GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT, INC. - Quarter Report: 2006 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 2, 2006 | ||
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 of incorporation or organization) |
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
|
130 Cheshire Lane, Suite 101 | 55305 | |
Minnetonka, Minnesota | (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 þ No o.
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated
filer. See definition of accelerated filer and large
accelerated filer in
Rule 12b-2 of the
Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large Accelerated
Filer o Accelerated
Filer þ Non
Accelerated Filer 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 August 3, 2006, there were 22,874,909 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
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets
July 2, 2006 and January 1, 2006
July 2, | January 1, | ||||||||
2006 | 2006 | ||||||||
(Unaudited) | |||||||||
(In thousands) | |||||||||
ASSETS | |||||||||
Current Assets:
|
|||||||||
Cash and cash equivalents
|
$ | 37,377 | $ | 9,912 | |||||
(balance includes $6.6 million and $1.7 million of WPT Enterprises, Inc. cash) | |||||||||
Short-term investments
|
44,311 | 26,735 | |||||||
(balance includes $30.5 million and $26.7 million of WPT Enterprises, Inc. short-term investments) Accounts receivable, net of allowance of $0.0 million and $0.1 million | 1,951 | 3,072 | |||||||
Prepaid expenses
|
600 | 614 | |||||||
Other current assets
|
1,325 | 1,810 | |||||||
Total current assets
|
85,564 | 42,143 | |||||||
Property and equipment, net
|
15,209 | 13,451 | |||||||
Long-term assets related to Indian casino projects:
|
|||||||||
Notes receivable from Indian tribes
|
139,913 | 87,062 | |||||||
Land held for development
|
16,197 | 16,248 | |||||||
Intangible assets related to acquisition of management
contracts, net
|
53,103 | 46,088 | |||||||
Other
|
5,174 | 3,360 | |||||||
Total long-term assets related to Indian casino projects
|
214,387 | 152,758 | |||||||
Other assets:
|
|||||||||
Restricted cash
|
19,535 | 249 | |||||||
Investments
|
4,576 | 10,640 | |||||||
Deferred tax asset
|
4,540 | 6,852 | |||||||
Debt issuance costs
|
2,212 | 19 | |||||||
Other long-term assets
|
4,939 | 4,498 | |||||||
Total other assets
|
35,802 | 22,258 | |||||||
Total Assets
|
$ | 350,962 | $ | 230,610 | |||||
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY | |||||||||
Current Liabilities:
|
|||||||||
Accounts payable
|
$ | 5,989 | $ | 8,394 | |||||
Income taxes payable
|
13,575 | 10,933 | |||||||
Accrued payroll and related costs
|
1,816 | 1,125 | |||||||
Deferred revenue
|
3,351 | 5,150 | |||||||
Other accrued expenses
|
2,191 | 2,159 | |||||||
Total current liabilities
|
26,922 | 27,761 | |||||||
Long-term debt, related party
|
| 10,000 | |||||||
Long-term debt, other, net of unamortized discount of
$1.0 million
|
104,117 | | |||||||
Total Liabilities
|
131,039 | 37,761 | |||||||
Commitments and Contingencies
|
|||||||||
Minority interest in subsidiary
|
16,400 | 14,466 | |||||||
Shareholders Equity:
|
|||||||||
Series A preferred stock, $.01 par value; authorized
7,500 shares; 4,458 and 0 issued and outstanding at
July 2, 2006 and January 1, 2006, respectively
|
45 | | |||||||
Common stock, $.01 par value; authorized
200,000 shares; 22,875 and 22,300 common shares issued and
outstanding at July 2, 2006, and January 1, 2006,
respectively
|
229 | 223 | |||||||
Additional paid-in capital
|
170,720 | 154,301 | |||||||
Retained earnings
|
28,342 | 13,410 | |||||||
Accumulated other comprehensive earnings
|
4,187 | 10,449 | |||||||
Total shareholders equity
|
203,523 | 178,383 | |||||||
Total Liabilities and Shareholders Equity
|
$ | 350,962 | $ | 230,610 | |||||
See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements
3
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings (Loss) and
Comprehensive Earnings (Loss)
Three Months Ended | Six Months Ended | |||||||||||||||||
July 2, | July 3, | July 2, | July 3, | |||||||||||||||
2006 | 2005 | 2006 | 2005 | |||||||||||||||
(In thousands, except per share data) | ||||||||||||||||||
(Unaudited) | ||||||||||||||||||
Revenues:
|
||||||||||||||||||
License fee income
|
$ | 8,750 | $ | 5,341 | $ | 13,426 | $ | 8,804 | ||||||||||
Host fees, sponsorship and other
|
2,470 | 1,260 | 4,424 | 1,901 | ||||||||||||||
Total Revenues
|
11,220 | 6,601 | 17,850 | 10,705 | ||||||||||||||
Costs and Expenses:
|
||||||||||||||||||
Selling, general and administrative
|
8,833 | 6,970 | 18,015 | 13,435 | ||||||||||||||
Production costs
|
4,176 | 4,377 | 6,596 | 7,564 | ||||||||||||||
Depreciation and amortization
|
315 | 113 | 584 | 204 | ||||||||||||||
Total Costs and Expenses
|
13,324 | 11,460 | 25,195 | 21,203 | ||||||||||||||
Net unrealized gains (losses) on notes receivable
|
17,647 | (956 | ) | 33,123 | 1,880 | |||||||||||||
Earnings (Loss) From Operations
|
15,543 | (5,815 | ) | 25,778 | (8,618 | ) | ||||||||||||
Other Income (Expense):
|
||||||||||||||||||
Interest income
|
657 | 364 | 1,090 | 814 | ||||||||||||||
Interest expense, related party
|
| | (137 | ) | | |||||||||||||
Interest expense, other
|
(1,303 | ) | | (1,834 | ) | | ||||||||||||
Loss on extinguishment of debt
|
(6,821 | ) | | (6,821 | ) | | ||||||||||||
Realized gain on sale of investment
|
| | 5,675 | | ||||||||||||||
Other
|
(10 | ) | | 76 | | |||||||||||||
Total other income (expense), net
|
(7,477 | ) | 364 | (1,951 | ) | 814 | ||||||||||||
Earnings (loss) before income taxes, equity in earnings
(loss) of unconsolidated investees and minority interest in net
(earnings) loss of subsidiary
|
8,066 | (5,451 | ) | 23,827 | (7,804 | ) | ||||||||||||
Income taxes
|
3,837 | 352 | 6,547 | 707 | ||||||||||||||
Earnings (loss) before equity in earnings (loss) of
unconsolidated investees and minority interest in net (earnings)
loss of subsidiary
|
4,229 | (5,803 | ) | 17,280 | (8,511 | ) | ||||||||||||
Equity in earnings (loss) of unconsolidated investees, net of tax
|
| (7 | ) | | 6 | |||||||||||||
Minority interest in net (earnings) loss of subsidiary
|
(981 | ) | 159 | (2,348 | ) | 735 | ||||||||||||
Net earnings (loss)
|
$ | 3,248 | $ | (5,651 | ) | $ | 14,932 | $ | (7,770 | ) | ||||||||
Other comprehensive earnings (loss):
|
||||||||||||||||||
Unrealized gains (losses) on marketable securities, net of tax
|
(855 | ) | 6 | (426 | ) | (36 | ) | |||||||||||
Change in estimated fair value of derivatives
|
(161 | ) | | (161 | ) | | ||||||||||||
Comprehensive earnings (loss)
|
$ | 2,232 | $ | (5,645 | ) | $ | 14,345 | $ | (7,806 | ) | ||||||||
Earnings (loss) per share basic
|
$ | 0.14 | $ | (0.25 | ) | $ | 0.66 | $ | (0.35 | ) | ||||||||
Earnings (loss) per share diluted
|
$ | 0.13 | $ | (0.25 | ) | $ | 0.61 | $ | (0.35 | ) | ||||||||
Weighted-average common shares outstanding
basic
|
22,875 | 22,300 | 22,642 | 22,289 | ||||||||||||||
Dilutive effect of common stock equivalents
|
2,041 | | 1,862 | | ||||||||||||||
Weighted-average common shares outstanding
diluted
|
24,916 | 22,300 | 24,504 | 22,289 | ||||||||||||||
See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements
4
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Shareholders
Equity
Six months ended July 2, 2006 and July 3, 2005
Accumulated | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Preferred Stock | Common Stock | Additional | Other | Total | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Paid-In | Retained | Comprehensive | Shareholders | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shares | Amount | Shares | Amount | Capital | Earnings | Earnings (Loss) | Equity | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(In thousands) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Unaudited) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2006
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balances, January 1, 2006
|
| | 22,300 | $ | 223 | $ | 154,301 | $ | 13,410 | $ | 10,449 | $ | 178,383 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Other comprehensive loss
|
| | | | | | (587 | ) | (587 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Realized gain on sale of investment
|
| | | | | | (5,675 | ) | (5,675 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Issuance of preferred stock and warrants
|
4,458 | $ | 45 | | | 4,709 | | | 4,754 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Issuance of stock on options exercised net
|
| | 575 | 6 | 3,226 | | | 3,232 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subsidiary stock options issued to consultants and employees
|
| | | | 1 | | | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shareholder trading settlement
|
| | | | 2,805 | | | 2,805 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Effect of share-based compensation
|
| | | | 3,805 | | | 3,805 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Income tax benefit of stock option exercises
|
| | | | 1,457 | | | 1,457 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net minority interest of above components, net of increase in
subsidiary equity
|
| | | | 416 | | | 416 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net earnings
|
| | | | | 14,932 | | 14,932 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balances, July 2, 2006
|
4,458 | $ | 45 | 22,875 | $ | 229 | $ | 170,720 | $ | 28,342 | $ | 4,187 | $ | 203,523 | |||||||||||||||||||
2005 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balances, January 2, 2005
|
| | 22,253 | $ | 223 | $ | 157,895 | $ | 25,280 | $ | (6 | ) | $ | 183,392 | |||||||||||||||||||
Other comprehensive loss
|
| | | | | | (36 | ) | (36 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Net proceeds from issuance of common stock by subsidiary
|
| | | | 2 | | | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reduction of deferred compensation
|
| | | | 2 | | | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Issuance of stock on options exercised net
|
| | 47 | | 150 | | | 150 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subsidiary stock options issued to consultants and employees
|
| | | | 800 | | | 800 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Interest on common shares subject to repurchase
|
| | | | (21 | ) | (21 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net minority interest of above components, net of increase in
subsidiary equity
|
| | | | (698 | ) | | | (698 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Net loss
|
| | | | | (7,770 | ) | | (7,770 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Balances, July 3, 2005
|
| | 22,300 | $ | 223 | $ | 158,130 | $ | 17,510 | $ | (42 | ) | $ | 175,821 | |||||||||||||||||||
See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements
5
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
Six months ended July 2, 2006 and July 3, 2005
Six Months Ended | |||||||||||
July 2, | July 3, | ||||||||||
2006 | 2005 | ||||||||||
(In thousands) | |||||||||||
(Unaudited) | |||||||||||
OPERATING ACTIVITIES:
|
|||||||||||
Net earnings (loss)
|
$ | 14,932 | $ | (7,770 | ) | ||||||
Adjustments to reconcile net earnings (loss) to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities: | |||||||||||
Depreciation and amortization
|
431 | 336 | |||||||||
Amortization of deferred financing costs and discount on debt
|
705 | | |||||||||
Share-based compensation
|
3,689 | 800 | |||||||||
Loss on extinguishment of debt
|
6,821 | | |||||||||
Net unrealized gains on notes receivable
|
(33,123 | ) | (1,879 | ) | |||||||
Realized gain on sale of investment
|
(5,675 | ) | | ||||||||
Minority interest in net earnings (loss) of subsidiary
|
2,348 | (735 | ) | ||||||||
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated investees
|
| (6 | ) | ||||||||
Deferred income taxes
|
3,769 | (25 | ) | ||||||||
Increases in operating (assets) and liabilities:
|
|||||||||||
Accounts receivable
|
1,022 | 636 | |||||||||
Prepaid expenses
|
14 | 549 | |||||||||
Other
|
603 | 558 | |||||||||
Income taxes payable
|
2,642 | 4,912 | |||||||||
Accounts payable
|
(1,094 | ) | 999 | ||||||||
Deferred revenue
|
(1,799 | ) | 168 | ||||||||
Accrued expenses
|
723 | 2,303 | |||||||||
Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Operating Activities
|
(3,992 | ) | 846 | ||||||||
INVESTING ACTIVITIES:
|
|||||||||||
Short-term investments, purchases
|
(39,346 | ) | 2,328 | ||||||||
Short-term investments, sales/maturities
|
21,722 | | |||||||||
Proceeds from repayment of notes receivable
|
2,865 | | |||||||||
Increases in long-term assets related to Indian casino projects
|
(31,880 | ) | (6,695 | ) | |||||||
Advances to unconsolidated investees
|
| (10 | ) | ||||||||
Distributions from unconsolidated investees
|
| 850 | |||||||||
Proceeds from sale of investment
|
5,686 | | |||||||||
Payments for other long-term assets
|
| (521 | ) | ||||||||
(Increase) decrease in other long-term assets
|
(445 | ) | 197 | ||||||||
Purchase of property and equipment
|
(2,886 | ) | (1,430 | ) | |||||||
Net Cash Used in Investing Activities
|
(44,284 | ) | (5,281 | ) | |||||||
FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
|
|||||||||||
Proceeds from issuance of common and preferred stock
|
3,277 | 154 | |||||||||
Debt issuance costs
|
(5,004 | ) | | ||||||||
Shareholder trading settlement
|
2,805 | | |||||||||
Repayment of debt
|
(35,000 | ) | | ||||||||
Increase in WPTE restricted cash
|
(197 | ) | | ||||||||
Restricted cash proceeds from long-term debt
|
19,090 | | |||||||||
Restricted cash proceeds from long-term debt available as of
quarter end
|
(19,090 | ) | | ||||||||
Unrestricted cash proceeds from long-term debt
|
109,860 | | |||||||||
Net Cash Provided by Financing Activities
|
75,741 | 154 | |||||||||
Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents
|
27,465 | (4,281 | ) | ||||||||
Cash and Cash Equivalents Beginning of Period
|
9,912 | 28,717 | |||||||||
Cash and Cash Equivalents End of Period
|
$ | 37,377 | $ | 24,436 | |||||||
See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements
6
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements
1. | Basis of Presentation: |
The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements of
Lakes Entertainment, Inc., a Minnesota corporation
(Lakes or 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 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
included within the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the
year ended January 1, 2006, previously filed with the SEC
on March 8, 2006, 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.
Certain reclassifications to amounts previously reported have
been made to conform to the current period presentation. These
reclassifications had no effect on net earnings (loss) or
shareholders equity as previously presented.
2. | Managements Financial Plans: |
Lakes unrestricted cash balance and short-term
investments, excluding WPT Enterprises, Inc. (WPTE)
cash and short-term investments, was approximately
$45 million as of July 2, 2006. Lakes major use
of cash over the past three years has been pre-construction
financing provided to tribal partners and on-going corporate
costs. While the funds provided by the $105 million credit
agreement with Bank of America N.A. (BofA)
(Note 6) allow Lakes to move forward with various casino
development projects, Lakes anticipates incurring additional
pre-construction costs which will require additional sources of
financing during fiscal 2007 to meet operational and development
needs. Therefore, Lakes will explore additional financing
alternatives as needed.
3. | Long-Term Assets Related to Indian Casino Projects: |
At July 2, 2006 and January 1, 2006, long-term assets
related to Indian casino projects are primarily related to three
separate projects for the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians
(Pokagon Band), Shingle
7
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Springs Band of Miwok Indians (Shingle Springs
Tribe) and the Jamul Indian Village (Jamul
Tribe) as indicated in the following tables (in thousands):
July 2, 2006 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Shingle | ||||||||||||||||||||
Pokagon | Springs | Jamul | ||||||||||||||||||
Band | Tribe | Tribe | Other | Total | ||||||||||||||||
Notes receivable, at estimated fair value
|
$ | 82,214 | $ | 30,439 | $ | 21,830 | $ | 5,430 | $ | 139,913 | ||||||||||
Intangible assets related to acquisition of management contracts
|
23,548 | 19,756 | 8,288 | 1,511 | 53,103 | |||||||||||||||
Land held for development
|
| 8,720 | 6,679 | 798 | 16,197 | |||||||||||||||
Other
|
60 | 1,587 | 2,291 | 1,236 | 5,174 | |||||||||||||||
$ | 105,822 | $ | 60,502 | $ | 39,088 | $ | 8,975 | $ | 214,387 | |||||||||||
January 1, 2006 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Shingle | ||||||||||||||||||||
Pokagon | Springs | Jamul | ||||||||||||||||||
Band | Tribe | Tribe | Other | Total | ||||||||||||||||
Notes receivable, at estimated fair value
|
$ | 44,028 | $ | 26,550 | $ | 12,957 | $ | 3,527 | $ | 87,062 | ||||||||||
Intangible assets related to acquisition of management contracts
|
18,356 | 18,755 | 7,872 | 1,105 | 46,088 | |||||||||||||||
Land held for development
|
| 8,836 | 6,643 | 769 | 16,248 | |||||||||||||||
Other
|
93 | 1,600 | 828 | 839 | 3,360 | |||||||||||||||
$ | 62,477 | $ | 55,741 | $ | 28,300 | $ | 6,240 | $ | 152,758 | |||||||||||
The following table provides the key assumptions used to value
the notes receivable at estimated fair value (dollars in
thousands):
Pokagon Band: |
As of July 2, 2006 | As of January 1, 2006 | |||
Face value of note (principal and interest)
|
$98,152 | $61,827 | ||
($71,176 principal and $26,976 interest) | ($46,445 principal and $15,382 interest) | |||
Estimated months until casino opens (weighted-average of three
scenarios)
|
13 months | 32 months | ||
Projected interest rate until casino opens
|
9.0% | 8.2% | ||
Projected interest rate during the loan repayment term
|
9.0% | 8.2% | ||
Discount rate
|
15% | 15% | ||
Repayment terms of note
|
60 months | 60 months | ||
Probability rate of casino opening (weighting of four scenarios)
|
99% | 90% |
8
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
The net unrealized gain on notes receivable related to the
Pokagon Band casino project was $12.4 million and
$0.2 million for the three months ended July 2, 2006
and July 3, 2005, respectively, and $17.6 million and
$3.0 million for the six months ended July 2, 2006 and
July 3, 2005, respectively, and is included in the
accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated statements of
earnings (loss) and comprehensive earnings (loss).
Shingle Springs Tribe: |
As of July 2, 2006 | As of January 1, 2006 | |||
Face value of note (principal and interest)
|
$51,194 | $46,446 | ||
($40,327 principal and $10,867 interest) | ($37,905 principal and $8,541 interest) | |||
Estimated months until casino opens (weighted-average of three
scenarios)
|
37 months | 37 months | ||
Projected interest rate until casino opens
|
10.06% | 9.2% | ||
Projected interest rate during the loan repayment term
|
9.97% | 9.1% | ||
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. |
The net unrealized gain on notes receivable related to the
Shingle Springs Tribe casino project was $1.4 million and
$0.1 million for the three months ended July 2, 2006
and July 3, 2005, respectively, and $2.5 million and
$0.3 million for the six months ended July 2, 2006 and
July 3, 2005, respectively, and is included in the
accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated statements of
earnings (loss) and comprehensive earnings (loss).
