UNITED STATES

SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

FORM 10-Q

 

(Mark One)

For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014

OR

For the transition period from            to            

Commission File No. 001-10362

 

MGM Resorts International

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

3600 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Las Vegas, Nevada 89109

(Address of principal executive offices)

(702) 693-7120

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

 

 

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   x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files):   Yes   x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act:

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act):   Yes  ¨     No  x

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL AND SUBSIDIARIES

 

FORM 10-Q

 

I N D E X

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

Part I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

 

 

MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(In thousands, except share data)

(Unaudited)

 

 

The accompanying condensed notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

 

 

1

---

 

MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(In thousands, except per share data)

(Unaudited)

 

 

The accompanying condensed notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

 

 

2

---

 

MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)

(In thousands)

(Unaudited)

 

 

The accompanying condensed notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

 

 

 

3

---

 

MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(In thousands)

(Unaudited)

 

 

The accompanying condensed notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

 

 

4

---

 

MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited)  

 

NOTE 1 — ORGANIZATION

 

Organization. MGM Resorts International (the “Company”) is a Delaware corporation that acts largely as a holding company and, through wholly owned subsidiaries, primarily owns and/or operates casino resorts. The Company owns and operates the following casino resorts in Las Vegas, Nevada: Bellagio, MGM Grand Las Vegas, The Mirage, Mandalay Bay, Luxor, New York-New York, Monte Carlo, Excalibur and Circus Circus Las Vegas. Operations at MGM Grand Las Vegas include management of The Signature at MGM Grand Las Vegas, a condominium-hotel consisting of three towers. Other Nevada operations include Circus Circus Reno, Gold Strike in Jean and Railroad Pass in Henderson. In September 2014, the Company entered into an agreement to sell Railroad Pass, and in October 2014, the Company entered into an agreement to sell the Gold Strike in Jean, Nevada, each as discussed in Note 3. Along with its local partners, the Company owns and operates MGM Grand Detroit in Detroit, Michigan. The Company owns and operates two resorts in Mississippi: Beau Rivage in Biloxi and Gold Strike Tunica. The Company also owns Shadow Creek, an exclusive world-class golf course located approximately ten miles north of its Las Vegas Strip resorts, Primm Valley Golf Club at the California/Nevada state line and Fallen Oak golf course in Saucier, Mississippi.

 

The Company owns 51% and has a controlling interest in MGM China Holdings Limited (“MGM China”), which owns MGM Grand Paradise, S.A. (“MGM Grand Paradise”), the Macau company that owns and operates the MGM Macau resort and casino and the related gaming subconcession and land concession. MGM Grand Paradise has a land concession contract with the government of Macau to develop a second resort and casino on an approximately 17.8 acre site in Cotai, Macau (“MGM Cotai”). MGM Cotai will be an integrated casino, hotel and entertainment complex with up to 1,600 hotel rooms, 500 gaming tables and 2,500 slots. The total estimated project budget is $2.9 billion, excluding development fees eliminated in consolidation, capitalized interest and land related costs.

 

The Company owns 50% of CityCenter, located between Bellagio and Monte Carlo. The other 50% of CityCenter is owned by Infinity World Development Corp, a wholly owned subsidiary of Dubai World, a Dubai, United Arab Emirates government decree entity. CityCenter consists of Aria, a casino resort; Mandarin Oriental Las Vegas, a non-gaming boutique hotel; Crystals, a retail, dining and entertainment district; and Vdara, a luxury condominium-hotel. In addition, CityCenter features residential units in the Residences at Mandarin Oriental and Veer. The Company receives a management fee of 2% of revenues for the management of Aria and Vdara, and 5% of EBITDA (as defined in the agreements governing the Company’s management of Aria and Vdara). In addition, the Company receives an annual fee of $3 million for the management of Crystals. See Note 4 for additional information related to CityCenter.

 

The Company owns 50% of the Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa (“Borgata”) located on Renaissance Pointe in the Marina area of Atlantic City, New Jersey. Boyd Gaming Corporation owns the other 50% of Borgata and also operates the resort.  See Note 4 for additional information regarding Borgata.  The Company also has 50% interests in Grand Victoria and Silver Legacy. Grand Victoria is a riverboat casino in Elgin, Illinois; an affiliate of Hyatt Gaming owns the other 50% of Grand Victoria and also operates the resort. Silver Legacy is located in Reno, adjacent to Circus Circus Reno, and the other 50% is owned by Eldorado LLC, which operates the resort.

