with respect to the alleged
agreement. Trial for the above litigation commenced in April
2005. In May 2005, the jury in the state court case reached a
verdict in favor of Lakes and the other defendants. The jury in
the case found that there was no agreement with Smith relating
to the ongoing monthly payments or the percentage of management
fees. The jury also found that Smith was not entitled to
damages. As a result of the verdict against Smith, a second
phase of the trial, which would have sought to recover from
Lakes any damages awarded, will not be necessary. Smith filed a
Motion for a Partial Retrial on the issue of damages, which was
denied automatically by operation of law. Smith failed to timely
file an appeal to the Texas Court of Appeals, so the judgment
has become final.
El Dorado County, California Litigation
On January 3, 2003, El Dorado County filed an action in the
Superior Court of the State of California, seeking to prevent
the construction of a highway interchange that was approved by a
California state agency. The action, which was consolidated with
a similar action brought by Voices for Rural Living and others,
does not seek relief directly against Lakes. However, the
interchange is necessary to permit the construction of a casino
to be developed and managed by Lakes through a joint venture.
The casino will be owned by the Shingle Springs Tribe. The
matter was tried to the court on August 22, 2003. On
January 2, 2004, Judge Lloyd G. Connelly, Judge of the
Superior Court of the State of California, issued his ruling on
the matter denying the petition in all respects except one. As
to the one exception, the court sought clarification as to
whether the transportation conformity determination used to
determine the significance of the air quality impact of the
interchange operations considered the impact on attainment of
the state ambient air quality standard for ozone. The California
Department of Transportation (CalTrans) prepared and filed the
clarification addendum sought by the court. Prior to the
courts determination of the adequacy of the clarification,
El Dorado County and Voices for Rural Living appealed Judge
Connellys ruling to the California Court of Appeals on all
of the remaining issues.
A ruling with respect to the addendum was issued June 21,
2004 by the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Sacramento. The ruling indicated that the addendum provided to
the court by CalTrans did not provide a quantitative showing to
satisfy the courts earlier request for a clarification on
meeting the state ambient ozone standard. The court recognized
that the information provided by CalTrans does qualitatively
show that the project may comply with the state standard, but
concluded that a quantitative
59
Table of Contents
analysis is necessary even though the court recognized that the
methodology for that analysis is not readily
apparent. In addition, the ruling specifically stated,
Moreover, such methodology appears necessary for the CEQA
analysis of transportation projects throughout the state,
including transportation projects for which respondents (i.e.,
CalTrans) have approval authority. CalTrans, the Shingle
Springs Tribe and Lakes responded to the court with a revised
submission in August 2004. Representatives of the California Air
Resources Board and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments
filed declarations supporting the revised submission to the
court. Opposition to that revised submission was filed, a
hearing on the revised submission took place on August 20,
2004 and the court again found the revised submission of
CalTrans, the Shingle Springs Tribe and Lakes to be inadequate.
That ruling was separately appealed to the California Court of
Appeals (the Court) and an oral argument for these
appeals and the appeals of El Dorado County and Voices of Rural
Living was held before the Court on August 29, 2005.
The Court issued its decision on the appeals on November 8,
2005. The Court ruled in favor of CalTrans appeal,
rejecting the El Dorado Countys argument that the
transportation conformity analysis did not conform to state
standards. The Court also rejected all but two of the legal
claims asserted in the appeal by El Dorado County and
Voices for Rural Living against the environmental impact report
(EIR) prepared by CalTrans for the interchange that
will connect Highway 50 to the Shingle Springs Rancheria. For
the remaining two issues, the Court held that CalTrans must
supplement its environmental analysis by adding some discussion
to the air quality chapter to further explain the projects
contribution to overall vehicular emissions in the region, and
that CalTrans also must evaluate whether a smaller casino and
hotel would reduce environmental impacts. The Court acknowledged
CalTrans lacks jurisdiction to require the Shingle Springs Tribe
to develop a smaller casino, but nevertheless required some
discussion of this alternative in the interchange EIR.
The Company has not recorded any liability for this matter as
management currently believes that the Courts rulings will
ultimately allow the project to commence. However, there can be
no assurance that the final outcome of this matter is not likely
to have a material adverse effect upon the Companys
consolidated financial statements.
Grand Casinos, Inc. Litigation
In connection with the establishment of Lakes as a public
corporation on December 31, 1998, via a distribution of its
common stock to the shareholders of Grand Casinos, the Company
and Grand Casinos entered into an agreement governing the
sharing or allocation of tax benefits accruing to Grand Casinos
and certain affiliated companies of Grand Casinos. Lakes
asserted claims against Grand Casinos for amounts to which Lakes
believed it was entitled under the tax sharing agreement. On
December 1, 2004, Lakes entered into a settlement agreement
with Grand Casinos and its parent company, Park Place
Entertainment Corporation (now known as Caesars
Entertainment, Inc. or Caesars), pursuant to
which Lakes received $11.3 million in December 2004 in
satisfaction of its prior claim and its future rights to the tax
benefits that were the subject of the dispute. Lakes will be
required to provide reimbursement for its share of the
disallowed benefits. This settlement income has been recorded as
other income in the consolidated statement of earnings (loss)
for the year ended January 2, 2005. Lakes has not recorded
any tax related to the settlement payment of $11.3 million,
as Lakes believes this settlement is not taxable to Lakes.