9
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Jamul Tribe: |
As of July 2, 2006 | As of January 1, 2006 | |||
Face value of note (principal and interest)
|
$24,781 | $21,247 | ||
($18,822 principal and $5,959 interest) | ($16,858 principal and $4,389 interest) | |||
Estimated months until casino opens (weighted-average of three
scenarios)
|
34 months | 34 months | ||
Projected interest rate until casino opens
|
17.0% | 9.2% | ||
Projected interest rate during the loan repayment term
|
17.0% | 9.2% | ||
Discount rate
|
17.5% | 15% | ||
Projected repayment terms of note
|
24 months | 84 months | ||
Probability rate of casino opening (weighting of four scenarios)
|
85% | 80% |
The net unrealized gain on notes receivable related to the Jamul
Tribe casino project was $0.9 million and $0.3 million
for the three months ended July 2, 2006 and July 3,
2005, respectively, and $7.3 million and $0.4 million
for the six months ended July 2, 2006 and July 3,
2005, respectively, and is included in the accompanying
unaudited condensed consolidated statements of earnings (loss)
and comprehensive earnings (loss).
4. | Restricted Cash: |
As of July 2, 2006, and January 1, 2006, Lakes has
restricted cash of approximately $19.5 million and
$0.2 million, respectively. Approximately
$19.1 million of the restricted cash as of July 2,
2006 represents a required interest reserve to fund the first
18 months of interest payments related to the
$105 million financing facility with BofA (Note 6).
5. | Long-Term Investments: |
In March 2006, WPTE sold 630,000 common shares of its then 12%
interest in PokerTek, Inc. (PokerTek) at
$9.03 per share, resulting in net cash proceeds of
approximately $5.7 million. As a result of the sale, WPTE
realized a gain of approximately $5.7 million and its
ownership interest was reduced to 450,000 shares, or 5%.
WPTE accounts for its investment in PokerTek at fair market
value and classifies it as available for sale.
6. | Long-Term Debt: |
On February 15, 2006, Lakes closed on a $50 million
financing facility with PLKS Holdings, LLC, an affiliate of
Prentice Capital Management, LP (PLKS). An initial
draw of $25 million was made under the facility. The
$25 million outstanding principal balance together with
accrued interest was repaid in full on June 22, 2006, as
discussed below. As consideration for the PLKS financing, Lakes
issued to PLKS an aggregate of 4.46 million common stock
purchase warrants at an exercise price of $7.50 per share
that expire in February 2013, subject to customary anti-dilution
protections. As of July 2, 2006, and as a result of
repaying the PLKS loan in full without any additional draws
under the financing facility, certain warrants remain
exercisable for 1.25 million shares of common stock and the
remaining 3.21 million warrants have lapsed and
10
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
will not become exercisable. PLKS also has demand registration
rights with respect to the Lakes common stock underlying the
warrants. The holders of the warrants can require Lakes to
redeem the warrants if Lakes fails to satisfy its registration
obligations with respect to the Lakes common stock underlying
the warrants. Lakes has agreed to pay substantially all of the
costs incurred in the preparation and filing of these
registration statements. The 1.25 million warrants to
purchase common stock were valued at $4.7 million using a
Black-Scholes pricing model and were being amortized as interest
expense over the three-year life of the financing facility. The
unamortized portion of the warrants were reported as an
in-substance debt discount. As a result of the PLKS debt
repayment, the remaining unamortized portion of the warrants
($4.3 million) as well as the unamortized closing costs
($2.5 million) were written off and reported as loss on
extinguishment of debt in the accompanying unaudited condensed
consolidated statement of earnings (loss) and comprehensive
earnings (loss) totaled approximately $6.8 million.
Additionally, as part of the PLKS transaction, the Lakes Board
of Directors authorized the creation of a new class of
Series A Convertible Preferred Stock, par value
$0.01 per share. Lakes sold 4,457,751 shares of the
preferred stock to PLKS for $44,578. These preferred shares have
no dividend rights, had voting rights only if there was a
default under the financing agreement, and become convertible
into common stock of Lakes (on a fixed
one-to-one basis) only
if and when the warrants are cancelled in accordance with the
terms of the warrants.
On June 22, 2006, Lakes borrowed $105 million under a
financing facility with BofA and certain lenders (the
Lenders), pursuant to the terms and conditions of a
Credit Agreement among Lakes, Lakes Gaming and Resorts, LLC,
BofA and the Lenders. Funds drawn under the Credit Agreement
bear interest at the rate of LIBOR plus 6.25% per annum,
subject to adjustment or change as specified in the Credit
Agreement, and are due and payable on the fourth anniversary of
the closing date. A condition of the Credit Agreement requires
Lakes to negotiate an interest rate swap agreement
(Note 16). The notional value of the interest rate swap
must be equal to 100% of the financing facility for the first
18 months and 50% of the financing facility thereafter. The
interest rate swap will be used as a cash flow hedge to manage
Lakes exposure to fluctuations in interest rates.
Subject to certain premiums, Lakes may prepay the facility in
whole or in part at any time. Approximately $25.2 million
of the initial draw was used to repay in full the aforementioned
loan payable to PLKS. Pursuant to the terms of the Credit
Agreement, Lakes paid a closing fee of $1.5 million to BofA
and an additional $0.7 million in debt issuance costs
primarily consisting of legal fees. The closing fee and debt
issuance costs will be amortized over the term of the Credit
Agreement using the effective interest method and will be
recorded as depreciation and amortization expense in the
accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated statement of
earnings (loss) and comprehensive earnings (loss). Lakes
received net proceeds of approximately $103.9 million
before the disbursements of the closing fee, debt issuance costs
and repayment of the PLKS loan. The debt discount of
approximately $1.1 million will also be amortized over the
life of the loan using the effective interest method and will be
reported as interest expense in the accompanying unaudited
condensed consolidated statement of earnings (loss) and
comprehensive earnings (loss). Lakes is obligated to pay a
$50,000 annual administrative agent fee to BofA.
The loan underlying the Credit Agreement is secured by
substantially all of the material assets of Lakes and its
subsidiaries. However, Lakes is entitled to sell up to
3 million of the approximate 12.5 million WPTE shares
it owns without application of the proceeds of such sale to
reduction of the amount owing under the Credit Agreement. In the
event Lakes sells more than 3 million WPTE shares, the
proceeds of such sale over and above the amount realized on the
3 million shares would be required to be placed in a cash
collateral account securing the loan under the Credit Agreement.
In addition, Lakes and certain of its subsidiaries have
guaranteed the repayment of the loan under the Credit Agreement
pursuant to the terms of a Continuing Guaranty dated as of
June 22, 2006.
11
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
The loan underlying the BofA Facility can be declared
immediately due and payable upon the occurrence of an event of
default that is not cured within any applicable cure period. An
event of default will occur if any of the covenants contained in
the Credit Agreement are violated. Management will routinely
monitor all debt covenants to ensure compliance over the term of
the financing facility.
7. | Kickapoo Settlement: |
In April 2006, Lakes entered into a Letter of Settlement
(Settlement Agreement) with the Kickapoo Traditional
Tribe of Texas (Kickapoo Tribe) pursuant to which
Lakes and the Kickapoo Tribe resolved all outstanding issues
relating to the parties business relationship that was
terminated in November 2005. During fiscal 2005, Lakes recorded
a loss of approximately $6.3 million as a result of the
terminated business relationship. Pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement, Lakes received a cash payment of approximately
$2.6 million as reimbursement in April 2006, for payments
made directly by Lakes to vendors on behalf of the Kickapoo
Tribe and the Kickapoo Tribe agreed to pay $0.6 million
into an escrow to be released to Lakes at such time as Lakes
transfers title to certain land owned by Lakes to the Kickapoo
Tribe. The Company and the Kickapoo Tribe have agreed that title
will transfer only after the Kickapoo Tribe assumes, settles or
pays certain accounts payable to vendors related to the Kickapoo
Tribes casino that remain on Lakes books, and once
Lakes receives full releases for any liability thereto. During
the second quarter of fiscal 2006, Lakes received releases from
vendors totaling $2.8 million related to services performed
in connection with the Kickapoo casino project, which have been
recorded as unrealized gains in the accompanying unaudited
condensed consolidated statement of earnings (loss) and
comprehensive earnings (loss). Approximately $0.9 million
of liabilities subject to the Settlement Agreement remain as of
July 2, 2006. The Company will not recognize further gains
unless and until additional releases are received from vendors.
However, the Company does not have an estimate of when or if
this will occur.
8. | Regulatory Approval of Management Agreements: |
Pokagon Band: |
In March 2006, Lakes received notification from the National
Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) that it has approved
Lakes management agreement with the Pokagon Band to
develop and manage the Four Winds Casino Resort on the Pokagon
Bands land in New Buffalo Township, Michigan
(Pokagon Casino). On June 22, 2006 the Pokagon
Band closed on a $305 million senior note financing in
addition to a $75 million commitment for furniture,
fixtures and equipment (FF&E) to fund the Four
Winds Casino project. Amounts owed to Lakes under the management
and development agreements are subordinated to the senior note
financing.
The closing of third-party financing by the Pokagon Band during
the second quarter of fiscal 2006 triggered a retroactive
interest rate adjustment on the Companys notes receivable,
which required the recalculation of interest cost as if a fixed
rate had been in effect for the entire period the loans were
outstanding. The interest rate used in this calculation is prime
rate plus one percentage point as of June 22, 2006
(approximately 9.0%). The advances Lakes makes to the tribes are
accounted for as structured notes in accordance with the
guidance contained in Emerging Issues Task Force
(EITF) Consensus No. 96-12 Recognition of Interest
Income and Balance Sheet Classification of Structured Notes
(EITF No. 96-12). Accordingly, pursuant to the guidance
in EITF No. 96-12, Lakes records its advances to tribes at
estimated fair value and therefore, this fixed interest rate has
been included as part of the fair value calculation related to
the notes receivable from the Pokagon Band as of July 2,
2006. (Note 3)
12
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Iowa Tribe: |
In April 2006, Lakes received notification from the NIGC that it
has approved Lakes management agreement with the Iowa
Tribe of Oklahoma (Iowa Tribe) to refurbish and
manage the Cimarron Casino project on the Iowa Tribes land
in Perkins, Oklahoma.
9. | Development Financing and Services Agreement with the Jamul Tribe: |
Effective March 30, 2006, Lakes entered into a development
financing and services agreement with the Jamul Tribe. As part
of the agreement, Lakes will use its best efforts to obtain
financing, from which advances will be made to the Jamul Tribe
of up to $350 million to pay for the design and
construction of the project. There can be no assurance that
third party financing will be available with acceptable terms.
If Lakes is unable to obtain the appropriate amount of financing
for this project, the project may not be completed as planned.
This agreement will help assist the Jamul Tribe in developing a
casino with related amenities/services (Jamul
Casino) on its existing six-acre reservation which the
Jamul Tribe will manage.
Lakes will receive a flat fee of $15 million for its
development design services, and a flat fee of $15 million
for its construction oversight services, payable evenly over the
first five years after the opening date of the Jamul Casino. In
connection with Lakes financing of the Jamul Casino, the
Jamul Tribe will pay interest over a ten-year period on sums
advanced by Lakes equal to the rate charged to Lakes for
obtaining the funds necessary plus 5%. Amounts previously
advanced by Lakes to the Jamul Tribe in connection with the
Jamul Tribes proposed casino resort are included in the
development financing and services agreement financing amount.
10. | Settlement Agreement with a Beneficial Owner: |
As of March 17, 2006, Lakes entered into a Settlement
Agreement with Deephaven Capital Management LLC
(Deephaven) pursuant to which Deephaven paid Lakes
approximately $2.8 million as repayment of short-swing
profits under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, relating to or in connection with one or
more funds managed by Deephaven trading in shares of Lakes
common stock prior to February 14, 2006. The payment has
been recorded as an increase in additional paid-in capital.
11. | Stock Options and Awards: |
Lakes Stock Option Plans: |
Lakes has a Stock Option and Compensation Plan and a Director
Stock Option Plan, which were carried forward from Lakes
predecessor Grand Casinos, Inc. (Grand Casinos). All
options granted under these plans were carried forward with the
original terms and vesting and expiration dates.
Additionally, Lakes has a 1998 Stock Option and Compensation
Plan and a 1998 Director Stock Option Plan (the 1998
Plans), which upon resolution of the Compensation
Committee, are approved to grant up to an aggregate of
5.0 million shares and 0.5 million shares,
respectively, of incentive and non-qualified stock options to
officers, directors, and employees. Stock options granted under
the 1998 Plans vest in equal installments over four-year and
five-year periods, beginning on the first anniversary of the
date of each grant and continue on each subsequent anniversary
date until the option is fully vested. The employee must be
employed by Lakes on the anniversary date in order to vest in
any shares that year. Vested options are exercisable for ten
years from the date of grant; however, if the employee is
terminated (voluntarily or involuntarily), any unvested options
as of the date of termination will be forfeited.
13
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
WPTE Stock Option Plan: |
WPTE has adopted the board-approved 2004 Stock Incentive Plan
(the 2004 Plan) that is authorized to grant stock
awards to purchase up to 3,120,000 shares of common stock,
including the options to purchase up to 1,120,000 shares of
common stock issued to employees and consultants that were
previously outstanding under a previous stock incentive plan at
the time of conversion to a publicly-traded company. On
May 31, 2006, WPTE shareholders approved an amendment to
the 2004 Plan to increase the number of shares of common stock
reserved for issuance from 3,120,000 shares to
4,200,000 shares. Under the 2004 Plan, the options vest in
equal installments over three-year and five-year periods
beginning on the first anniversary of the date of each grant and
continue on each subsequent anniversary date until the option is
fully vested. The employee must be employed with WPTE on the
anniversary date in order to vest in any shares that year.
Vested options are exercisable for ten years from the date of
grant; however, if the employee is terminated (voluntarily or
involuntarily), any unvested options as of the date of
termination will be forfeited.
Lakes and WPTE issue new shares of common stock upon exercise of
options.
Valuation and Expense Information under SFAS 123(R): |
On January 2, 2006, the Company adopted Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 123(R),
Share-Based Payment-Revised 2004, which requires the
measurement and recognition of compensation expense for all
share-based payment awards made to employees and directors
including employee stock options and employee stock purchases
based on estimated fair values.
SFAS 123(R) requires companies to estimate the fair value
of share-based payment awards on the date of grant using an
option-pricing model. The value of the portion of the award that
is ultimately expected to vest is recognized as expense over the
requisite service periods in the Companys unaudited
condensed consolidated statement of earnings (loss) and
comprehensive earnings (loss). SFAS 123(R) supersedes the
Companys previous accounting for employee stock-based
compensation for options granted prior to January 2, 2006,
in accordance with Accounting Principles Board Opinion
(APB) No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to
Employees and related interpretations (APB 25).
Accordingly, no accounting recognition was given in prior years
to stock options granted at fair market value until they were
exercised. Upon exercise, net proceeds, including tax benefits
realized, were recorded in equity.
14
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
The Company adopted SFAS 123(R) using the modified
prospective transition method, which requires the
application of the accounting standard as of January 2,
2006, the first day of the Companys fiscal year 2006. In
accordance with the modified prospective transition method, the
Companys condensed consolidated financial statements for
prior periods have not been restated to reflect, and do not
include, the impact of SFAS 123(R). The effect of the
change from APB 25 to SFAS 123(R) was to decrease net
earnings for the three months and six months ended July 2,
2006 by $1.4 million and $3.6 million, respectively,
and basic and diluted earnings per share by $0.06 and $0.06, and
$0.16 and $0.15, respectively. There was no share-based
compensation expense related to employee stock options and
employee stock purchases recognized in the Companys
unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements during the
three months and six months ended July 3, 2005. The
following table summarizes the consolidated share-based
compensation expense related to employee stock options and stock
purchases and non-vested shares under SFAS 123(R) for the
three months and six months ended July 2, 2006, which was
allocated as follows:
Three Months Ended | Six Months Ended | |||||||
July 2, 2006 | July 2, 2006 | |||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||
Total cost of share-based payment plans
|
$ | 1,424 | $ | 3,676 | ||||
Amounts capitalized in deferred television costs
|
| | ||||||
Amounts charged against income, before income tax benefit
|
$ | 1,424 | $ | 3,676 | ||||
Amount of related income tax benefit recognized in income
|
| |
For the three months and six months ended July 2, 2006, no
income tax benefit was recognized in the Companys
unaudited condensed consolidated statement of earnings (loss)
and comprehensive earnings (loss) for share-based compensation
arrangements. Management assessed the likelihood that deferred
tax assets relating to future tax deductions from share-based
compensation will be recovered from future taxable income and
determined that a valuation allowance was required due to
uncertainty of realization.
The Company uses a Black-Scholes option-pricing model to value
stock options, which requires the consideration of historical
employee exercise behavior data and the use of a number of
assumptions including volatility of the Companys stock
price, the weighted-average risk-free interest rate, and the
weighted-average expected life of the options. As the Company
does not pay dividends, the dividend rate variable in the
Black-Scholes model is zero. The following values for the
indicated variables were used to value options granted during
the three months and six months ended July 2, 2006, and we
expect the assumptions used for grants in future quarters of
fiscal 2006 to approximate these values.
Lakes valuation assumption summary: |
Three Months Ended | Six Months Ended | |||||||
July 2, 2006 | July 2, 2006 | |||||||
Expected volatility
|
55.55 | % | 55.55 | % | ||||
Expected dividend yield
|
| | ||||||
Average risk-free interest rate
|
5.1 | % | 5.1 | % | ||||
Expected term (in years)
|
8.2 years | 8.2 years | ||||||
Weighted-average fair value
|
$ | 7.97 | $ | 7.97 |
The volatility assumption is based on the historical weekly
price data of Lakes stock over a two-year period.
Management evaluated whether there were factors during that
period which were unusual and which would distort the volatility
figure if used to estimate future volatility and concluded that
there were no such factors.
15
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
The risk-free interest rate assumption is based upon the
interpolation of various U.S. Treasury rates determined at
the date of option grant.
The expected term of employee stock options represents the
weighted-average period that the stock options are expected to
remain outstanding. It is based upon an analysis of the
historical behavior of option holders during the period from
September 1995 to July 2, 2006. Management believes
historical data is representative of future exercise behavior.
As share-based compensation expense recognized in the unaudited
condensed consolidated statement of earnings (loss) and
comprehensive earnings (loss) pursuant to SFAS 123(R) is
based on awards ultimately expected to vest, expense for grants
beginning upon adoption of SFAS 123(R) on January 2,
2006 will be reduced for estimated forfeitures. SFAS 123(R)
requires forfeitures to be estimated at the time of grant and
revised, if necessary, in subsequent periods if actual
forfeitures differ from those estimates. The Company has
reviewed the historical forfeitures which are minimal and as
such will amortize the grants to the end of the vesting period
and will adjust for forfeitures at the end of the term.
Estimated forfeitures are based partially on historical
experience.