 

The Company seeks to leverage its management expertise and well-recognized brands through domestic and international expansion opportunities. The Company has entered into management agreements for non-gaming hotels, resorts and residential products in the Middle East, North Africa, India and the United States. In 2014, the Company and the Hakkasan Group formed MGM Hakkasan Hospitality (“MGM Hakkasan”), owned 50% by each member, to design, develop and manage luxury non-gaming hotels, resorts and residences under certain brands licensed from the Company and the Hakkasan Group. In October 2014, the Company contributed all of the management agreements for non-gaming hotels, resorts and residential projects (outside of the greater China region) that are currently under development to MGM Hakkasan. The Company will continue to develop and manage properties in the greater China region with Diaoyutai State Guesthouse, including the MGM Grand Sanya on Hainan Island, in the People’s Republic of China, which opened in 2012.

 

The Maryland Video Lottery Facility Location Commission has awarded MGM National Harbor, LLC (“MGM National Harbor”) the license to build and operate a destination resort casino in Prince George’s County at National Harbor. Currently, the expected cost to develop and construct MGM National Harbor is approximately $1.2 billion, excluding capitalized interest and land related costs. The Company expects the resort to include a casino with approximately 3,600 slots, 160 table games including poker; a 300 suite hotel with luxury spa and rooftop pool; high end branded retail; fine and casual dining; a dedicated 3,000 seat theater venue; 35,000 square feet of meeting and event space; and a 5,000 space parking garage.

 

On June 13, 2014, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (the “MGC”) agreed to award the Company’s subsidiary developing MGM Springfield the Category One casino license in Region B, Western Massachusetts, one of three licensing regions designated by

5

---

 

legislation. On June 24, 2014, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a proposed ballot initiative seeking to prohibit local casinos, slot parlors and other wagering in Massachusetts was constitutional and thereby allowed the ballot initiative to appear on the November 4, 2014 ballot. The ballot initiative ultimately failed during the November 2014 general elections. Therefore, the state’s expanded gaming law has been preserved and development of MGM Springfield will proceed as previously planned.  Final award payment of licensing fees and other costs is expected to be made to the MGC in the fourth quarter of 2014.

 

MGM Springfield will be developed on 14.5 acres of land between Union and State streets, and Columbus Avenue and Main Street in Springfield, Massachusetts. Currently, the expected cost to develop and construct MGM Springfield is approximately $760 million, excluding capitalized interest and land related costs. The Company expects the resort will include a casino with approximately 3,000 slots and 75 table games, a poker room and high limit VIP gambling area, 250 hotel rooms, 55,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space that will accommodate 15 shops and restaurants, and a multi-level parking garage.

 

In 2013, the Company formed Las Vegas Arena Company, LLC (“LVAC”) with a subsidiary of Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc. (“AEG”) (a leader in sports, entertainment, and promotions) to design, construct, and operate the Las Vegas Arena which will be located on a parcel of the Company’s land between Frank Sinatra Drive and New York-New York, adjacent to the Las Vegas Strip. The Company and AEG each own 50% of LVAC. The Las Vegas Arena is anticipated to seat between 18,000 – 20,000 people. Such development is estimated to cost approximately $350 million, excluding capitalized interest and land related costs. See Note 4 and Note 6 for additional information related to LVAC.

 

The Company has two reportable segments: wholly owned domestic resorts and MGM China. See Note 11 for additional information about the Company’s segments.

 

NOTE 2 — BASIS OF PRESENTATION AND SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

 

Basis of presentation. As permitted by the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) have been condensed or omitted. These consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the Company’s 2013 annual consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013.

 

In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements contain all adjustments, which include only normal recurring adjustments, necessary to present fairly the Company’s interim financial statements. The results for such periods are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year.

 

As discussed in Note 4, the consolidated financial statements have been retroactively adjusted to reflect the Company’s investment in Borgata under the equity method for all periods presented in this quarterly report.

 

Fair value measurements. Fair value measurements affect the Company’s accounting and impairment assessments of its long-lived assets, investments in unconsolidated affiliates, cost method investments, assets acquired and liabilities assumed in an acquisition, and goodwill and other intangible assets. Fair value measurements also affect the Company’s accounting for certain of its financial assets and liabilities. Fair value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date and is measured according to a hierarchy that includes: Level 1 inputs, such as quoted prices in an active market; Level 2 inputs, which are observable inputs for similar assets; or Level 3 inputs, which are unobservable inputs.

 

 

 

Income tax provision. For interim income tax reporting the Company estimates its annual effective tax rate and applies it to its year-to-date ordinary income. The tax effects of unusual or infrequently occurring items, including changes in judgment about valuation allowances and effects of changes in tax laws or rates, are reported in the interim period in which they occur. The Company’s effective income tax rate was 16.8% and (12.0%) for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2014, respectively.