Louisiana Department of Revenue Litigation Tax Matter
The Louisiana Department of Revenue maintains a position that
Lakes owes additional Louisiana corporation income tax for the
period ended January 3, 1999 and the tax years ended
December 31, 1999 through December 31, 2001 and
additional Louisiana corporation franchise tax for the tax years
ended December 31, 2000 through December 31, 2002.
This determination is the result of an audit of Louisiana tax
returns filed by Lakes for the tax periods at issue and relates
to the reporting of income earned by Lakes in connection with
the managing of two Louisiana-based casinos. On
December 20, 2004, the Secretary of the Department of
Revenue of the State of Louisiana filed a petition to collect
taxes in the amount of $8.6 million, excluding interest,
against Lakes in the
19th Judicial
District Court, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, Docket
No. 527596, Section 23. In the petition to collect
taxes the Department of Revenue of the state of
60
Table of Contents
Louisiana asserts that additional corporation income tax and
corporation franchise tax are due by Lakes for the taxable
periods set forth above. Lakes maintains that it has remitted
the proper Louisiana corporation income tax and Louisiana
corporation franchise tax for the taxable periods at issue. On
February 14, 2005, Lakes filed an answer to the petition to
collect taxes asserting all proper defenses and maintaining that
no additional taxes are owed and that the petition to collect
taxes should be dismissed. Management intends to vigorously
contest this action by the Louisiana Department of Revenue.
Lakes may be required to pay up to the $8.6 million
assessment plus interest if Lakes is not successful in this
matter. The Company has recorded a reserve related to this
examination, which is reflected as part of income taxes payable
on the Companys consolidated balance sheets.
WPTE litigation with TRV
On September 19, 2005, WPTE filed suit in the California
Superior Court seeking to keep the Travel Channel from
interfering with WPTEs prospective contractual
relationship with third party networks in connection with the
sale of the broadcast rights to the PPT, and to clarify and
enforce WPTEs rights with respect to the WPT. Under
WPTEs existing agreement with TRV for the World Poker Tour
program (the WPT Agreements), TRV is afforded the
right to negotiate exclusively with WPTE with respect to certain
types of programming developed by WPTE during a 60 day
period. Pursuant to the WPT Agreements, WPTE submitted the PPT
to TRV and began negotiations but failed to reach an agreement
with TRV within the allotted negotiation window. Consequently,
WPTE began discussions with other networks. While WPTE later
revived its attempts to reach a deal with TRV after TRVs
exclusive bargaining window had ended, WPTE ultimately received
an offer from ESPN. WPTE submitted this offer to TRV pursuant to
TRVs contractual last right to match the deal as specified
under the WPT Agreements. Thereafter, TRV sent letters to WPTE
and ESPN asserting, among other things, that WPTE was not
entitled to complete a deal for the PPT with a third party.
Following TRVs letters, WPTE filed suit on
September 19, 2005, alleging that TRV breached the WPT
Agreements and interfered with WPTEs prospective
contractual relationship with ESPN, and seeking a judicial
declaration of WPTEs rights under the WPT Agreements to
produce non-World Poker Tour branded programs covering poker
tournaments. Subsequent to WPTE filing, ESPN withdrew its offer
to WPTE to acquire the broadcast rights to the PPT. On
September 22, 2005, TRV and Discovery Communications, Inc.
filed an answer and cross-complaint and subsequently filed a
motion for judgment on the pleadings and an
anti-SLAPP motion, both of which were denied on
November 10, 2005. Despite WPTEs dispute with TRV,
WPTE remains committed to fulfilling its obligations to TRV in
connection with the World Poker Tour series.
Other Litigation
Lakes and its subsidiaries are involved in various other
inquiries, administrative proceedings, and litigation relating
to contracts and other matters arising in the normal course of
business. While any proceeding or litigation has an element of
uncertainty, management currently believes that the final
outcome of these matters, including the matters discussed above,
is not likely to have a material adverse effect upon the
Companys consolidated financial statements.
ITEM 6. | EXHIBITS |
31 | .1 | Certification of CEO pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 | ||
31 | .2 | Certification of CFO pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 | ||
32 | .1 | Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 |
61
Table of Contents
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the registrant has duly caused this report on
Form 10-Q to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
thereunto duly authorized.
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. | |
Registrant | |
/s/ Lyle Berman | |
|
|
Lyle Berman | |
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer | |
/s/ Timothy J. Cope | |
|
|
Timothy J. Cope | |
President and Chief Financial Officer |
Dated: December 16, 2005
62