WPTE valuation assumption summary: |
Three Months Ended | Six Months Ended | |||||||
July 2, 2006 | July 2, 2006 | |||||||
Expected volatility
|
78.91 | % | 81.57 | % | ||||
Expected dividend yield
|
| | ||||||
Average risk-free interest rate
|
5.06 | % | 4.68 | % | ||||
Expected term (in years)
|
6.5 years | 6.5 years | ||||||
Weighted-average fair value
|
$ | 3.80 | $ | 4.24 |
WPTE uses a Black-Scholes option-pricing model to estimate the
fair value and compensation cost associated with employee
incentive stock options in accordance with SFAS 123(R). The
bases for the key assumptions included in the model are as
follows:
| Expected volatility As WPTE has limited operating history and no definitive peer or peer groups, expected volatility was based on historical volatility of WPTEs stock price since it began trading in August 2004. | |
| Forfeiture rate WPTE used historical data to estimate employee departure behavior in estimating future forfeitures. | |
| Expected term Due to WPTEs limited operating history including stock option exercises and forfeitures, WPTE calculated expected term using the Simplified Method in accordance with Staff Accounting Bulletin 107. | |
| Risk free interest rate For periods within the expected term of the share option, risk free interest rate is based on the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of grant. |
16
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
The following table summarizes Lakes stock option
activity through the three months and six months ended
July 2, 2006 and July 3, 2005:
Number of Common Shares | |||||||||||||||||
Weighted- | |||||||||||||||||
Avg. | |||||||||||||||||
Options | Available | Exercise | |||||||||||||||
Outstanding | Exercisable | for Grant | Price | ||||||||||||||
2006
|
|||||||||||||||||
Balance at January 1, 2006
|
5,307,626 | 4,153,476 | 94,500 | $ | 6.03 | ||||||||||||
Authorized
|
| ||||||||||||||||
Granted
|
30,000 | | (30,000 | ) | 9.77 | ||||||||||||
Forfeited/cancelled/expired
|
| | | | |||||||||||||
Exercised
|
(550,000 | ) | | | 5.65 | ||||||||||||
Balance at April 2, 2006
|
4,787,626 | 3,711,626 | 64,500 | $ | 6.10 | ||||||||||||
Authorized
|
|||||||||||||||||
Granted
|
5,000 | | (5,000 | ) | 12.10 | ||||||||||||
Forfeited/cancelled/expired
|
(5,000 | ) | | 5,000 | 8.15 | ||||||||||||
Exercised
|
(25,000 | ) | | | 4.75 | ||||||||||||
Balance at July 2, 2006
|
4,762,626 | 3,718,126 | 64,500 | $ | 6.11 | ||||||||||||
2005
|
|||||||||||||||||
Balance at January 2, 2005
|
5,193,676 | 3,591,276 | 266,000 | $ | 5.72 | ||||||||||||
Authorized
|
| ||||||||||||||||
Granted
|
155,000 | | (155,000 | ) | 15.75 | ||||||||||||
Forfeited/cancelled/expired
|
| | | | |||||||||||||
Exercised
|
(57,550 | ) | | | 5.67 | ||||||||||||
Balance at April 3, 2005
|
5,291,126 | 3,641,326 | 111,000 | $ | 6.01 | ||||||||||||
Authorized
|
| ||||||||||||||||
Granted
|
10,000 | | (10,000 | ) | 13.22 | ||||||||||||
Forfeited/cancelled/expired
|
| | | | |||||||||||||
Exercised
|
| | | | |||||||||||||
Balance at July 3, 2005
|
5,301,126 | 3,641,326 | 101,000 | $ | 6.03 | ||||||||||||
17
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
The following table summarizes significant ranges of
Lakes outstanding and exercisable options as of
July 2, 2006:
Options Outstanding at July 2, 2006 | Options Exercisable at July 2, 2006 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Weighted- | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Average | Aggregate | Aggregate | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Number | Remaining | Weighted-Average | Intrinsic | Number | Weighted- | Intrinsic | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Range of Exercise Prices | Outstanding | Contractual Life | Exercise Price | Value | Exercisable | Average Price | Value | |||||||||||||||||||||
$ (3.25 3.63)
|
289,000 | 5.0 years | $ | 3.45 | $ | 2,496,000 | 255,600 | $ | 3.48 | $ | 2,201,000 | |||||||||||||||||
(3.64 5.45)
|
2,510,700 | 2.7 years | 4.23 | 19,725,000 | 2,486,700 | 4.24 | 19,528,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||
(5.46 7.26)
|
106,426 | 4.5 years | 6.52 | 593,000 | 76,426 | 6.26 | 445,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||
(7.27 9.08)
|
1,528,000 | 7.0 years | 8.13 | 6,055,000 | 824,000 | 8.13 | 3,265,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||
(9.09 10.90)
|
77,000 | 8.7 years | 10.44 | 127,000 | 10,400 | 10.60 | 16,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||
(10.91 12.71)
|
86,500 | 8.5 years | 11.47 | 56,000 | 19,750 | 11.40 | 14,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||
(12.72 14.53)
|
95,000 | 8.6 years | 14.00 | | 21,750 | 14.07 | | |||||||||||||||||||||
(14.54 16.34)
|
5,000 | 8.5 years | 16.11 | | 1,000 | 16.11 | | |||||||||||||||||||||
(16.35 18.16)
|
65,000 | 7.8 years | 17.91 | | 22,500 | 18.01 | | |||||||||||||||||||||
4,762,626 | 4.7 years | $ | 6.11 | $ | 29,052,000 | 3,718,126 | $ | 5.29 | $ | 25,469,000 | ||||||||||||||||||
The aggregate intrinsic value in the preceding table represents
the total pre-tax intrinsic value, based on Lakes closing
stock price of $12.09 June 30, 2006, which would have been
received by the option holders had all option holders exercised
their options as of that date. The total intrinsic value of
options exercised during the three months and six months ended
July 2, 2006 was $0.2 million and $2.2 million,
respectively. As of July 2, 2006, Lakes unrecognized
share-based compensation related to stock options was
approximately $4.6 million. This cost is expected to be
expensed over a weighted-average period of 2.0 years.
18
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
The following table summarizes WPTE stock option activity
through the three months and six months ended July 2, 2006
and July 3, 2005:
Number of Common Shares | |||||||||||||||||
Weighted- | |||||||||||||||||
Avg. | |||||||||||||||||
Options | Available | Exercise | |||||||||||||||
Outstanding | Exercisable | for Grant | Price | ||||||||||||||
2006
|
|||||||||||||||||
Balance at January 1, 2006
|
2,158,000 | 620,333 | 283,667 | $ | 7.14 | ||||||||||||
Authorized
|
| ||||||||||||||||
Granted
|
219,000 | | (219,000 | ) | 6.20 | ||||||||||||
Forfeited/cancelled/expired
|
(159,333 | ) | | 159,333 | 8.13 | ||||||||||||
Exercised
|
(115,000 | ) | | | 0.0049 | ||||||||||||
Balance at April 2, 2006
|
2,102,667 | 785,500 | 224,000 | $ | 7.36 | ||||||||||||
Authorized
|
|||||||||||||||||
Granted
|
109,500 | | 1,080,000 | 5.18 | |||||||||||||
Forfeited/cancelled/expired
|
(153,501 | ) | | (109,500 | ) | 10.07 | |||||||||||
Exercised
|
(105,000 | ) | | 153,501 | 0.0049 | ||||||||||||
Balance at July 2, 2006
|
1,953,666 | 619,333 | 1,348,001 | $ | 7.42 | ||||||||||||
2005
|
|||||||||||||||||
Balance at January 2, 2005
|
2,561,000 | 560,000 | 559,000 | $ | 4.61 | ||||||||||||
Authorized
|
| ||||||||||||||||
Granted
|
24,500 | | (24,500 | ) | 19.50 | ||||||||||||
Forfeited/cancelled/expired
|
(32,000 | ) | 32,000 | 8.60 | |||||||||||||
Exercised
|
(640,000 | ) | | | 0.0049 | ||||||||||||
Balance at April 3, 2005
|
1,913,500 | 200,000 | 566,500 | $ | 6.27 | ||||||||||||
Authorized
|
| ||||||||||||||||
Granted
|
34,000 | | (34,000 | ) | 17.25 | ||||||||||||
Forfeited/cancelled/expired
|
(31,500 | ) | | 31,500 | 8.31 | ||||||||||||
Exercised
|
(35,000 | ) | | | 0.0049 | ||||||||||||
Balance at July 3, 2005
|
1,881,000 | 165,000 | 564,000 | $ | 6.55 | ||||||||||||
The following table summarizes significant ranges of WPTE
outstanding and exercisable options as of July 2,
2006:
Options Outstanding | Options Exercisable | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Weighted-Avg. | Weighted- | Aggregate | Aggregate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Number | Remaining | Avg. Exercise | Intrinsic | Number | Weighted- | Intrinsic | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Range of Exercise Prices | Outstanding | Contractual Life | Price | Value | Exercisable | Avg. Price | Value | |||||||||||||||||||||
$ 0.0049
|
225,000 | 5.65 | $ | 0.0049 | $ | 1,353,398 | 225,000 | $ | 0.0049 | $ | 1,353,398 | |||||||||||||||||
$ 5.18 - 9.92
|
1,464,667 | 8.45 | 7.59 | 87,800 | 378,334 | 8.05 | | |||||||||||||||||||||
$11.95 - 14.51
|
225,333 | 9.09 | 12.24 | | 8,666 | 14.51 | | |||||||||||||||||||||
$15.05 - 19.50
|
38,666 | 9.03 | 15.99 | | 7,333 | 17.71 | | |||||||||||||||||||||
1,953,666 | 8.21 | $ | 7.42 | $ | 1,441,178 | 619,333 | $ | 5.33 | $ | 1,353,398 | ||||||||||||||||||
19
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
The aggregate intrinsic value in the preceding table represents
the total pre-tax intrinsic value, based on WPTEs closing
stock price of 6.02 on June 30, 2006, which would have been
received by the option holders had all option holders exercised
their options as of that date. As of July 2, 2006, the
total number of
in-the-money
options exercisable was 225,000. The total intrinsic value of
options exercised during the first six months ended
July 2, 2006 was $1.4 million.
For the six months ended July 2, 2006, total compensation
cost related to SFAS 123(R) was approximately
$2.3 million, of which $92,000 relates to the total fair
value of the shares vested during the period. As of July 2,
2006, total compensation cost related to non-vested share-based
options not yet recognized was $5.7 million, which is
expected to be recognized over the next 33 months on a
weighted-average basis.
Consolidated pro forma information required under SFAS 123: |
The following table illustrates the consolidated pro forma
effect on net loss and net loss per share if the Company had
retroactively applied the fair value recognition provisions of
SFAS 123 for the 2005 periods presented.
Three Months | Six Months | ||||||||
Ended | Ended | ||||||||
July 3, 2005 | July 3, 2005 | ||||||||
(In thousands, except per | |||||||||
share amounts) | |||||||||
Net loss as reported
|
$ | (5,651 | ) | $ | (7,770 | ) | |||
Less: total share-based compensation expense fair
value method
|
(1,037 | ) | (2,044 | ) | |||||
Pro forma net loss
|
$ | (6,688 | ) | $ | (9,814 | ) | |||
Net loss per share basic and diluted
|
|||||||||
As reported
|
$ | (0.25 | ) | $ | (0.35 | ) | |||
Pro forma
|
$ | (0.30 | ) | $ | (0.44 | ) | |||
12. | Earnings (Loss) Per Share: |
For all periods, basic earnings (loss) per share is calculated
by dividing earnings (loss) by the weighted average number of
common shares outstanding. For the three months and six months
ended July 2, 2006, diluted earnings per share reflects the
effect of all potentially dilutive common shares outstanding by
dividing net earnings by the weighted-average of all common and
potentially dilutive shares outstanding. The effects of stock
options and warrants have not been included in diluted loss per
share for the three months and six months ended July 3,
2005 as the effect would have been anti-dilutive as a result of
losses.
13. | Income Taxes: |
Management has evaluated its 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 2, 2006 and
January 1, 2006. Management evaluated all evidence and
determined 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 in Indian casino projects.
Therefore, the Company recorded a 100% valuation allowance
against these items at July 2, 2006 and January 1,
2006. However, the Company has recognized deferred tax assets
related to capital losses incurred during 2001 through 2005. The
realization of these benefits is dependant on the generation of
capital gains. The Company owns approximately 12.5 million
shares of WPTE common stock valued at approximately
20
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
$46.4 million as of August 4, 2006 based upon the
closing stock price as reported by the Nasdaq Global Market on
August 4, 2006 of $3.72. Therefore, it is expected that
these capital losses could be offset by future capital gains
associated with Lakes WPTE common stock. However, Lakes
does not currently intend to sell shares of WPTE common stock
and has determined that a deferred tax asset in the approximate
amount of $0.3 million related to capital losses may expire
before it can be utilized at the end of 2006, since it may not
be possible to generate sufficient capital gains during the
remainder of 2006. Therefore, a valuation allowance has been
recorded against this item as of July 2, 2006.
The Company is currently under examination for income and
franchise tax matters (Note 14).
14. | Commitments and Contingencies: |
Lakes Commitments and Contingencies |
Operating lease |
The Company leases an airplane under a non-cancelable operating
lease. The airplane lease was amended on May 1, 2005, which
allows for a base term of one year and two one-year renewal
terms. 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 $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 either
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.
IRS tax audit |
The Company is under audit by the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) for the fiscal years ended 2001 and 2000. The
IRS is challenging 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 accrued interest related to tax on
ordinary income. The Company originally carried back capital
losses to offset the capital gain. If the Company is
unsuccessful in sustaining its capital gain position, it could
use the capital losses in the future to offset future capital
gains, if any, prior to their expiration. The Company owns
approximately 12.5 million shares of WPTE common stock
valued at approximately $46.4 million as of August 4,
2006 based upon the closing stock price as reported by the
Nasdaq Global Market on August 4, 2006 of $3.72. However,
Lakes does not currently intend to sell shares of WPTE common
stock. Therefore, if reinstated during 2006, these capital loss
items could expire before they could be utilized at the end of
2006, due to insufficient capital gains. As a result, Lakes has
recorded a liability related to this matter of approximately
$2.6 million, including interest, due to the possibility
that if reinstated, these capital loss items may expire before
they could be utilized.
Grand Casinos, Inc. settlement |
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 Harrahs
Entertainment, Inc. or Harrahs),
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 was recorded as
other income in the accompanying unaudited
21
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
condensed consolidated statement of earnings (loss) in fiscal
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.
Tribal commitments |
The Companys management, development, consulting and
financing contracts with its tribal partners require the Company
provide financial support related to project development in the
form of loans.
Tribal Casino Development Advances/ Commitments
As of July 2, 2006
Pre-Construction | Land Held for | Remaining | ||||||||||
Advances | Development | Commitment | ||||||||||
(In millions) | ||||||||||||
Jamul Tribe
|
$ | 18.8 | $ | 6.7 | $ | | ||||||
Shingle Springs Tribe
|
40.3 | 8.7 | 1.3 | |||||||||
Pokagon Band
|
71.2 | | | |||||||||
Iowa Tribe
|
1.2 | | 0.8 | |||||||||
Wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Pawnee Tribal Development
Corporation (Pawnee TDC referred to collectively as
the Pawnee Nation)
|
4.9 | | 0.1 |
In March 2006, the Jamul Tribe and Lakes entered into a
development financing and services agreement (Note 9).
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. The Company will also be
obligated to pay approximately $3.3 million to a third
party on behalf of the Pokagon Band in accordance with the
management contract which is payable over 24 months,
beginning when the casino opens.
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.
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 District
22
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
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 plaintiffs
have appealed the judgment to the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals, but subsequently stipulated to a dismissal with
prejudice effective June 30, 2006. As of that date, the
matter was at an end.
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 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 in November 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
23
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
Tribe to develop a smaller casino, but nevertheless required
some discussion of this alternative in the supplemental EIR. On
December 19, 2005, CalTrans filed a Petition for Review
with the Supreme Court of the State of California, and on
February 8, 2006 the Supreme Court denied the Petition for
Review and ordered the Court of Appeals decision to be
depublished. CalTrans is now complying with the Court of Appeals
order and a supplemental EIR is expected to be issued in August
2006.
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.
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 1999
through 2001 and additional Louisiana corporation franchise tax
for the tax years ended 2000 through 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 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 liability for its estimated
settlement related to this examination including accrued
interest and fees, which is included as part of income taxes
payable on the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated
balance sheets.
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, based in part on
advice from legal counsel, that neither the final outcome of
these matters, including the matters discussed above, nor the
related legal defense costs are likely to have a material
adverse effect upon the Companys future consolidated
financial position or results of operations beyond the amounts
recorded.
24
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
15. | Segment Information: |
Lakes principal business is the development and management
of gaming-related properties. Additionally, the Company is the
majority owner of WPTE. Substantially all of Lakes and
WPTEs operations are conducted in the United States.
Episodes of the World Poker Tour television series are
distributed internationally by a third party distributor.
Lakes 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 Corporate
and Eliminations 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 | ||||||||||||||||
Casino | WPT | Corporate & | Total | |||||||||||||
Projects | Enterprises, Inc. | Eliminations | Consolidated | |||||||||||||
Total assets as of July 2, 2006
|
$ | 209.4 | $ | 48.4 | $ | 93.2 | $ | 351.0 | ||||||||
Total assets as of January 1, 2006
|
$ | 160.6 | $ | 46.4 | $ | 23.6 | $ | 230.6 | ||||||||
For the Three Months Ended July 2, 2006
|
||||||||||||||||
Revenue
|
$ | 0.2 | $ | 11.0 | $ | | $ | 11.2 | ||||||||
Earnings (loss) from operations
|
14.3 | 2.5 | (1.3 | ) | 15.5 | |||||||||||
Depreciation expense
|
| | 0.3 | 0.3 | ||||||||||||
For the Three Months Ended July 3, 2005
|
||||||||||||||||
Revenue
|
$ | | $ | 6.6 | $ | | $ | 6.6 | ||||||||
Loss from operations
|
(1.5 | ) | (0.6 | ) | (3.7 | ) | (5.8 | ) | ||||||||
Depreciation expense
|
| | 0.1 | 0.1 | ||||||||||||
For the Six Months Ended July 2, 2006
|
||||||||||||||||
Revenue
|
$ | 0.4 | $ | 17.5 | $ | | $ | 17.9 | ||||||||
Earnings (loss) from operations
|
27.2 | 1.4 | (2.8 | ) | 25.8 | |||||||||||
Depreciation expense
|
| 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.6 | ||||||||||||
For the Six Months Ended July 3, 2005
|
||||||||||||||||
Revenue
|
$ | | $ | 10.7 | $ | | $ | 10.7 | ||||||||
Earnings (loss) from operations
|
1.0 | (2.5 | ) | (7.1 | ) | (8.6 | ) | |||||||||
Depreciation expense
|
| 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
16. | Subsequent Events: |
Lakes interest rate swap agreement |
From time to time the Company may elect to enter into derivative
transactions to hedge exposures to interest rate fluctuations.
The Company does not enter into derivative transactions for
speculative purposes.
On August 9, 2006 Lakes entered into an interest rate swap as
required by the Credit Agreement (Note 6), effective on
June 22, 2006, that converted the floating rate interest
related to an aggregate of $105 million under the Credit
Agreement for a fixed obligation. The interest rate swap, for
$105 million of notional value carries a fixed interest
rate of 11.9% per annum (including a 6.25% applicable
margin) for a term of 18 months. Under the terms and
conditions of the Credit Agreement, Lakes will be required to
maintain an interest rate swap agreement for a notional value of
at least 50% of the credit facility after the initial
18 month interest rate swap agreement. The swap is
considered to be a cash flow hedge and is also considered to be
an effective hedge against changes in future interest payments
of our floating rate debt
25
Table of Contents
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (Continued)
obligation for both tax and accounting purposes. The interest
rate swap has interest payment dates that are the same as the
Credit Agreement.
Gains and losses related to the effective portion of the
interest rate swap are reported as a component of other
comprehensive income and are reclassified into earnings in the
same period that the hedged transaction affects earnings. The
fair market value of the interest rate swap as of July 2,
2006 was approximately $0.2 million and is included as a
long-term liability in the unaudited consolidated balance sheet,
with a corresponding offset to accumulated other comprehensive
income.
As of July 2, 2006, Lakes tested the interest rate swap for
hedge effectiveness using the hypothetical derivative method.
Based upon both the retrospective and prospective testing Lakes
expects the cash flow hedge to be highly effective. No amounts
were recorded in earnings for ineffectiveness. Management will
continue to test for hedge effectiveness on at least a quarterly
basis.
WPTE amendment to Brand License and Online Casino Operating agreement |
On July 10, 2006, WPTE entered into and executed Amendment
No. 1 (the Amendment) to the Brand License and
Online Casino Operating Agreement with WagerWorks Alderney 3
Limited, an Alderney company and a wholly owned subsidiary of
WagerWorks, Inc. (WagerWorks), dated as of
January 19, 2005 (the Wagerworks Agreement).
The parties amended the Wagerworks Agreement to permit WPTE to
(i) own and operate its own online poker room, and
(ii) offer multi-player, real-money poker gaming via
cellular phone using software provided by a particular vendor.
In addition, the Amendment specified a termination date for
WagerWorks operation of WPTEs online poker room (the
Poker Room) on the earlier to occur of
(i) August 1, 2007, (ii) thirty (30) days
following WPTEs request to WagerWorks to terminate
operation of the Poker Room, or (iii) sixty (60) days
following WagerWorks notice to WPTE that it will terminate
its operation of the Poker Room. Furthermore, the parties agreed
to increase WagerWorks share of revenue derived from the
operation of the Poker Room to 75% from the original 25%. The
changed revenue share percentage reflects an attempt to
incentivize WagerWorks to provide a quality online poker room
during the transition by WPTE to the operation of its own online
poker room. All terms associated with the online casino that are
contained within the original Wagerworks Agreement will remain
the same.
WPTE licensing agreement with 3G Scene |
On July 12, 2006, WPTE entered into and executed a
licensing agreement with 3G Scene, PLC pursuant to which WPTE
granted 3G Scene a non-exclusive license to use the World Poker
Tour brand in conjunction with the promotion of its real-money
mobile gaming application. Pursuant to the agreement, 3G Scene
will offer real-money mobile games solely in jurisdictions where
such gaming is not restricted. In consideration for the license,
WPTE shall be entitled to 50% of net revenues. In a separate
agreement entered into on July 31, 2006, WPTE acquired an
approximate 10% ownership interest in 3G Scene for approximately
$2.9 million.
WPTE litigation |
On July 19, 2006, WPTE was served with a complaint by seven
poker players, alleging that WPTE has engaged in, among other
things, certain anti-competitive and unfair business practices
by requiring players to execute participant releases in
connection with tournaments it films through its exclusive
arrangements with casinos that has allegedly limited the number
of televised poker tournaments that high stakes professional
poker players can play in. It is WPTEs belief that the
claims asserted in the complaint are misleading and without
merit. WPTE is unable at this time to estimate a range of loss,
if any, in connection with this matter and, accordingly, has
made no provision therefor.
26
Table of Contents
ITEM 2. | MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS |
Overview
We develop and finance Indian-owned casino properties and we
intend to manage such casinos when applicable regulatory
approvals have been received and we have satisfied other
contingencies. We currently have development (which includes
certain financing requirements) and management agreements with
three separate tribes for one new casino development project in
Michigan, two in California, and with two separate tribes in
Oklahoma for five various casino projects. We are also involved
in other business activities including development of a
non-Indian casino in Mississippi and the development of new
table games for licensing to both Tribal and non-Tribal casinos.
In addition, as of July 2, 2006, we owned approximately 61%
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. Our unaudited condensed consolidated financial
statements include the results of operations of WPTE, and in
recent periods, our revenues have been derived from WPTEs
business.
WPTE creates branded entertainment and consumer products driven
by the development, production and marketing of televised
programming based on gaming themes. WPTEs World Poker
Tour®,
or WPT, television series, based on a series of high-stakes
poker tournaments, airs in the U.S. on the Travel Channel
and in more than 150 territories globally. WPTE has four
operating units:
WPT Studios, WPTEs multi-media entertainment
division, generates revenue through the domestic and
international licensing of broadcast and telecast rights and
through casino host fees. Since WPTEs inception, the WPT
Studios division has been responsible for approximately 76% of
total revenue. WPTE licenses the WPT series to The Travel
Channel, L.L.C. (TRV or Travel Channel)
for telecast in the U.S. under an exclusive license
agreement. WPTE also has license agreements for the distribution
of WPTEs World Poker Tour episodes in over 150
territories, for which WPTE receives license fees, net of
WPTEs agents sales fee and agreed upon sales and
marketing expenses. In addition, during January 2006, WPTE
recently signed a license agreement with TRV to telecast
WPTEs new Professional Poker
Tourtm,
or PPT, series, which began airing in the third quarter of 2006.
WPTE also collects annual host fees from the member casinos that
host World Poker Tour events (WPTEs member casinos).
WPTE has entered into a series of agreements with TRV for the
U.S. distribution of the World Poker
Tour®
television series (the WPT Agreements). Since
WPTEs inception, fees from TRV under the WPT Agreements
and an agreement with TRV relating to the PPT series have been
responsible for approximately 60% of WPTEs total revenue.
For each season covered by the WPT Agreements and related
options, TRV has exclusive rights to exhibit the episodes 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 (three years for the
episodes in Season One). WPTE has produced four complete seasons
of the World Poker Tour series under the WPT Agreements, and
Season Five is currently in production. TRV continues to hold
options to license Seasons Six and Seven.
27
Table of Contents
Under the WPT Agreements, TRV pays fixed license fees for each
episode WPTE produces, which are payable at various times during
the pre-production, production and post-production process and
are recognized upon TRVs receipt and acceptance of the
completed episode. Television production costs related to WPT
episodes are generally capitalized and charged to cost of
revenues as revenues are recognized. Therefore, the timing and
number of episodes involved in the various seasons of the series
affect the timing of the revenues and expenses of the WPT
Studios business. The following table describes the timing of
Seasons One through Five of the World Poker Tour series,
including the delivery and exhibition of the episodes each
season:
Date of TRV | Number of | |||||||||
Agreement or | Episodes | |||||||||
World Poker | Option for | (Including | Production Period and Delivery | |||||||
Tour Season | Season | Specials) | of Episodes to TRV | Initial Telecast of Episodes in Season | ||||||
Season One
|
January 2003 | 15 | February 2002 June 2003 | March 2003 June 2003 | ||||||
Season Two
|
August 2003 | 25 | July 2003 June 2004 | December 2003 September 2004 | ||||||
Season Three
|
May 2004 | 21 | May 2004 April 2005 | October 2004 August 2005 | ||||||
Season Four
|
March 2005 | 21 | May 2005 April 2006 | October 2005 June 2006 | ||||||
Season Five
|
March 2006 | 22 | May 2006 April 2007 (expected) | October 2006 June 2007 (expected) |
In January 2006, WPTE entered into an agreement with TRV for the
U.S. distribution of the PPT television series. Similar to
the WPT Agreements and related options, TRV has exclusive rights
to exhibit the PPT episodes 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. Under WPTEs agreement with TRV regarding PPT,
TRV had options to license the following three seasons (Seasons
Two through Four). In accordance with WPTEs accounting
policy of not capitalizing production costs until a firm
commitment for distribution is in place, WPTE expensed
approximately $4.3 million of production expenses related
to the Professional Poker Tour during fiscal 2004 and fiscal
2005. With the execution of the PPT agreement in the first
quarter of 2006, WPTE began capitalizing additional expenses
associated with the production of the PPT series that are now
being expensed as the first season episodes are delivered to the
Travel Channel. During the first six months of 2006, WPTE
delivered ten episodes of the PPT series, resulting in revenue
of $3.0 million and cost of revenues of $1.0 million.
On May 1, 2006, TRV notified WPTE that it had chosen to not
exercise its option for Season II and subsequent seasons of
the PPT. The PPTs first season, which includes 24 two-hour
episodes, has already been filmed and began to air on TRV in
July 2006. WPTE has begun discussions to find a new broadcast
partner for the PPT going forward.
Further, under the WPT and PPT Agreements, TRV has the right to
receive a percentage of WPTEs adjusted gross revenues from
international television licenses, product licensing and
publishing, merchandising and certain other sources after
specified minimum amounts are met. For the three months and six
months ended July 2, 2006, WPTE recognized
$0.1 million and $0.3 million, respectively, of Travel
Channel participation expense that was recorded in cost of
revenues.
WPT Consumer Products, WPTEs branded consumer
products division, generates revenues principally from royalties
from the licensing of WPTEs brand to companies seeking to
use the World Poker Tour brand and logo in the retail sales of
their consumer products. In addition, this business unit
generates revenue from direct sales of company-produced branded
merchandise. WPTE has generated significant revenues from
existing licensees, including US Playing Card, Hands-On Mobile,
and MDI. WPTE also has a number of licensees that are developing
new licensed products including electronic, casino-based, poker
related gaming machines from IGT, and interactive television
games from Pixel Play.
WPT Corporate Alliances, WPTE sponsorship and event
management division, generates revenue from corporate
sponsorship and management of live events. WPTEs
sponsorship program uses the professional sports model as a
method to foster entitlement sponsorship opportunities and
naming rights to major corporations. Anheuser-Busch has been the
largest source of revenues from its sponsorship of
Seasons II, III and IV of the World Poker Tour series
on TRV. During the third quarter of 2006, WPTE completed an
28
Table of Contents
agreement with Anheuser-Busch to continue its sponsorship for
Season V of the World Poker Tour. During the second quarter of
2006, WPTE finalized a sponsorship agreement with Xyience, Inc.,
a non-alcoholic energy drink developer and distributor, to
promote its product as the official energy drink of
Season V and Season VI of the World Poker Tour. WPTE will
recognize revenues from this agreement when the programs are
broadcast beginning in 2007.
WPT Online Gaming, WPTEs online poker and casino
gaming division, generates revenue from WPTEs agreement
with WagerWorks, Inc. (WagerWorks) pursuant to which
in January 2005 WPTE granted to WagerWorks a license to utilize
the WPT brand to create a WPT-branded online gaming website,
WPTonline.com, which features an online poker room and an online
casino with a broad selection of slots and table games. In
exchange for the license to WagerWorks of WPTEs brand,
WagerWorks shares with WPTE a percentage of all net revenue it
collects from the operation of the online poker room and online
casino. Although any Internet user can access WPTonline.com via
the World Wide Web, the website does not permit bets to be made
from players in the U.S. and other restricted jurisdictions.
WPTonline.com generated approximately $1.7 million in
revenue for the six months ended July 2, 2006, compared to
costs of revenues of approximately $0.8 million.
In 2006, WPTE decided to develop software for an online poker
room. On June 21, 2006, WPTE entered into and executed a
Source Code License and Service Agreement, effective as of
June 16, 2006 (the CyberArts Agreement) with
CyberArts Licensing, LLC (CyberArts), pursuant to
which CyberArts granted WPTE a perpetual, nonexclusive and
nontransferable license for the object code of certain poker
software and related banking and cardroom management software
tools (the Software) for the development of
WPTEs own online poker room. WPTE paid CyberArts a
one-time license fee of $1.3 million for the Software upon
the execution of the Agreement, as well as a payment of $180,000
for the first year of CyberArts support and maintenance
for the Software. During the term of the CyberArts Agreement,
WPTE is obligated to pay CyberArts an annual fee of $180,000,
subject to annual increases of up to a maximum of 9% in each
year, for continuing support and maintenance, payable on the
anniversary of the effective date of the Agreement. The support
and maintenance services can be cancelled by either party at any
time upon 60 days notice. Additionally, at WPTEs
request and expense, CyberArts shall provide WPTE with custom
development work on the Software. WPTE also has the right to
purchase the source code for the Software at any time during the
term of the CyberArts Agreement for an additional
$2.7 million. The CyberArts agreement enables WPTE to
develop, manage, market and handle customer service for the
online poker business from WPTEs own international
headquarters.
On July 10, 2006, WPTE amended its agreement with
WagerWorks to permit WPTE to (i) own and operate an online
poker room, and (ii) offer multi-player real-money poker
gaming via cellular phone using software provided by 3G Scene
Limited. In addition, the Amendment specified a termination date
for WagerWorks operation of WPTEs online poker room
(the Poker Room) on the earlier to occur of
(i) August 1, 2007, (ii) thirty (30) days
following WPTEs request to WagerWorks to terminate
operation of the Poker Room, or (iii) sixty (60) days
following WagerWorks notice to WPTE that it will terminate
its operation of the Poker Room. Furthermore, the parties agreed
that WagerWorks could increase its share of revenue derived from
the operation of the Poker Room to 75% from the original 25%.
The changed revenue share percentage reflects an attempt to
incentivize WagerWorks to provide a quality online poker room
during the transition by WPTE to the operation of WPTEs
online poker room. Also, all terms associated with the online
casino that are contained within the original agreement will
remain the same.
On July 12, 2006, WPTE entered into and executed a
licensing agreement with 3G Scene Limited, pursuant to which
WPTE granted 3G Scene a non-exclusive license to use the World
Poker Tour brand in conjunction with the promotion of its
real-money mobile gaming application. Pursuant to the agreement,
3G Scene will offer real-money mobile games solely in
jurisdictions where such gaming is not restricted. In
consideration for the license, WPTE shall be entitled to 50% of
net revenues. In a separate agreement entered into on
July 26, 2006, WPTE acquired an approximate 10% ownership
interest in 3G Scene for approximately $2.9 million.
29
Table of Contents
Financial Overview
In the first and second quarters of the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2006 (2006) and in the first and
second quarters of the fiscal year ended January 1, 2006
(2005), substantially all of our consolidated
revenues were derived from the WPTE business, mainly from
license fees for domestic and international telecast of World
Poker Tour television episodes and product licensing fees
associated with the World Poker Tour brand and logo. Domestic
telecast license fees have depended on the number of episodes
delivered in a particular period. Revenues from other parts of
the WPTE business are relatively small but continue to grow.
Results of Operations
Three Months Ended July 2, 2006 Compared to the Three Months Ended July 3, 2005 |
Revenue |
Total revenues increased by $4.6 million (70%) during the
second quarter ended July 2, 2006 compared to the second
quarter ended July 3, 2005. Domestic television licensee
fees increased $3.7 million (102%) in the second quarter of
2006 compared to the 2005 period. The increase was primarily a
result of the delivery in the second quarter of ten episodes of
Season IV of the WPT television series versus the delivery
of eight episodes of Season III in the 2005 period, and the
delivery of nine episodes of Season I of the PPT television
series in the second quarter versus no episodes of the PPT
delivered in the 2005 period. Product licensing revenues
decreased $0.3 million (28%) in the second quarter of 2006
compared to the 2005 period. The decrease was due, in part, to
lower license revenues from US Playing Cards and WPTEs
lottery game partner, MDI, which were partially offset by
increased mobile gaming sales from Hands-On Mobile (formerly
Mforma). Online gaming, host fees, sponsorship and merchandise
revenues also increased $1.0 million (83%) in the second
quarter of 2006 compared to the 2005 period, of which
$0.8 million is due to the online gaming revenue during
2006, which had launched at the end of the second quarter of
2005, as well as increased sponsorship fees for Season IV
versus Season III of the WPT television series.
Production costs, expenses and gross margins |
Production costs decreased by approximately $0.2 million
(5%) in the second quarter of 2006 compared to the 2005 period.
The decrease was primarily due to lower recognized PPT
production costs, as WPTE began capitalizing these costs in the
first quarter of 2006 versus previously expensing them during
2005 since no distribution deal had been reached. During the
quarter, production costs associated with the PPT were
$0.9 million compared to $1.5 million in the prior
year quarter. Additionally, a decrease of $0.5 million in
non-cash compensation expense related to consultant stock
options contributed to the favorable variance. The favorable
variance was partially offset by $0.4 million in online
gaming cost of revenues during the second quarter of 2006
compared to $0 in the same period in the prior year, as well as
additional episodes were delivered in the second quarter of 2006
compared to the same period in the prior year. Overall gross
margins were 62% in the second quarter of 2006 compared to 34%
in the second quarter of 2005. Domestic television licensing
margins were 51% in the second quarter compared to negative 14%
in the 2005 period, with the increase primarily due to the
recognition of a large portion of PPT production costs in 2005,
since no distribution deal had been reached during the early
stages of production, combined with increased revenues from our
online gaming operations and sponsorship fees.
Selling, general and administrative expenses. |
Selling, general and administrative expenses increased
approximately $1.9 million in the second quarter of 2006
compared to the 2005 period. This increase was primarily due to
the adoption of SFAS 123(R) which requires the measurement
and recognition of compensation expense for all share-based
payment awards made to employees and directors including
employee and director stock options and stock purchases based on
estimated fair values. For the three months ended July 2,
2006, share-based compensation expense recognized under
SFAS 123(R) related to employee and director stock options
was approximately $1.4 million, of which approximately
$0.7 million related to WPTE and $0.7 million related
to Lakes. There was no share-based
30
Table of Contents
compensation expense related to employee and director stock
options and stock purchases recognized during the three months
ended July 3, 2005, pursuant to the accounting guidance in
effect during that time period.
Net unrealized gains on notes receivable |
Net unrealized gains on notes receivable were $17.6 million
for the second quarter ended July 2, 2006, compared to net
unrealized losses on notes receivable of $1.0 million for
the second quarter ended July 3, 2005. Net unrealized gains
(losses) on notes receivables are related to the adjustment to
estimated fair value of our notes receivable from Indian tribes.
These fair value calculations are determined based on current
assumptions related to the projects and managements
evaluation of critical milestones as discussed below under
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
Accounting for long-term assets related to Indian casino
projects. Unrealized gains of approximately
$12.4 million related primarily to the closing of
third-party financing by the Pokagon Band, which resulted in an
increased probability of opening the casino development project
with the Pokagon Band in New Buffalo, Michigan and triggered a
retroactive interest rate adjustment on the Pokagon Band loans
(see below). In addition, we recognized gains of approximately
$2.8 million related to liability releases received from
various vendors related to the settlement with the Kickapoo
Tribe (see following discussion under
Liquidity and Capital Resources).
The closing of third-party financing by the Pokagon Band during
the second quarter of 2006 triggered a retroactive interest rate
adjustment on our notes receivable, which required the
recalculation of interest cost as if a fixed rate had been in
effect for the entire period the loans were outstanding. The
interest rate used in this calculation is prime rate plus one
percentage point as of June 22, 2006 (approximately 9%).
The advances Lakes makes to the tribes are accounted for as
structured notes in accordance with the guidance contained in
EITF No. 96-12.
Accordingly, pursuant to the guidance in EITF
No. 96-12, Lakes
records its advances to tribes at estimated fair value and
therefore, this fixed interest rate has been included as part of
the fair value calculation related to the notes receivable from
the Pokagon Band as of July 2, 2006.
Other income (expense) |
During the second quarter of fiscal 2006, we refinanced
substantially all of our long-term debt. As a result of the PLKS
debt repayment (Note 6), the remaining unamortized portion
of the warrants ($4.3 million) as well as the unamortized
closing costs ($2.5 million) were written off, resulting in
a loss on extinguishment of debt of approximately
$6.8 million.
Taxes |
The provision for income taxes was $3.8 million and
$0.4 million for the three months ended July 2, 2006
and July 3, 2005, respectively. In the current year period,
the provision consisted of $3.5 million related to Lakes
and $0.3 million related to WPTE. Lakes provision
includes approximately $2.0 million related to the IRS tax
matter (see below) and $1.0 million related to the reversal
of deferred tax assets related to the losses that were reversed
during the second quarter related to the Kickapoo Tribe. The
remainder of Lakes provision consists of interest on the
Louisiana tax matter for the quarter in the approximate amount
of $0.2 million, as well as the reversal of a capital loss
item (see discussion below) in the amount of $0.3 million
which may expire before it can be utilized at the end of 2006
due to the possibility that there may be insufficient gains to
offset it against. The prior year period provision related to
interest accruals for the period on the Louisiana and IRS tax
matters. WPTEs provision for income taxes is due to
positive taxable income that WPTE expects to generate during
2006, which would allow WPTE to fully realize its net operating
loss carryforward from 2005. A valuation allowance was
previously recorded by WPTE for the net deferred tax asset
related to WPTEs 2005 net operating loss
carryforward. Additionally, in accordance with
SFAS No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes, we
have evaluated the ability to utilize deferred tax assets
arising from net operating loss carry forwards (excluding WPTE)
amounts, net deferred tax assets relating to our accounting for
advances made to Indian tribes and other ordinary items and
determined that a 100% valuation allowance was appropriate at
July 2, 2006 and January 1, 2006. We have evaluated
all evidence and determined the negative evidence relating to
net losses generated over the past four years outweighed the
current positive evidence that we believe exists
31
Table of Contents
surrounding our ability to generate significant income from our
long-term assets related to Indian casino projects.
We have recorded deferred tax assets related to capital losses
incurred during 2001 through 2005. The realization of these
benefits is dependent on the generation of capital gains. We
have determined that a deferred tax asset in the approximate
amount of $0.3 million related to capital losses may expire
before it can be utilized at the end of 2006 due to the
possibility that there may be insufficient capital gains during
2006 that could be used to offset this loss item. Therefore, a
valuation allowance has been recorded against this item as of
July 2, 2006.
We are under audit by the IRS for the fiscal years ended 2001
and 2000. The IRS is challenging the treatment of income
categorized as a capital gain. If we are unsuccessful in
sustaining our position, we may be required to pay up to
approximately $3.2 million plus accrued interest related to
tax on ordinary income. We originally carried back capital
losses to offset the capital gain. If we are unsuccessful in
sustaining our capital gain position, we could use the capital
losses in the future to offset future capital gains, if any,
prior to their expiration. We own approximately
12.5 million shares of WPTE common stock valued at
approximately $46.4 million as of August 4, 2006 based
upon the closing stock price as reported by the Nasdaq Global
Market on August 4, 2006 of $3.72. However, we do not
currently intend to sell shares of WPTE common stock. Therefore,
if reinstated during 2006, these capital loss items could expire
before they could be utilized at the end of 2006, due to
insufficient capital gains. As a result, we have recorded a
liability related to this matter of approximately
$2.6 million, including interest, due to the possibility
that if reinstated, these capital loss items may expire before
they could be utilized.
Minority interest |
The minority interest in WPTEs earnings (loss) was
approximately $1.0 million and $(0.2) million for the
quarters ended July 2, 2006 and July 3, 2005,
respectively. WPTEs net earnings (losses) were
$2.6 million and ($0.4) million for the quarters ended
July 2, 2006 and July 3, 2005, respectively.
Six Months Ended July 2, 2006 Compared to the Six Months Ended July 3, 2005 |
Revenues |
Total revenues increased by $7.2 million (67%) during the
six months ended July 2, 2006 compared to the six months
ended July 3, 2005. Domestic television licensee fees
increased $4.8 million (86%) in the first six months of
2006 compared to the 2005 period. The increase was primarily the
result of the delivery in the first six months of
16 episodes of Season IV of the WPT television series
versus the delivery of 13 episodes of Season III in
the 2005 period, and the delivery of ten episodes of
Season I of the PPT television series in the first six
months of 2006 versus no episodes of the PPT delivered in the
2005 period. Product licensing revenues decreased
$0.7 million (31%) in the first six months of 2006 compared
to the 2005 period. The decrease was due, in part, to lower
revenues from US Playing Card and WPTEs lottery game
partner, MDI, which were partially offset by increased mobile
gaming sales from Hands-On Mobile (formerly Mforma).
International television license fees increased
$0.5 million (48%) due to increased distribution agreements
in the first six months of 2006 compared to the 2005
period. Specifically, WTPE has expanded into additional
territories and has agreements now for WPT Seasons I, II
and III. Online gaming, host fees, sponsorship and merchandise
revenues also increased $2.2 million (115%) in the first
six months of 2006 compared to the 2005 period, of which
$1.7 million is due to the online gaming revenue during
2006, which had not yet been launched during the first six
months of 2005, as well as increased sponsorship fees for
Season IV versus Season III.
Production costs, expenses and gross margins |
Production costs decreased by approximately $1.0 million
(13%) in the first six months of 2006 compared to the 2005
period. The decrease was primarily due to lower recognized PPT
production costs, as WPTE began capitalizing these costs in the
first quarter of 2006 versus previously expensing them in 2005
since no distribution deal had been reached. During the first
six months of 2006, production costs associated with the
32
Table of Contents
PPT were $1.0 million compared to $3.0 million in the
same period in 2005. Additionally, a decrease of
$0.8 million related to non-cash compensation expense
related to consultant stock options contributed to the favorable
variance. The favorable variance was partially offset by
$0.8 million in online gaming cost of revenues during the
first six months of 2006 compared to $0 in the same period in
2005. Overall gross margins were 62% in the first six months of
2006 compared to 29% in the first six months of 2005. Domestic
television licensing margins were 49% in the first six months
compared to negative 27% in the 2005 period, with the increase
primarily due to the recognition of a larger portion of PPT
production costs in 2005, since no distribution deal had been
reached during the early stages of production, combined with
increased revenues from sponsorship fees, online gaming and
international distribution license fees.
Selling, general and administrative expenses |
Selling, general and administrative expenses increased
approximately $4.6 million in the first six months of 2006
compared to the 2005 period. This increase was primarily due to
the adoption of SFAS 123(R), which requires the measurement
and recognition of compensation expense for all share-based
payment awards made to employees and directors including
employee and director stock options and stock purchases based on
estimated fair values. For the first six months ended
July 2, 2006, share-based compensation expense recognized
under SFAS 123(R) related to employee and director stock
options was approximately $3.6 million, of which
approximately $2.2 million related to WPTE and
$1.4 million related to Lakes. There was no share-based
compensation expense related to employee and director stock
options and stock purchases recognized during the six months
ended July 3, 2005, pursuant to the accounting guidance in
effect during that time period. The remaining increase in
selling, general and administrative expenses in the first six
months of 2006 as compared to the same period of 2005 was due
primarily to additional headcount related costs and development
and regulatory compliance costs.
Net unrealized gains on notes receivable |
Net unrealized gains on notes receivable were $33.1 million
and $1.9 million for the six months ended July 2, 2006
and July 3, 2005, respectively, related to the adjustment
to estimated fair value of our notes receivable from Indian
tribes. These fair value calculations are determined based on
current assumptions related to the projects and
managements evaluation of critical milestones as discussed
below under Critical Accounting Policies and
Estimates Accounting for long-term assets related to
Indian casino projects. Unrealized gains of approximately
$25 million related primarily to the increased probability
of opening related to the casino development projects with the
Pokagon Band in New Buffalo, Michigan and with the Jamul Tribe
near San Diego, California as well as the increased
interest rate charged on the notes with the Jamul Tribe as a
result of the new development financing and services agreement
entered into on March 30, 2006 with the Jamul Tribe, along
with a retroactive interest rate adjustment on the Pokagon Band
loans (see below). In addition, we recognized gains of
approximately $5.4 million related to a note receivable
repayment and liability releases received from various venders
related to the settlement with the Kickapoo Tribe (see following
discussion under Liquidity and Capital
Resources).
The closing of third-party financing by the Pokagon Band during
the second quarter of fiscal 2006 triggered a retroactive
interest rate adjustment on our notes receivable, which required
the recalculation of interest cost as if a fixed rate had been
in effect for the entire period the loans were outstanding. The
interest rate used in this calculation is prime rate plus one
percentage point as of June 22, 2006 (approximately 9.0%).
The advances Lakes makes to the tribes are accounted for as
structured notes in accordance with the guidance contained in
EITF No. 96-12. Accordingly, pursuant to the guidance in
EITF No. 96-12,
Lakes records its advances to tribes at estimated fair value and
therefore, this fixed interest rate has been included as part of
the fair value calculation related to the notes receivable from
the Pokagon Band as of July 2, 2006.
Other income (expense) |
During the second quarter of fiscal 2006, we refinanced
substantially all of our long-term debt. As a result of the PLKS
debt repayment (Note 6), the remaining unamortized portion
of the warrants ($4.3 million) as well as the unamortized
closing costs ($2.5 million) were written off, resulting in
a loss on extinguishment of
33
Table of Contents
debt of approximately $6.8 million. This loss was partially
offset by a $5.7 million realized gain on sale of
investments by WPTE in the first quarter of 2006, relating to
the sale of a portion of WPTEs stock in PokerTek.
Taxes |
The provision for income taxes was $6.5 million and
$0.7 million for the six months ended July 2, 2006 and
July 3, 2005, respectively. In the current year period, the
provision consisted of $4.9 million related to Lakes and
$1.6 million related to WPTE. Lakes provision
includes approximately $2.0 million related to the IRS tax
matter (see below) and $2.0 million related to the reversal
of deferred tax assets related to the losses that were reversed
during the period related to the Kickapoo Tribe. The remainder
of Lakes provision consists of interest on the Louisiana
tax matter in the approximate amount of $0.6 million, as
well as the reversal of a capital loss item (see discussion
below) in the amount of $0.3 million which may expire
before it can be utilized at the end of 2006 due to the
possibility that there may be insufficient gains to offset it
against. The prior year period provision related to interest
accruals for the period on the Louisiana and IRS tax matters.
WPTEs provision for income taxes is due to positive
taxable income that WPTE expects to generate which would allow
WPTE to realize its net operating loss carryforward from 2005. A
valuation allowance was previously recorded by WPTE for the net
deferred tax asset related to WPTEs 2005 net
operating loss carryforward. Additionally, in accordance with
SFAS No. 109, we have evaluated the ability to utilize
deferred tax assets arising from net operating loss carry
forwards (excluding WPTE) amounts, net deferred tax assets
relating to our accounting for advances made to Indian tribes
and other ordinary items and determined that a 100% valuation
allowance was appropriate at July 2, 2006 and
January 1, 2006. We have evaluated all evidence and
determined the negative evidence relating to net losses
generated over the past four years outweighed the current
positive evidence that we believe exists surrounding our ability
to generate significant income from our long-term assets related
to Indian casino projects.
We have recorded deferred tax assets related to capital losses
incurred during 2001 through 2005. The realization of these
benefits is dependent on the generation of capital gains. We
have determined that a deferred tax asset in the approximate
amount of $0.3 million related to capital losses may expire
before it can be utilized at the end of 2006 due to the
possibility that there may be insufficient capital gains during
2006 that could be used to offset this loss item. Therefore, a
valuation allowance has been recorded against this item as of
July 2, 2006.
We are under audit by the IRS for the fiscal years ended 2001
and 2000. The IRS is challenging the treatment of income
categorized as a capital gain. If we are unsuccessful in
sustaining our position, we may be required to pay up to
approximately $3.2 million plus accrued interest related to
tax on ordinary income. We originally carried back capital
losses to offset the capital gain. If we are unsuccessful in
sustaining our capital gain position, we could use the capital
losses in the future to offset future capital gains, if any,
prior to their expiration. We own approximately
12.5 million shares of WPTE common stock valued at
approximately $46.4 million as of August 4, 2006 based
upon the closing stock price as reported by the Nasdaq Global
Market on August 4, 2006 of $3.72. However, we do not
currently intend to sell shares of WPTE common stock. Therefore,
if reinstated during 2006, these capital loss items could expire
before they could be utilized at the end of 2006, due to
insufficient capital gains. As a result, we have recorded a
liability related to this matter of approximately
$2.6 million, including interest, due to the possibility
that if reinstated, these capital loss items may expire before
they could be utilized.
Minority Interest |
The minority interest portion of WPTEs earnings (loss) was
approximately $2.3 million and $(0.7) million for the
six months ended July 2, 2006 and July 3, 2005,
respectively. WPTEs net earnings (losses) were
$6.2 million and $(2.0) million for the six months
ended July 2, 2006 and July 3, 2005, respectively.
34
Table of Contents
Liquidity and Capital Resources
On June 22, 2006, Lakes borrowed $105 million under a
financing facility with BofA and certain Lenders pursuant to the
terms and conditions of a Credit Agreement among Lakes, Lakes
Gaming and Resorts, LLC, BofA and the Lenders. Funds drawn under
the Credit Agreement bear interest at the rate of LIBOR plus
6.25% per annum, subject to adjustment or change as
specified in the Credit Agreement, and are due and payable on
the fourth anniversary of the closing date. Subject to certain
premiums, Lakes may prepay the facility in whole or in part at
any time. Approximately $25.2 million of the proceeds were
used to repay in full our February 15, 2006 loan from PLKS.
Pursuant to the terms of the Credit Agreement, we paid a closing
fee of $1.5 million, incurred a discount on the initial
draw of $1.1 million and are obligated to pay a $50,000
annual administrative agent fee to BofA. Lakes received net
proceeds of approximately $78.1 million after costs and
fees associated with the Credit Agreement and after repaying the
PLKS financing facility. Approximately $22.4 million of the
borrowings were used by Lakes to fulfill its remaining
commitment to the Pokagon Band during June of 2006.
At July 2, 2006, our unaudited condensed consolidated
balance sheet included unrestricted cash and cash equivalents
and short-term investment balances of $81.7 million,
comprised of our cash of $30.8 and our short-term investments of
$13.8 million, WPTE cash of $6.6 million and WPTE
short-term investments of $30.5 million. WPTE cash and
short-term investments will not be used in our business.
Additionally, we established a restricted cash interest reserve
of approximately $19.1 million required by the Credit
Agreement, which is held in an escrow account at BofA. These
funds are held in trust for the sole purpose of paying the
interest payments due over the next 18 months on amounts
advanced under the Credit Agreement; however, we are entitled to
the interest earnings on our restricted cash balances and any
interest earned on restricted cash is included in cash and cash
equivalents.
In April 2006, we entered into a Settlement Agreement with the
Kickapoo Tribe pursuant to which we and the Kickapoo Tribe
resolved all outstanding issues relating to the parties
business relationship that was terminated in November 2005.
During fiscal 2005, we recorded a loss of approximately
$6.3 million as a result of the terminated business
relationship. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, we received
a cash payment of approximately $2.6 million as
reimbursement for payments made directly by us to vendors on
behalf of the Kickapoo Tribe and the Kickapoo Tribe agreed to
pay $0.6 million into an escrow to be released to us at
such time as we transfer title to certain land owned by us to
the Kickapoo Tribe. We and the Kickapoo Tribe have agreed that
title will transfer only after the Kickapoo Tribe assumes,
settles or pays certain accounts payable to vendors related to
the Kickapoo Tribes casino that remain on our books, and
once we receive full releases for any liability thereto. During
the second quarter of fiscal 2006 we received releases from
vendors totaling $2.8 million that have been recorded as
unrealized gains. As a result of the $2.6 million payment,
we revalued the note receivable from the Kickapoo Tribe at
$2.6 million as of April 2, 2006, and a gain of that
amount was recognized in the first quarter of 2006. During the
second quarter of fiscal 2006, the $2.6 million payment was
applied to the note. Therefore, there is no remaining value
associated with the note receivable from the Kickapoo Tribe as
of July 2, 2006. The land transfer and remaining release of
liabilities will be recognized in the period they occur.
Approximately $0.9 million of liabilities subject to the
Settlement Agreement remain as of July 2, 2006. We will not
recognize further gains unless and until additional releases are
received from vendors. However, we do not have an estimate of
when or if this will occur.
Also during the first quarter ended April 2, 2006, we
settled a short-swing profit matter, which resulted in a payment
to us of approximately $2.8 million, which was recorded as
an increase in equity and did not impact our earnings.
Our agreements with our tribal partners require that we provide
certain financing 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.
Approximately $10.9 million of the loans due from the
Pokagon Band were used by the Pokagon Band to purchase the
project site. Our first deed of trust against this property
(except for a small parcel worth approximately $0.3 million)
35
Table of Contents
was relinquished when the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) placed the land into trust in January 2006. We
hold a deed of trust against related non-gaming land which has a
cost basis of approximately $13.2 million.
We believe that our casino development projects currently in
progress and included in the table below 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
we would incur substantial or complete losses on our notes
receivable from Indian tribes and related intangible assets
associated with the acquisition of the management, development,
consulting and financing contracts. In addition, if our current
casino development projects are not completed or, upon
completion, fail to successfully compete in the highly
competitive market for gaming activities, we may lack the funds
to compete for and develop future gaming or other business
opportunities and our business could be adversely affected to
the extent that we may be forced to cease our operations
entirely.
Following is a table summarizing remaining contractual
obligations as of July 2, 2006 (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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Jamul Tribe(2)
|
$ | | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | | |||||||||||
Shingle Springs Tribe(9)
|
1.3 | 1.3 | | | | ||||||||||||||||
Pokagon Band(3)
|
| | | | | ||||||||||||||||
Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma (Pawnee
Nation) Travel Plaza(11)
|
0.1 | 0.1 | | | | ||||||||||||||||
Iowa Tribe Ioway Project(10)
|
0.8 | 0.8 | | | | ||||||||||||||||
Employee obligations(4)
|
2.2 | 0.9 | 1.3 | | | ||||||||||||||||
Operating leases(5)
|
1.5 | 0.8 | 0.7 | | | ||||||||||||||||
BofA financing facility(6)
|
105.0 | | | 105.0 | | ||||||||||||||||
WPTE operating leases(7)
|
4.3 | 0.8 | 1.7 | 1.8 | | ||||||||||||||||
WPTE employee obligations(8)
|
0.3 | 0.3 | | | | ||||||||||||||||
$ | 115.5 | $ | 5.0 | $ | 3.7 | $ | 106.8 | $ | | ||||||||||||
(1) | We 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 us or similar off-balance sheet liabilities will increase our 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 2, 2006. | |
(2) | Effective March 30, 2006, we entered into a development financing and services agreement with the Jamul Tribe. As part of the agreement, we will use our best efforts to obtain financing from which advances will be made to the Jamul Tribe of up to $350 million to pay for the design and construction of the project. There can be no assurance that third party financing will be available. If we are unable to obtain the appropriate amount of financing for this project, the project may not be completed as planned. This agreement will help assist the Jamul Tribe in developing a casino with related amenities/services (Jamul Casino) on its existing six-acre reservation which the Jamul Tribe will manage. We will receive a flat fee of $15 million for our development design services, and a flat fee of $15 million for our construction oversight services, payable evenly over the first five years after the opening date of the Jamul Casino. In connection with our financing of the Jamul Casino, the Jamul Tribe will pay interest over a ten year period on sums advanced by us equal to the rate charged to us for obtaining the funds necessary plus 5%. Amounts previously advanced by us to the Jamul Tribe in connection with the Jamul Tribes proposed casino resort are included in the development financing and services agreement financing amount. | |
(3) | We will be obligated to pay an amount to an unrelated third party once the Pokagon Casino is open and we are the manager of the casino. The amount is payable quarterly for five years and is only payable if we are the manager of the casino. The payment is part of a settlement and release agreement associated |
36
Table of Contents
with our obtaining the management contract with the Pokagon Band. The maximum liability over the five-year period is approximately $11 million. We will also be obligated to pay approximately $3.3 million to a third party on behalf of the Pokagon Band; in accordance with the management contract which is payable once the casino opens over 24 months. |
(4) | Employee obligations include the base salaries payable to Lyle Berman and Timothy Cope under their respective employment agreements. | |
(5) | We lease an airplane under a non-cancelable operating lease that expires on May 1, 2008. | |
(6) | On June 22, 2006, we closed on a $105 million financing facility. Any funds drawn on the facility bear interest at the rate of LIBOR plus 6.25% per annum, interest payable in arrears quarterly, and are due and payable in full on the fourth anniversary of the closing date. | |
(7) | WPTE operating lease obligations include rent payments for WPTE corporate offices pursuant to two lease agreements. For the first lease, monthly lease payments began at approximately $38,000 and escalate to approximately $45,000 over the six-year lease term. For the second lease, monthly payments began at approximately $28,000 and escalate up to approximately $33,000 over the five year lease term. The amounts set forth in the table above assumes monthly lease payments through June 2011. | |
(8) | WPTE employee obligations include the base salary payable to Steven Lipscomb under his employment agreement. | |
(9) | We plan to increase our commitment to the Shingle Springs Tribe, subject to amendment of the development loan agreement, which is currently in progress. |
(10) | In addition to the information in the above table, additional amounts are expected to be advanced to the Iowa Tribe for the Ioway Project based upon an approved budget yet to be finalized. |
(11) | Lakes made a commitment of $1.0 million to the Pawnee Nation related to the Travel Plaza project based upon an approved budget. In addition to the information in the above table, we have been advancing funds to the Pawnee Nation related to the Chilocco project. The funding amount is based upon an approved budget, yet to be finalized. Additional amounts are expected 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. |
We have incurred cumulative development costs of approximately
$6.3 million relating to our non-Indian casino that we are
developing in Vicksburg, Mississippi. These costs are included
in property and equipment as construction in progress. We are
working toward obtaining all necessary approvals to move forward
with this project. We do not expect to have access to the
capital necessary to make this a viable project for us until
such time that one of our other casino projects is open and
therefore, this is now planned to be a 2007 project.
Our unrestricted cash balance and short-term investments,
excluding WPTE cash and short-term investments, was
approximately $45 million as of July 2, 2006. Our
major use of cash over the past three years has been
pre-construction financing provided to our tribal partners and
on-going corporate costs. While the funds provided by the
$105 million credit agreement with BofA allow us to move
forward with our various casino development projects, we
anticipate that we will incur additional pre-construction costs
which will require us to obtain additional sources of financing
during fiscal 2007 to meet our operational and development
needs. Therefore, we will explore additional financing
alternatives as needed.
If the financing is in the form of equity financing it will be
dilutive to our shareholders, and any debt financing may involve
additional restrictive covenants. We may raise additional
capital through either public or private financings or the sale
of some or all of our shares of WPTE. An inability to raise such
funds when needed might require us to delay, scale back or
eliminate some of our expansion and development goals.
Our cash requirements do not include construction-related costs
that will be incurred when any of the projects begin
construction. The construction of our 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 our results of
operations and financial condition. In order to assist the
tribes, we may be required to guarantee the tribes debt
financing
37
Table of Contents
or otherwise provide support for the tribes obligations.
Guarantees by us, if any, will increase our potential exposure
in the event of a default by any of these tribes.
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
This Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations discusses our unaudited
condensed consolidated financial statements which have been
prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted
accounting principles. The preparation of these financial
statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions that
affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the
disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the balance
sheet date and reported amounts of revenue and expenses during
the reporting period. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our
estimates and judgments, including those related to revenue
recognition, long-term assets related to Indian casino projects,
deferred television costs, investments, litigation costs, income
taxes, share-based compensation and derivative financial
instruments. We base our estimates and judgments on historical
experience and on various other factors that are reasonable
under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for
making judgments about the carrying values of assets and
liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources.
Actual results may differ from these estimates under different
assumptions or conditions.
We believe the following critical accounting policies involve
the more significant judgments and estimates used in the
preparation of our unaudited condensed consolidated financial
statements.
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
(SOP 00-2):
| 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 WPT and PPT agreements, 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
EITF 99-19,
Reporting Revenue Gross as a Principal versus Net as an Agent
(EITF 99-9).
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
service provider, 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
38
Table of Contents
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. WPTE
includes certain promotional expenses related to free bets and
deposit bonuses along with customer charge backs as deductions
of revenue. All other promotional expenses are generally
recorded as sales and marketing expenses.
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. 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 unaudited
condensed consolidated balance sheets.
Deferred television costs: WPTE accounts for
deferred television costs in accordance with SOP 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 because WPTE has
insufficient operating history to enable such anticipation. In
January 2006, WPTE signed an agreement for the PPT with
Discovery Communications, Inc, the parent company of the Travel
Channel, therefore, PPT television costs began capitalization
during the first quarter of fiscal 2006 and are expensed as
episodes are delivered to the Travel Channel. 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.
WPTE management estimates that 93% of capitalized deferred
television costs at July 2, 2006, are expected to be
expensed in connection with episode deliveries by the end of
fiscal 2006.
Investment: Until October 2005, WPTE had an
investment (consisting of a 15% equity interest carried at its
nominal cost basis) in and a loan receivable from PokerTek, a
company formed in August 2003 to develop and market the PokerPro
system, an electronic poker table designed to provide a fully
automated poker room environment, to tribal casinos, commercial
casinos and card clubs. As a result of PokerTeks initial
public offering in October 2005, WPTEs ownership interest
was diluted to 12%. As of July 2, 2006, WPTEs
Executive Chairman of the Board, Lyle Berman, along with his son
Bradley Berman, who also sits on the WPTEs Board of
Directors, have personal investments in PokerTek and, hold a
combined ownership of approximately 7% in PokerTek. Lyle Berman
also serves as Chairman of the Board of PokerTek and received
options to purchase 200,000 shares of common stock in
that company.
On January 20, 2006, WPTE entered into an agreement to sell
630,000 shares of PokerTeks common stock held by
WPTE, at a price per share of $9.03. WPTE closed the transaction
on February 28, 2006, and received net cash proceeds of
approximately $5.7 million. As a result of the sale, WPTE
currently owns an approximate 5% ownership interest in PokerTek
consisting of 450,000 shares.
WPTE accounted for this investment as available for
sale pursuant to SFAS 115, Accounting for
Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities, and
adjusted the investment to fair market value at each balance
sheet date ($4.6 million at July 2, 2006), with the
change in fair market value accounted for as a component of
other comprehensive earnings in the accompanying unaudited
condensed consolidated statement of shareholders equity.
Share-Based Compensation Expense: On
January 2, 2006, we adopted SFAS No. 123(R),
which requires the measurement and recognition of compensation
expense for all share-based payment awards made to employees and
directors including employee and director stock options and
employee and director stock purchases based on estimated fair
values. In March 2005, the SEC issued Staff Accounting Bulletin
(SAB) No. 107 relating to SFAS 123(R). We have
applied certain provisions of SAB 107 in our adoption of
SFAS 123(R).
SFAS 123(R) requires companies to estimate the fair value
of share-based payment awards on the date of grant using an
option-pricing model. The value of the portion of the award that
is ultimately expected to
39
Table of Contents
vest is recognized as expense over the requisite service periods
in our unaudited consolidated statement of earnings (loss).
SFAS 123(R) supersedes our previous accounting under the
provisions of SFAS No. 123, Accounting for
Stock-Based Compensation (SFAS 123). As
permitted by SFAS 123, we measured compensation cost for
options granted prior to January 2, 2006, in accordance
with Accounting Principles Board Opinion (APB) No. 25,
Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees and related
interpretations. Accordingly, no accounting recognition is given
to stock options granted at fair market value until they are
exercised. Upon exercise, net proceeds, including tax benefits
realized, are credited to equity.
We adopted SFAS 123(R) using the modified prospective
transition method, which requires the application of the
accounting standard as of January 2, 2006, the first day of
our fiscal year 2006. In accordance with the modified
prospective transition method, our unaudited condensed
consolidated financial statements for prior periods have not
been restated to reflect, and do not include, the impact of
SFAS 123(R). Share-based compensation expense recognized
during the period is based on the value of the portion of
share-based payment awards that is ultimately expected to vest
during the period. Share-based compensation expense recognized
in our unaudited condensed consolidated statement of earnings
(loss) and comprehensive earnings (loss) was approximately
$1.4 million and $3.6 million for the three months and
six months ended July 2, 2006, respectively and included
both compensation expense for share-based payment awards granted
prior to, but not yet vested as of January 1, 2006 based on
the grant date fair value estimated in accordance with the pro
forma provisions of SFAS No. 123 and compensation
expense for the share-based payment awards granted subsequent to
January 1, 2006. There was no share-based compensation
expense related to employee and director stock options and
employee and director stock purchases recognized during the
three months and six months ended July 3, 2005.
Upon adoption of SFAS 123(R), we continued the use of the
Black-Scholes option pricing method that it had used to
establish fair value of options granted prior to January 2,
2006. Our determination of fair value of share-based payment
awards on the date of grant using an option-pricing model is
affected by our stock price as well as assumptions regarding a
number of highly complex and subjective variables. These
variables include, but are not limited to our expected stock
price volatility, and actual and projected employee stock option
exercise behaviors. Any changes in these assumptions may
materially affect the estimated fair value of the share-based
award.
In November 2005, the Financial Accounting Standards
Board (FASB) issued
FSP FAS 123(R)-3,
Transition Election Related to Accounting for the Tax Effects
of Share-Based Payment Awards
(FSP 123R-3).
FSP 123R-3
provides a simplified alternative method to calculate the
beginning pool of excess tax benefits against which excess
future deferred tax assets (that result when the compensation
cost recognized for an award exceeds the ultimate tax deduction)
could be written off under Statement 123R. The guidance in
FSP 123R-3 was
effective on November 10, 2005. We may make a one-time
election to adopt the transition method described in
FSP 123R-3 before
the end of our fiscal year ending December 31, 2006. We are
currently evaluating the available transition alternatives of
FSP 123R-3.
Derivative Financial Instruments: We are required
to maintain an interest rate swap agreement under the terms and
condition of our Credit Agreement. The derivative is part of our
risk management strategy to manage exposure to fluctuations in
interest rates and to manage the overall cost of our debt. The
derivative is recognized as either an asset or liability and is
measured at fair value. We have elected hedge accounting for the
interest rate swap under SFAS No. 133, Accounting
for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, as
amended.
Changes in the fair value of the instrument are reflected in
accumulated other comprehensive income until the hedged item is
recognized in earnings. Changes in fair value of the cash flow
hedge determined to arise from ineffectiveness of the
instrument, as determined through the hypothetical derivative
method, will be immediately recorded in earnings.
As of July 2, 2006, we tested the interest rate swap for
hedge effectiveness using the hypothetical derivative method.
Based upon both the retrospective and prospective testing we
expect the cash flow hedge to be highly effective. No amounts
were recorded in earnings for ineffectiveness. Management will
continue to test for hedge effectiveness on at least a quarterly
basis.
40
Table of Contents
Accounting for long-term assets related to Indian casino projects: |
Notes Receivable: |
We are involved as the exclusive developer and manager or
consultant of Indian-owned casino projects. We have formal
procedures governing our evaluation of opportunities for
potential development projects that we follow before entering
into agreements to provide financial support for the development
of these properties. We determine whether 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 us
sufficient to recover the asset. We initially evaluate 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? | |
| 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, we also consider economic and
qualitative factors affecting our future economic benefits from
the project, including the following:
| An evaluation by 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 us, 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 or
consulting phase of the relationship, governed by the contract,
continues for a period of up to seven years. We, as developer
and/or manager, have the exclusive right and obligation to
develop, manage or provide consulting services, 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. We also make 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 we typically earn 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 us,
management fees to us, and other obligations, with the remaining
funds distributed to the tribe.
41
Table of Contents
We account for our advances to the tribes and our management or
consulting contracts as separate elements. The advances made to
the tribes are accounted for as structured notes in accordance
with the guidance contained in
EITF No. 96-12.
Because repayment of the notes is required only if a casino is
successfully opened, our advances may be at risk for reasons
other than failure of the borrower to pay the contractual
amounts due because if the casinos are not built the amounts due
will not become contractually due. Accordingly, pursuant to the
guidance in EITF No. 96-12, we record our 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, consulting or financing 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 contractual amount
due. Changes in estimated fair value are recorded as unrealized
gains or losses on notes receivable in our unaudited condensed
consolidated statement of earnings (loss) and comprehensive
earnings (loss).
The determination of estimated 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 we could experience
unrealized gains or losses that could be material.
Upon opening of the casino we 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 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 SFAS 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,
development, consulting or financing contracts are accounted for
using the guidance in SFAS No. 142 Goodwill and
Other Intangible Assets (SFAS No. 142). Pursuant
to that guidance, the assets are periodically evaluated for
impairment based on the estimated cash flows from the 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. In accordance with
SFAS No. 142, we will amortize the intangible assets
related to the acquisition of the management, consulting or
financing 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 our 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, we can sell it. We evaluate these
assets for impairment in combination with intangible assets
related to acquisition of management, consulting or financing
contracts and other assets related to the Indian casino projects
as discussed above.
42
Table of Contents
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, consulting or financing 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, we incur 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.
As of July 2, 2006 and January 1, 2006, the
consolidated balance sheets include long-term assets related to
Indian casino projects of $214.4 million and
$152.8 million, respectively, primarily related to three
separate projects. The amounts are as follows by project (in
thousands):
July 2, 2006 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Shingle | ||||||||||||||||||||
Pokagon | Springs | Jamul | ||||||||||||||||||
Band | Tribe | Tribe | Other | Total | ||||||||||||||||
Notes receivable, at estimated fair value
|
$ | 82,214 | $ | 30,439 | $ | 21,830 | $ | 5,430 | $ | 139,913 | ||||||||||
Intangible assets related to acquisition of management contracts
|
23,548 | 19,756 | 8,288 | 1,511 | 53,103 | |||||||||||||||
Land held for development
|
| 8,720 | 6,679 | 798 | 16,197 | |||||||||||||||
Other
|
60 | 1,587 | 2,291 | 1,236 | 5,174 | |||||||||||||||
$ | 105,822 | $ | 60,502 | $ | 39,088 | $ | 8,975 | $ | 214,387 | |||||||||||
January 1, 2006 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Shingle | ||||||||||||||||||||
Pokagon | Springs | Jamul | ||||||||||||||||||
Band | Tribe | Tribe | Other | Total | ||||||||||||||||
Notes receivable, at estimated fair value
|
$ | 44,028 | $ | 26,550 | $ | 12,957 | $ | 3,527 | $ | 87,062 | ||||||||||
Intangible assets related to acquisition of management contracts
|
18,356 | 18,755 | 7,872 | 1,105 | 46,088 | |||||||||||||||
Land held for development
|
| 8,836 | 6,643 | 769 | 16,248 | |||||||||||||||
Other
|
93 | 1,600 | 828 | 839 | 3,360 | |||||||||||||||
$ | 62,477 | $ | 55,741 | $ | 28,300 | $ | 6,240 | $ | 152,758 | |||||||||||
The key assumptions and criteria used in the determination of
the estimated 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 our
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 is 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.
43
Table of Contents
The following table provides the key assumptions used to value
the notes receivable at estimated fair value (dollars in
thousands):
Pokagon Band:
As of July 2, 2006 | As of January 1, 2006 | |||
Face value of note (principal and interest)
|
$98,152 | $61,827 | ||
($71,176 principal and $26,976 interest) | ($46,445 principal and $15,382 interest) | |||
Estimated months until casino opens (weighted-average of three
scenarios)
|
13 months | 32 months | ||
Projected interest rate until casino opens
|
9.0% | 8.2% | ||
Projected interest rate during the loan repayment term
|
9.0% | 8.2% | ||
Discount rate
|
15% | 15% | ||
Repayment terms of note
|
60 months | 60 months | ||
Probability rate of casino opening (weighting of four scenarios)
|
99% | 90% |
See discussion included below under Description of each
Indian casino project and evaluation of critical
milestones Pokagon Band.
Shingle Springs Tribe: |
As of July 2, 2006 | As of January 1, 2006 | |||
Face value of note (principal and interest)
|
$51,194 | $46,446 | ||
($40,327 principal and $10,867 interest) | ($37,905 principal and $8,541 interest) | |||
Estimated months until casino opens (weighted-average of three
scenarios)
|
37 months | 37 months | ||
Projected interest rate until casino opens
|
10.06% | 9.2% | ||
Projected interest rate during the loan repayment term
|
9.97% | 9.1% | ||
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. |
See discussion included below under Description of each
Indian casino project and evaluation of critical
milestones Shingle Springs.
44
Table of Contents
Jamul Tribe: |
As of July 2, 2006 | As of January 1, 2006 | |||
Face value of note (principal and interest)
|
$24,781 | $21,247 | ||
($18,822 principal and $5,959 interest) | ($16,858 principal and $4,389 interest) | |||
Estimated months until casino opens (weighted-average of three
scenarios)
|
34 months | 34 months | ||
Projected interest rate until casino opens
|
17.0% | 9.2% | ||
Projected interest rate during the loan repayment term
|
17.0% | 9.2% | ||
Discount rate
|
17.5% | 15% | ||
Projected repayment terms of note
|
24 months | 84 months | ||
Probability rate of casino opening (weighting of four scenarios)
|
85% | 80% |
See discussion below included under the caption
Description of each Indian casino project and evaluation
of critical milestones Jamul Tribe.
The following table represents a sensitivity analysis prepared
by us 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 (probability
will not be adjusted in excess of 100%):
Sensitivity Analysis | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
July 2, 2006 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fair Value | 5% Less | One Year | 5% Increased | One Year | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes Receivable | Probable | Delay | Both | Probability | Sooner | Both | ||||||||||||||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pokagon
|
$ | 82,214 | $ | 78,072 | $ | 78,207 | $ | 74,267 | $ | 83,043 | $ | 86,428 | $ | 87,299 | ||||||||||||||
Shingle Springs
|
$ | 30,439 | $ | 28,262 | $ | 29,257 | $ | 27,164 | $ | 32,707 | $ | 31,758 | $ | 34,028 | ||||||||||||||
Jamul
|
$ | 21,830 | $ | 20,555 | $ | 21,994 | $ | 20,710 | $ | 23,105 | $ | 21,667 | $ | 22,933 | ||||||||||||||
$ | 134,483 | $ | 126,889 | $ | 129,458 | $ | 122,141 | $ | 138,855 | $ | 139,853 | $ | 144,260 | |||||||||||||||
Sensitivity Analysis | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
January 1, 2006 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fair Value | 5% Less | One Year | 5% Increased | One Year | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes Receivable | Probable | Delay | Both | Probability | Sooner | Both | ||||||||||||||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pokagon
|
$ | 44,028 | $ | 41,751 | $ | 41,591 | $ | 39,449 | $ | 46,305 | $ | 46,620 | $ | 49,040 | ||||||||||||||
Shingle Springs
|
$ | 26,550 | $ | 24,633 | $ | 25,187 | $ | 23,367 | $ | 28,467 | $ | 27,985 | $ | 30,005 | ||||||||||||||
Jamul
|
$ | 12,957 | $ | 12,176 | $ | 12,322 | $ | 11,581 | $ | 13,739 | $ | 13,626 | $ | 14,450 | ||||||||||||||
$ | 83,535 | $ | 78,560 | $ | 79,100 | $ | 74,397 | $ | 88,511 | $ | 88,231 | $ | 93,495 | |||||||||||||||
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 was 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.
45
Table of Contents
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 2, 2006 and January 1, 2006. The notes receivable
are carried on the consolidated balance sheets at July 2,
2006 and January 1, 2006 at their estimated fair values of
$139.9 million and $87.1 million, respectively.
Balance at July 2, 2006 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Shingle | ||||||||||||||||||||
Pokagon | Springs | Jamul | Other | Total | ||||||||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||||||||||
Note receivable, pre-construction(a)
|
$ | 47,070 | $ | 40,327 | $ | 17,872 | $ | | $ | 105,269 | ||||||||||
Note receivable, non-gaming land(b)
|
13,176 | | | | 13,176 | |||||||||||||||
Note receivable, land(b)
|
10,930 | | 950 | | 11,880 | |||||||||||||||
Note receivable, other(c)
|
6,404 | 6,404 | ||||||||||||||||||
$ | 71,176 | $ | 40,327 | $ | 18,822 | $ | 6,404 | $ | 136,729 | |||||||||||
Balance at January 1, 2006 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Shingle | ||||||||||||||||||||
Pokagon | Springs | Jamul | Other | Total | ||||||||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||||||||||
Note receivable, pre-construction(a)
|
$ | 22,344 | $ | 37,905 | $ | 15,908 | $ | | $ | 76,157 | ||||||||||
Note receivable, non-gaming land(b)
|
13,176 | | | | 13,176 | |||||||||||||||
Note receivable, land(b)
|
10,925 | | 950 | | 11,875 | |||||||||||||||
Note receivable, other(c)
|
4,474 | 4,474 | ||||||||||||||||||
$ | 46,445 | $ | 37,905 | $ | 16,858 | $ | 4,474 | $ | 105,682 | |||||||||||
(a) | We fund certain costs incurred to develop the casino project. These costs relate to construction costs, legal fees in connection with various regulatory approvals and litigation, environmental costs and design consulting, and we, in order to obtain the development agreement and management contract, agree to advance a monthly amount used by the tribe for a variety of tribal expenses. |
(b) | We purchased land to be used and transferred to the tribe in connection with the casino project. With respect to the Pokagon Casino project, a portion of the land will be used by the tribe separate from the casino project land. | |
(c) | Represents amounts advanced under the agreements with the Iowa Tribe and Pawnee Nation. |
The notes receivable pre-construction advances consist of the
following principal amounts advanced to the tribes at
July 2, 2006 and January 1, 2006 (in thousands):
July 2, | January 1, | |||||||
Pokagon Band | 2006 | 2006 | ||||||
Monthly stipend
|
$ | 12,000 | $ | 9,625 | ||||
Construction
|
23,411 | 2,635 | ||||||
Legal
|
1,898 | 1,634 | ||||||
Environmental
|
652 | 650 | ||||||
Design
|
9,109 | 7,800 | ||||||
$ | 47,070 | $ | 22,344 | |||||
46
Table of Contents
July 2, | January 1, | |||||||
Shingle Springs Tribe | 2006 | 2006 | ||||||
Monthly stipend
|
$ | 6,990 | $ | 6,390 | ||||
Construction
|
1,634 | 1,623 | ||||||
Legal
|
13,045 | 12,195 | ||||||
Environmental
|
1,632 | 1,588 | ||||||
Design
|
9,493 | 9,306 | ||||||
Gaming license
|
3,526 | 3,426 | ||||||
Lobbyist
|
4,007 | 3,377 | ||||||
$ | 40,327 | $ | 37,905 | |||||
July 2, | January 1, | |||||||
Jamul Tribe | 2006 | 2006 | ||||||
Monthly stipend
|
$ | 4,194 | $ | 3,841 | ||||
Construction
|
386 | 326 | ||||||
Legal
|
3,446 | 3,340 | ||||||
Environmental
|
1,729 | 1,668 | ||||||
Design
|
5,186 | 4,168 | ||||||
Gaming license
|
584 | 511 | ||||||
Lobbyist
|
2,347 | 2,054 | ||||||
$ | 17,872 | $ | 15,908 | |||||
Evaluation of impairment related to our long-term assets
related to Indian casino projects, excluding the notes
receivable, which are valued at 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.
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. We (as predecessor to 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 the 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 our Indian casinos will be located. In
addition, we have many years of casino operations experience,
which provides a basis for our revenue expectations. The
projections were prepared by us not for purposes of the
valuation at hand but rather for purposes of our and the
tribes business planning.
47
Table of Contents
The primary assumptions included within managements
financial model for each Indian casino project is as follows:
Pokagon Band |
July 2, 2006 | January 1, 2006 | |||
No. of Class III slot machines
|
3,000 | 3,000 | ||
No. of Table games
|
90 | 90 | ||
No. of Poker tables
|
20 | 20 | ||
Win/Class III slot machine/day 1st year
|
$282 | $275 | ||
Win/Table game/day 1st year
|
$1,481 | $1,444 | ||
Win/Poker game/day 1st year
|
$1,025 | $1,000 | ||
Expected increase in management fee cash flows
|
Year 2 26.5% (higher management fees in year 1) |
Year 2 2.1% | ||
Year 3 4.3% | Year 3 1.9% | |||
Year 4 3.8% | Year 4 3.6% | |||
Year 5 4.1% | 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 $282 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.
Jamul Tribe |
July 2, | January 1, | |||||||
2006 | 2006 | |||||||
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
|
| $ | 307 | |||||
Win/Class II slot machine/day 1st year
|
| $ | 220 | |||||
Win/Class II & III slot
machine/day 1st year
|
$ | 235 | | |||||
Win/Table game/day 1st year
|
$ | 1,100 | $ | 1,100 | ||||
Win/Poker table/day 1st year
|
$ | 650 | $ | 650 |
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.
48
Table of Contents
Shingle Springs Tribe |
July 2, 2006 | January 1, 2006 | |||
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 1st year
|
$350 | $350 | ||
Win/Class II slot machine/day 1st year
|
$350 | $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 5.8% | Year 2 5.5% | ||
Year 3 3.5% | Year 3 4.3% | |||
Year 4 3.2% | Year 4 3.0% | |||
Year 5 4.7% | Year 5 5.1% | |||
Year 6 (23.4)% (management fees were reduced in years six and seven) | Year 6 (17.0)% (management fees were reduced in years six and seven) | |||
Year 7 1.6% | Year 7 1.5% |
In the Shingle Springs Sacramento market, there is one other
Indian casino that is managed by another public company.
Management considered the available information related to this
other Indian casino when projecting management fees from the
Shingle Springs Casino. Based on the apparent successful nature
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 2, 2006 and January 1, 2006 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: |
In July 1999, we entered into a development agreement and
management contract, which have been subsequently amended, 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, 90 table games, a 20 table
poker room, various restaurant and bar venues, a hotel, enclosed
parking, a childcare facility and arcade, and various other
resort amenities.
The development agreement, as amended, provided for us to
advance approximately $71.7 million for purchase of land
and for the initial development phase of the project. Repayment
of these advances are subordinated to senior indebtedness of the
Pokagon Casino.
We 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, as amended, 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 our management fee is
subordinated to senior indebtedness of the Pokagon
49
Table of Contents
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 NIGC approved the management contract in March of
this year. The casino could open as early as third quarter of
fiscal 2007.
We will be obligated to pay an amount to an unrelated third
party once the Pokagon Casino is open and we are the manager of
the casino. The amount is payable quarterly for five years and
is only payable if we are the manager of the casino. The payment
is part of a settlement and release agreement associated with
our obtaining the management contract with the Pokagon Band. The
maximum liability over the five-year period is approximately
$11 million. We will also be obligated to pay approximately
$3.3 million to a third party on behalf of the Pokagon
Band; in accordance with the management contract which is
payable once the casino opens over 24 months. In accordance
with the management contract, we contributed $1 million to
the Pokagon Band scholarship fund in April 2006 because the land
was taken into trust and the management contract was approved by
the NIGC.
Our 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 the second quarter of fiscal 2006, fiscal year
2005 and fiscal year 2004. Both the positive and negative
evidence was reviewed during our evaluation of the critical
milestones.
Critical Milestone | July 2, 2006 | January 1, 2006 | January 2, 2005 | |||||||
Federal recognition of the tribe | Yes | Yes | Yes | |||||||
Possession of usable land corresponding with needs based on our project plan | Yes | Yes | Yes | |||||||
50
Table of Contents
Critical Milestone | July 2, 2006 | January 1, 2006 | January 2, 2005 | |||||||
Usable land placed in trust by Federal government | Yes | Yes The additional information was submitted by the BIA in August 2004 and the lawsuit was still pending resolution as of January 1, 2006. 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. The appeal hearing date was held on December 8, 2005. On January 6, 2006 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of the Pokagon Band by affirming the Federal District Courts grant of summary judgment in the lawsuit by TOMAC versus the U.S. Department of the Interior. On January 27, 2006, the Federal Government took official action to acquire the Pokagon Bands 675-acre parcel of land in New Buffalo Township, Michigan, into trust for the Pokagon Band. This official action by the Department of the Interior paves the way for the Pokagon Band to move forward with their Four Winds Casino Resort project. | No The additional information was submitted by the BIA in August 2004 and the lawsuit was still pending resolution as of January 2, 2005. | |||||||
Usable county agreement, if applicable | Yes | Yes | Yes | |||||||
51
Table of Contents
Critical Milestone | July 2, 2006 | January 1, 2006 | January 2, 2005 | |||||||
Usable state compact that allows for gaming consistent with that outlined in our project plan | Yes | Yes | Yes | |||||||
NIGC approval of management contract in current and desired form | Yes | No, submitted to the NIGC for review in 2000 and approval is expected in April 2006 as the land was taken into trust by the BIA on January 27, 2006. | 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, The Michigan Supreme Court has now agreed to hear the appeal by TOMAC that the Compact entered into with the State of Michigan is invalid. The Michigan Court of Appeals (lower court) refused to hear TOMACs argument. TOMAC is arguing that the Compact is invalid as the 8% payment to the Michigan Strategic Fund is unconstitutional and invalid (in that it illegally bypasses the appropriation requirement). | No. However on January 6, 2006 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of the Pokagon Band by affirming the Federal District Courts grant of summary judgment in the lawsuit by TOMAC versus the U.S. Department of the Interior. | No, pending litigation regarding land in trust. | |||||||
Financing for construction | Yes. Financing for the project was completed on June 22, 2006. A $305 million senior note financing and $75 million FF&E credit facility were completed on this date. | No, however the Tribe engaged an investment banker to assist with obtaining financing, which we expect to occur as early as mid 2006. | 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. | |||||||
Our evaluation and conclusion regarding the above critical milestones and progress: |
Approximately $10.9 million of the loans due from the
Pokagon Band were used by the Pokagon Band to purchase real
property comprising the project site. Our first deed of trust
against the gaming land portion of
52
Table of Contents
this property (except for a small parcel worth approximately
$0.3 million) was relinquished when the BIA placed the land
into trust in January 2006. We still hold a deed of trust
against the non-gaming land which has a cost basis of
approximately $13.2 million.
The estimated probability rate was increased from 75% to 90% in
fiscal 2005 due to an evaluation of all critical milestones and
due to the favorable federal judge ruling issued in March 2005
that allowed the land to be taken into trust by the Federal
Government. TOMAC filed for an appeal and the appeal was heard
on December 8, 2005. On January 6, 2006 the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
ruled in favor of the Pokagon Band by affirming the Federal
District Courts grant of summary judgment in the lawsuit
by TOMAC versus the U.S. Department of the Interior. On
January 27, 2006, the Federal Government took official
action to acquire the Pokagon Bands
675-acre parcel of land
in New Buffalo Township, Michigan, into trust for the Pokagon
Band.
The estimated probability rate was increased from 90.0% to 99.0%
in the first six months of fiscal 2006, as the management
contract was approved by the NIGC in March 2006 and the appeal
deadline passed for TOMAC to appeal the January 6, 2006
favorable federal judge ruling that allowed the land to be taken
into trust by the Federal Government. The Michigan Supreme Court
has now agreed to hear the appeal by TOMAC that the Compact
entered into with the State of Michigan is invalid even though
the Michigan Court of Appeals (lower court) refused to hear
TOMACs argument. TOMAC is arguing that the Compact is
invalid because the 8% payment to the Michigan Strategic Fund is
unconstitutional and invalid (in that it illegally bypasses the
appropriation requirement).
On June 22, 2006, the Pokagon Band closed on a
$305 million senior note financing in addition to a
$75 million commitment for furniture, fixtures and
equipment to fund the remainder of the Four Winds Casino
project. Construction of the casino began during June 2006.
Due to the status of the critical milestones as described above,
the weighted-average estimated casino opening date was moved
ahead from October 2008 to August 2007 during the second quarter
ended July 2, 2006.
Shingle Springs Tribe |
Business arrangement: |
Plans for the Shingle Springs Casino project include an
approximately 1,100,000 square-foot facility (including
approximately 85,000 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, 20 poker table
games, as well as restaurants, enclosed parking and other
facilities.
We acquired our 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 us and KAR
Shingle Springs. On January 30, 2003, we purchased the
remaining KAR Shingle Springs partnership
interest in the joint venture. In connection with the purchase
transaction, we 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, he may elect to serve as a consultant to us
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
us 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 our
subsidiary and then be entitled to obtain a 15% equity interest
in our entity that holds the rights to the management contract
with the Shingle
53
Table of Contents
Springs Casino. If he is not found suitable or does not elect to
purchase equity interests in our 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 us 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. Although we are not required to fund
these amounts, if we discontinue the funding prior to fulfilling
the obligation, we would forfeit the rights under the management
contract.
The agreement provides for us to arrange for financing or, at
our discretion, loan funds to the Shingle Springs Tribe in the
form of a facility loan, for the costs of construction and
initial costs of operation up to a maximum of $300 million.
In addition, we 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 our
management services, we 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 our 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.
54
Table of Contents
Our 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 the second quarter of fiscal 2006,
fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2004. Both the positive and
negative evidence was reviewed during Lakes evaluation of
the critical milestones.
Critical Milestone | July 2, 2006 | January 1, 2006 | January 2, 2005 | |||||||
Federal recognition of the tribe | Yes | Yes | Yes | |||||||
Possession of usable land corresponding with needs based on our 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 our project plan | Yes | Yes | Yes | |||||||
NIGC approval of management contract in current and desired form | Yes approval received in 2004. | Yes approval received in 2004. | Yes approval received in 2004. | |||||||
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 Shingle Springs Tribe has engaged investment banks to assist with obtaining financing | No, however the Shingle Springs Tribe has engaged investment banks to assist with obtaining financing. | No, however the Shingle Springs 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. | |||||||
Our evaluation and conclusion regarding the above critical milestones and progress: |
Due to the status of the critical milestones as described above,
the weighted-average estimated casino opening date was moved
from May 2009 to July 2009 during the second quarter ended
July 2, 2006.
55
Table of Contents
In January 2005, the Shingle Springs Tribe received a favorable
ruling from the federal court on all federal issues with respect
to the casino development planned by the Shingle Springs Tribe.
The federal favorable ruling related to the project is being
appealed by El Dorado County. 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, we
received notification from the NIGC that the development and
management contract between the Shingle Springs Tribe and us,
allowing us to manage a Class II and Class III casino,
was approved by the NIGC.
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. On
December 19, 2005, CalTrans filed a Petition for Review
with the Supreme Court of the State of California, and on
February 8, 2006 the Supreme Court denied the Petition for
Review and ordered the Court of Appeals decision to be
depublished. CalTrans is preparing the necessary additional
information as requested by the Court for the two issues
described above. 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 supplemental EIR. Construction of the
interchange and casino could begin as early as the beginning of
fiscal 2007 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 II 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 II 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, we believe 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.
56
Table of Contents
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 75 table games, along with various restaurants and
related amenities.
Effective March 30, 2006, we entered into a development
financing and services agreement with the Jamul Tribe. As part
of the agreement, we will use our best efforts to obtain
financing from which advances will be made to the Jamul Tribe of
up to $350 million to pay for the design and construction
of the project. There can be no assurance that third party
financing will be available. If we are unable to obtain the
appropriate amount of financing for this project, the project
may not be completed as planned. This agreement will help assist
the Jamul Tribe in developing a first class casino with related
amenities/services on its existing six acre reservation which
the Jamul Tribe will manage.
We will receive a flat fee of $15 million for our
development design services, and a flat fee of $15 million
for our construction oversight services. Each of these fees will
be payable to us evenly over the first five years after the
opening date of the Jamul Casino. In connection with our
financing of the Jamul Casino, the Jamul Tribe will pay interest
over a ten year period on sums advanced by us equal to the rate
charged to us for obtaining the funds necessary plus 5%. Amounts
previously advanced by Lakes to the Jamul Tribe in connection
with the Tribes proposed casino resort are to be included
in the financing for the Jamul Casino.
Prior to entering into the 2006 development financing and
services agreement we and the Jamul Tribe entered into a
development agreement and management contract in 1999, which has
been submitted to the NIGC for approval.
57
Table of Contents
Our 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 the second quarter of fiscal 2006, fiscal year 2005
and fiscal year 2004. Both the positive and negative evidence
was reviewed during our evaluation of the critical milestones.
Critical Milestone | July 2, 2006 | January 1, 2006 | January 2, 2005 | |||||||
Federal recognition of the tribe | Yes | Yes | Yes | |||||||
Possession of usable land corresponding with needs based on our project plan | Yes | Yes | Yes | |||||||
Usable land placed in trust by Federal government | Not necessary, as land is reservation land. | 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 our project plan | Yes | Yes | Yes | |||||||
58
Table of Contents
Critical Milestone | July 2, 2006 | January 1, 2006 | January 2, 2005 | |||||||
NIGC approval of management contract in current and desired form | N/A as the Jamul Tribe and Lakes entered into a development financing and services agreement in March 2006, which does not need to be approved by the NIGC. | 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. | |||||||
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, 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. | 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. | |||||||
Our evaluation and conclusion regarding the above critical milestones and progress: |
As a result of delays related to getting land contiguous to the
reservation placed into trust (which is now eliminated as a
result of the new agreement entered into with the Jamul Tribe on
March 30, 2006), the weighted-average estimated casino
opening date was extended from February 2009 to May 2009 during
the second quarter ended July 2, 2006. The probability rate
was increased from 80% at January 1, 2006 to 85% at
April 2, 2006 as a result of the Jamul Tribe and us
entering into a development financing and services agreement in
March 2006 which eliminates the need for land contiguous to the
reservation land being taken into trust and the NIGC does not
need to approve the development financing and services
agreement. The casino will be built on the Jamul Tribes
existing six acres of reservation land. Reservation land
qualifies for gaming without going through a land in trust
process.
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 ourselves formally announced plans to
build the casino on the approximately six acres of reservation
land held by the Jamul Tribe. 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
59
Table of Contents
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. Neither the total square footage nor the
nature or cost of the project are expected to change
significantly as it will be primarily the same project being
built on a smaller footprint.
We have consulted with third-party advisors as to the
architectural feasibility of the alternative plan and have been
assured that the project can be successfully built on the
reservation land. We have completed economic models for each
alternative and concluded that either would result in a
successful operation assuming that adequate financing can be
obtained. Therefore, we believe this project will be
successfully completed. Construction of the casino could begin
in late fiscal 2006 with an estimated opening date of the casino
18 months thereafter.
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 Jamul Tribe is in
process of preparing a Tribal Environmental Impact Report under
guidelines of the State compact.
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 II 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 II
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, we believe 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, we 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, referred to as
the Chilocco Casino, 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
60
Table of Contents
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 us to assist with this
project. When expanded, the planned project will open with
approximately 200 gaming devices and a full service restaurant.
As compensation for the performance of its obligations under the
management contract for each of these two locations, we 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 of our affiliates 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. We will assist in the management
of this project and in its expansion if the Pawnee Nation
decides to expand the casino. As compensation for our management
services on this project, we 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 to seven years, depending on the scope of the
facilities, less any amounts earned by any of our affiliates 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, we will provide services under the Pawnee Development and
Consulting Agreements to each of the three Pawnee casino
projects. Under these agreements we 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, we 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. We have executed an
agreement stipulating that Kevin Kean will be compensated for
his consulting services (relating to the Pawnee Nation) rendered
to us. Under this arrangement, subject to Mr. Kean
obtaining certain regulatory approvals, Mr. Kean will
receive 20% of our 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% of our 30% share). This
agreement provides that payments will be due to Mr. Kean
when we are paid by the Pawnee Nation.
61
Table of Contents
Our 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 2, 2006:
Critical Milestone | Chilocco Casino Project | Travel Plaza | Trading Post | |||||||
Federal recognition of the tribe | Yes | Yes | Yes | |||||||
Possession of usable land corresponding with needs based on our project plan | Yes, the Pawnee Nation currently holds land in trust where the Chilocco casino will be built. | Yes, the Pawnee Nation is currently leasing land from tribal members, which is held in trust for the individual tribal members by the United States Government. The BIA approved the lease documents on January 13, 2006. | Yes, the Trading Post is currently open. | |||||||
Usable land placed in trust by Federal government | Yes, the Pawnee Nation currently holds land in trust where the Chilocco Casino will be built. | Yes, the Pawnee Nation is currently leasing land from tribal members, which is held in trust for the individual tribal members by the United States Government. The BIA approved the lease documents on January 13, 2006. | 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 our 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. The NIGC approved publication of the Final EA in December 2005 and no comments were received during the required 30-day comment period from the public. The NIGC is now able to issue a FONSI and approve the management contract. | No, submitted to the NIGC for review on March 22, 2005. The NIGC approved publication of the Final EA in December 2005 and no comments were received during the required 30-day comment period from the public. The NIGC issued a FONSI in March 2006. | No, submitted to the NIGC for review on March 22, 2005. The NIGC had provided a second set of comments to which the Tribe and Lakes have provided a response | |||||||
62
Table of Contents
Critical Milestone | Chilocco Casino Project | Travel Plaza | Trading Post | |||||||
Resolution of all litigation and legal obstacles | None at this time. | None at this time. | None at this time. | |||||||
Financing for construction | No, preliminary discussions with lending institutions has occurred and the Pawnee Nation has issued a request for proposal. Several responses to the request for proposal have been received. A lender has not yet been selected. | No, The Pawnee Nation has received and approved, subject to minor negotiations, a commitment for financing from a lender for the desired amount. | 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. | No others known at this time by Lakes. | No others known at this time by Lakes. | |||||||
Our 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 us sufficient to recover our advances. 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 the fourth quarter of fiscal 2006.
The Chilocco Casino project could open as early as mid 2007.
Iowa Tribe |
Business arrangement: |
On March 15, 2005, we, through our wholly-owned
subsidiaries, entered into consulting agreements and management
contracts with the Iowa Tribe, a federally recognized Indian
Tribe, and a federally-chartered corporation. The agreements are
effective as of January 27, 2005. We 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 Ioway Project); and (ii) assisting with
operational efforts at the Iowa Tribes existing Cimarron
Casino, located in Perkins Oklahoma (the Cimarron
Casino). We 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:
Ioway Project. The proposed development would have an
initial phase of approximately 1,500 slot machines, four
restaurants, a KidsQuest, 250 hotel rooms and parking. Future
development would include
63
Table of Contents
additional gaming, hotel rooms, meeting space, special events
center, golf course and other market driven amenities. For our
gaming development consulting services under the Iowa Consulting
Agreement related to the Ioway Project, we will receive a
development fee of two percent of the project costs of the Ioway
Project, paid upon the opening of the Ioway Project, and a flat
monthly fee of $500,000 for a period of 120 months
commencing upon the opening of the project.
We have agreed to make advances to the Iowa Tribe, subject to a
project budget to be agreed upon by us and the Iowa Tribe and
certain other conditions. The development loan will be for
preliminary development costs under the Ioway Project budget. We
have 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 Ioway Project is subject to
the approval of the NIGC and certain other conditions. For our
performance under the Iowa Management Contract, we will be
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 of our affiliates for consulting on the Ioway Project. The
Iowa Management Contract term is seven years from the first day
that we are able to commence management of the Ioway 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 Ioway 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 us become payable if not already paid. Subject
to certain conditions, we agree to make advances for the Ioway
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 Ioway Project bearing
interest at two percent over the prime rate. We also agree to
fund any shortfall in certain minimum monthly Ioway Project
payments to the Iowa Tribe by means of non-interest bearing
advances under the same operating note.
Cimarron Casino. The Iowa Tribe historically operated a
240 gaming machine and 200-seat bingo parlor located on the
northern edge of Perkins, Oklahoma, approximately eight miles
south of Stillwater, Oklahoma. The existing facility is being
renovated to provide for space for 325 gaming machines, six
table games, and a new snack bar. We have 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. The NIGC approved the Cimarron Management
Contract in April 2006. The fee under the Cimarron Consulting
Agreement consisted entirely of a limited flat monthly fee of
$50,000. 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 of our affiliates for consulting
services under the Cimarron Consulting Agreement).
Arrangement with Consultant. We have executed an
agreement stipulating that Kevin Kean will be compensated for
his consulting services (relating to the Iowa Tribe) rendered to
us. Under this arrangement, subject to Mr. Kean obtaining
certain regulatory approvals, Mr. Kean will receive 20% of
our 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% of
our 30% share). This agreement provides that payments will be
due to Mr. Kean when we are paid by the Iowa Tribe.
64
Table of Contents
Our 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 2, 2006:
Ioway Project | Cimarron Casino | ||||||
Federal recognition of the tribe | Yes | Yes | |||||
Possession of usable land corresponding with needs based on our 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. | |||||
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 our 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, which is expected to be completed in late 2006. There have been no comments on the consulting agreement from the NIGC and is therefore considered operative. | Yes, the NIGC approved the management contract in April 2006. | |||||
Resolution of all litigation and legal obstacles | None at this time, the acquisition of other tribal land needs to be approved by the BIA. | None at this time. The first part of the refurbished casino opened in May 2006. | |||||
Financing for construction | No, preliminary discussions with lending institutions has occurred. | Permanent financing was obtained from a lending institution in December 2005 and Lakes was repaid all amounts outstanding under the business improvement loan. | |||||
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. | |||||
65
Table of Contents
Our 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 us sufficient to recover our 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 is expected to be
completed in August of 2006. The Ioway Project could open as
early as the first quarter of fiscal 2008.
Kickapoo Tribe |
We entered into a Settlement Agreement with the Kickapoo Tribe
pursuant to which we and the Kickapoo Tribe resolved all
outstanding issues relating to the parties business
relationship that was terminated in November 2005. During fiscal
2005, we recorded a loss of approximately $6.3 million as a
result of the terminated business relationship. Pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement, during April 2006, we received a cash
payment of approximately $2.6 million as reimbursement for
payments made directly by us to vendors on behalf of the
Kickapoo Tribe and the Kickapoo Tribe agreed to pay
$0.6 million into an escrow to be released to us at such
time as we transfer title to certain land owned by us to the
Kickapoo Tribe. We and the Kickapoo Tribe have agreed that title
will transfer only after the Kickapoo Tribe assumes, settles or
pays certain accounts payable to vendors related to the Kickapoo
Tribes casino that remain on our books, and once we
receive full releases for any liability thereto. During the
second quarter of fiscal 2006 we received releases of
$2.8 million that have been recorded as unrealized gains.
As a result of the $2.6 million payment, we revalued the
note receivable from the Kickapoo Tribe at $2.6 million as
of April 2, 2006, and a gain of that amount was recognized
in the first quarter of 2006. During the second quarter of
fiscal 2006, the $2.6 million payment was applied to the
note. Therefore, there is no remaining value associated with the
note receivable from the Kickapoo Tribe as of July 2, 2006.
The land transfer and remaining release of liabilities will be
recognized in the period they occur. Approximately
$0.9 million of liabilities subject to the Settlement
Agreement remain as of July 2, 2006. We will not recognize
further gains unless and until additional releases are received
from vendors. However, we do not have an estimate of when or if
this will occur.
Litigation defense costs: We do not accrue for estimated
future litigation defense costs, if any, to be incurred by us in
connection with outstanding litigation and other disputed
matters but instead, record such costs as the related legal and
other services are rendered.
Income taxes: In accordance with SFAS No. 109,
we evaluated the ability to utilize deferred tax assets arising
from net operating loss carry forwards (excluding WPTE) amounts
and net deferred tax assets relating to our accounting for
advances made to Indian tribes and other ordinary items and
determined that a 100% valuation allowance was appropriate at
July 2, 2006 and January 1, 2006. We evaluated all
evidence and determined the negative evidence relating to net
losses generated over the past four years outweighed the current
positive evidence that we believe exists surrounding our ability
to generate significant income from our long-term assets related
to Indian casino projects.
We have recorded a deferred tax asset related to capital losses
during 2001 and 2005. The realization of these benefits is
dependent on the generation of capital gains. We have determined
that a deferred tax asset in the approximate amount of
$0.3 million related to capital losses may expire before it
can be utilized at the end of 2006 due to the possibility that
there may be insufficient capital gains during 2006 that could
be used to offset this loss item. Therefore, a valuation
allowance has been recorded against this item as of July 2,
2006.
We are under audit by the IRS for the fiscal years ended 2001
and 2000. The IRS is challenging the treatment of income
categorized as a capital gain. If we are unsuccessful in
sustaining our position, we may be required to pay up to
approximately $3.2 million plus accrued interest related to
tax on ordinary income. We originally carried back capital
losses to offset the capital gain. If we are unsuccessful in
sustaining our capital gain position, we could use the capital
losses in the future to offset future capital gains, if any,
prior to their expiration. We own approximately
12.5 million shares of WPTE common stock valued at
approximately $46.4 million as of August 4, 2006 based
upon the closing stock price as reported by the Nasdaq Global
Market on August 4, 2006 of $3.72. However, currently, we
do not intend to sell shares of WPTE common
67
Table of Contents
stock. Therefore, if reinstated during 2006, these capital loss
items could expire before they could be utilized at the end of
2006, due to insufficient capital gains. As a result, we have
recorded a liability related to this matter of approximately
$2.6 million, including interest due to the possibility
that if reinstated, these capital loss items may expire before
they could be utilized.
WPTEs current growth plans potentially may include
international expansion, primarily related to WPTEs online
gaming business, expansion of WPTEs television and product
licensing businesses, industry consolidation and acquisitions
and entry into new branded gaming businesses. Although WPTE
anticipates that all potential strategies will be accretive to
earnings, WPTE is aware of the risks involved with an aggressive
growth strategy. Therefore, based on WPTEs limited
earnings history combined with cautious optimism, WPTE believes
a valuation allowance continues to be appropriate for a portion
of the deferred tax assets relating to stock option exercises
not considered more likely than not of realization.
Other Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In 2006, the FASB issued Interpretation (FIN) No. 48,
Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes, which
interprets FASB No. 109, Accounting for Income
Taxes. FIN 48 prescribes a recognition threshold and
measurement attribute for the financial statement recognition
and measurement of a tax position taken or expected to be taken
in a tax return. FIN 48 also provides guidance on
derecognition, classification, interest and penalties,
accounting in interim periods, disclosure, and transition.
FIN 48 will be effective for fiscal years beginning after
December 15, 2006. We are currently evaluating the effect
that FIN 48 will have on our financial position, results of
operations and operating cash flows.
In 2005, the FASB also issued SFAS No. 155,
Accounting for Certain Hybrid Instruments amending the
guidance in SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities, and
SFAS No. 140, Accounting for Transfers and
Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of
Liabilities. SFAS No. 155 allows financial
instruments that have embedded derivatives to be accounted for
as a whole (eliminating the need to bifurcate the derivative
from its host) if the holder elects to account for the whole
instrument on a fair value basis. SFAS No. 155 will
become effective for financial instruments acquired or issued by
us during the fiscal year beginning after September 15,
2006. We presently do not expect SFAS No. 156 to be
applicable to any instruments we are likely to acquire or issue.
Seasonality
We believe that the operations of all casinos to be managed by
us 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
We and the casinos to be managed by us are subject to extensive
regulation by state gaming authorities. We 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 we may conduct gaming activities in the future. Changes in
applicable laws or regulations could have an adverse effect on
us.
The gaming industry represents a significant source of tax
revenues to regulators. 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 our future financial position, results of operations
and cash flows.
Off-balance sheet arrangements
We have no off-balance sheet arrangements that have or are
reasonably likely to have a current or future effect on our
financial condition, changes in financial condition, revenues or
expenses, results of operations,
68
Table of Contents
liquidity, capital expenditures or capital resources that is
material to investors, except for the financing commitments
previously discussed.
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 us with the SEC as well
as information included in oral statements or other written
statements made or to be made by us 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 us.
These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to,
need for current financing to meet our operational and
development needs; those relating to the inability to complete
or possible delays in completion of our 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 or development contracts; we operate 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 our expansion goals; risks of
entry into new businesses; reliance on our management; and the
fact that WPTE shares held by us are currently not liquid
assets, and there is no assurance that we will be able to
realize value from these holdings equal to the current or future
market value of WPTE common stock. There are also risks and
uncertainties relating to WPTE that may have a material effect
on our consolidated results of operations or the market value of
the WPTE shares held by us, 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 risk that WPTE may not be able to protect its
entertainment concepts, current and future brands and other
intellectual property rights; the risk that competitors with
greater financial resources or marketplace presence might
develop television programming that would directly compete with
WPTEs television programming; the increased time, cost and
expense of developing and maintaining WPTEs own online
gaming software; 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 more information, review our filings with
the SEC. For further information regarding the risks and
uncertainties, see the Risk Factors section in
Item 1A of our Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended January 1, 2006.
ITEM 3. | QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK |
Our financial instruments include cash and cash equivalents and
marketable securities. Our main investment objectives are the
preservation of investment capital and the maximization of
after-tax returns on our investment portfolio. Consequently, we
invest with only high-credit-quality issuers and limit the
amount of credit exposure to any one issuer. We do not use
derivative instruments for speculative or investment purposes.
Our cash and cash equivalents are not subject to significant
interest rate risk due to the short maturities of these
instruments. As of July 2, 2006, the carrying value of our
cash and cash equivalents approximates fair value. We also hold
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.
Our primary exposure to market risk associated with changes in
interest rates involves our long-term assets related to Indian
casino projects in the form of notes receivable due from our
tribal partners for the
69
Table of Contents
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. Our 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.
We record our notes receivable at fair value and subsequent
changes in fair value are recorded as unrealized gains or losses
in our consolidated statement of earnings (loss) and
comprehensive earnings (loss). As of July 2, 2006, we had
$35.2 million of notes receivable, at fair value with a
floating interest rate (principal amount of $46.3 million).
Based on the applicable current reference rates and assuming all
other factors remain constant, interest income for a twelve
month period would be approximately $4.8 million. A
reference rate increase of 100 basis points would result in
an increase in interest income of $0.5 million. A
100 basis point decrease in the reference rate would result
in a decrease of $0.5 million in interest income over the
same twelve-month period.
We are exposed to interest rate risk as a result of the
$105 million Credit Agreement entered into on June 22,
2006, that has a variable interest rate equal to
3-month LIBOR plus
6.25%. We have entered into an interest rate swap agreement as
required by our Credit Agreement to manage the variability of
the cash flows in the interest payments due to changes in the
LIBOR interest rate. The interest rate swap will effectively
convert our variable-rate debt to a fixed rate. The notional
value of the interest rate swap must be equal to 100% of the
financing facility for the first 18 months and 50% of the
financing facility thereafter.
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 six months ended July 2, 2006 that have
materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially
affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
70
Table of Contents
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 our 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
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 plaintiffs
have appealed the judgment to the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals, but subsequently stipulated to a dismissal with
prejudice, effective June 30, 2006. As of that date, the
matter was at an end.
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 us.
However, the interchange is necessary to permit the construction
of a casino to be developed and managed by us 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 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
70
Table of Contents
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 supplemental EIR. On
December 19, 2005, CalTrans filed a Petition for Review
with the Supreme Court of the State of California, and on
February 8, 2006 the Supreme Court denied the Petition for
Review and ordered the Court of Appeals decision to be
depublished. CalTrans is now complying with the Court of Appeals
order and a supplemental EIR is expected to be issued August
2006.
We have 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 our consolidated financial
statements.
Louisiana Department of Revenue litigation tax matter |
The Louisiana Department of Revenue maintains a position that we
owe additional Louisiana corporation income tax for the period
ended January 3, 1999 and the tax years ended 1999 through
2001 and additional Louisiana corporation franchise tax for the
tax years ended 2000 through 2002. This determination is the
result of an audit of Louisiana tax returns filed by us for the
tax periods at issue and relates to the reporting of income
earned by us 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 Louisiana asserts that additional corporation income tax and
corporation franchise tax are due by us for the taxable periods
set forth above. We maintain that we have remitted the proper
Louisiana corporation income tax and Louisiana corporation
franchise tax for the taxable periods at issue. On
February 14, 2005, we 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. We
may be required to pay up to the $8.6 million assessment
plus interest if we are not successful in this matter. We have
recorded a liability for the estimated settlement related to
this examination including accrued interest and fees, which is
included as part of income taxes payable on the accompanying
unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets.
WPTE litigation |
WPTE was served with a complaint by seven poker players,
alleging that WPTE has engaged in, among other things, certain
anti-competitive and unfair business practices by requiring
players to execute participant releases in connection with
tournaments it films through its exclusive arrangements with
casinos that has allegedly limited the number of televised poker
tournaments that high stakes professional poker players can play
in. It is WPTEs belief that the claims asserted in the
complaint are misleading and without merit. WPTE is unable at
this time to estimate a range of loss, if any, in connection
with this matter and, accordingly, has made no provision
therefor.
72
Table of Contents
Other litigation |
We and our 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, based in part on
advice from legal counsel, that neither the final outcome of
these matters, including the matters discussed above, nor the
related legal defense costs are likely to have a material
adverse effect upon the our future consolidated financial
position or results of operations beyond the amounts recorded.
ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS
There have been no material changes to our risk factors
identified in the Risk Factors section in
Item 1A of our Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended January 1, 2006 except the following:
| We are no longer subject to the risk that our common stock may not be re-listed on the Nasdaq Global Market, formerly the Nasdaq National Market. As previously announced, our common stock resumed trading on the Nasdaq Global Market on March 23, 2006 under the symbol LACO. | |
| On June 22, 2006, Lakes borrowed $105 million under a financing facility with BofA and the Lenders pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Credit Agreement among Lakes, Lakes Gaming and Resorts, LLC, BofA and the Lenders. Approximately $25.2 million of the initial draw was used to repay in full the aforementioned loan payable to PLKS. (Note 6) While the funds provided by the $105 million credit agreement with BofA allow us to move forward with our various casino development projects, we anticipate that we will incur additional pre-construction costs which will require us to obtain additional sources of financing during fiscal 2007 to meet our operational and development needs. Therefore, we will explore additional financing alternatives as needed. The financing is discussed in greater detail in Item 2 Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. | |
| We are no longer subject to the risk of financing all phases of the Pokagon Casino project as the Pokagon Band closed on a $305 million senior note financing in addition to a $75 million commitment for furniture, fixtures and equipment to fund the remainder of the Four Winds Casino project. The financing is discussed in greater detail in Item 2 Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. | |
| Warrants to purchase 3.21 million shares of common stock previously issued to PLKS have lapsed and are no longer exercisable. |
ITEM 4. | SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS |
(a) The Annual Meeting of Shareholders was held on
April 19, 2006.
(b) At the Annual Meeting:
(1) | All nominees for directors as listed in the proxy statement were elected with the following vote: |
Affirmative Votes | Authority Withheld | |||||||
Lyle Berman
|
20,278,168 | 1,333,814 | ||||||
Timothy J. Cope
|
20,172,740 | 1,439,242 | ||||||
Morris Goldfarb
|
21,564,993 | 46,989 | ||||||
Neil I. Sell
|
20,277,790 | 1,334,192 | ||||||
Ray Moberg
|
21,565,945 | 46,037 | ||||||
Larry C. Barenbaum
|
21,565,421 | 46,561 |
73
Table of Contents
(2) | The appointment of Piercy, Bowler, Taylor & Kern, Certified Public Accountants and Business Advisors, a Professional Corporation, as independent auditors of the Company was ratified with the following vote: |
Affirmative Votes 21,572,303 |
Negative Votes 16,446 |
Abstentions 23,233 |
ITEM 6. EXHIBITS
(a) 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 |
74
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 | |
(Principal Executive Officer) | |
/s/ TIMOTHY J. COPE | |
|
Timothy J. Cope | |
President and Chief Financial Officer | |
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
Dated: August 10, 2006
75