 

The Company recognizes deferred tax assets, net of applicable reserves, related to tax loss and credit carryforwards and other temporary differences with a future tax benefit to the extent that realization of such benefit is more likely than not. Otherwise, a valuation allowance is applied. Due to the Company’s history of recent losses in the United States, the Company does not rely on future United States sourced operating income in assessing the realization of its deferred tax assets.

6

---

 

 

Because MGM China is presently exempt from the Macau 12% complementary tax on gaming profits, the Company believes that payment of the Macau Special Gaming Tax qualifies as a tax paid in lieu of an income tax that is creditable against U.S. taxes. As long as the exemption from Macau’s 12% complementary tax on gaming profits continues, the Company expects that it will generate excess foreign tax credits on an annual basis and that none of the excess foreign credits will be utilized until the exemption expires. Although the Company’s current five-year exemption from the Macau 12% complementary tax on gaming profits ends on December 31, 2016, the Company believes it will be entitled to receive a third five-year exemption from Macau based upon exemptions granted to the Company’s competitors in order to ensure non-discriminatory treatment among gaming concessionaires and subconcessionaires. For all periods beyond December 31, 2021, the Company has assumed that it will be paying the Macau 12% complementary tax on gaming profits and will thus not be able to credit the Macau Special Gaming Tax in such years, and has factored that assumption into both the measurement of its foreign deferred tax assets and liabilities as well as its future projections of foreign sourced income. As a result, the Company projects that it will be able to realize a benefit, and hence, projects that it will record a deferred tax asset for foreign tax credits, net of valuation allowance (“net deferred foreign tax credit asset”), of approximately $332 million as of December 31, 2014 and has reflected this assumption in its annual effective tax rate for 2014. Should the Company in a future period actually receive or be able to assume under the law a fourth five-year exemption, an additional valuation allowance would likely need to be provided on some portion or all of the net deferred foreign tax credit asset, resulting in an increase in the provision for income taxes in such period.

 

During the quarter ended June 30, 2014, the Company received final approval from the Joint Committee on Taxation of the results of IRS examinations covering its 2005 through 2009 tax years. These examinations are now considered settled for financial reporting purposes. Consequently, the Company reduced unrecognized tax benefits by $81 million and recorded income tax benefit of $31 million to reflect the effects of this settlement. The Company previously made a deposit of $30 million with the IRS to cover the expected cash taxes and interest resulting from the tentatively agreed adjustments for these examinations. The tax and interest was assessed during the quarter ended September 30, 2014, and the deposit, which was previously included in “Prepaid expenses and other”, was reclassified to “Income taxes payable” on the balance sheet.

 

Recently issued accounting standards. During the three months ended September 30, 2014, the Company early adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Update No. 2014-08, “Reporting Discontinued Operations and Disclosures of Disposals of Components of an Entity ”, (“ASU 2014-08”), which is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning on or after December 15, 2014.  ASU 2014-08 amends the definition of a discontinued operation by requiring discontinued operations treatment for disposals of a component or group of components that represents a strategic shift that has or will have a major impact on an entity’s operations or financial results, and also expands the scope of ASC 205-20 to disposals of equity method investments and acquired businesses held for sale.  Additionally, ASU 2014-08 requires enhanced disclosures about disposal transactions that do not meet the discontinued operations criteria.  As a result of implementing ASU 2014-08, the Company determined that certain disposals did not qualify as discontinued operations.  See Note 3 for further discussion.

 

During the nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company implemented FASB Accounting Standards Update No. 2013-11, “Presentation of an Unrecognized Tax Benefit When a Net Operating Loss Carryforward, a Similar Tax Loss, or a Tax Credit Carryforward Exists,” (“ASU 2013-11”), which is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning on or after December 15, 2013. ASU 2013-11 provides explicit guidance on the financial statement presentation of unrecognized tax benefits when a net operating loss carryforward, a similar tax loss, or a tax credit carryforward exists. As a result of implementing ASU 2013-11, the Company recorded a reduction in liability for unrecognized tax benefits and a corresponding reduction in deferred tax assets of $19 million in the nine months ended September 30, 2014.

 

In May 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers,” (“ASU 2014-09”), which is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning on or after December 15, 2016. ASU 2014-09 outlines a new, single comprehensive model for entities to use in accounting for revenue arising from contracts with customers and supersedes most current revenue recognition guidance, including industry-specific guidance. This new revenue recognition model provides a five-step analysis in determining when and how revenue is recognized. Additionally, the new model will require revenue recognition to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration a company expects to receive in exchange for those goods or services. The Company is currently assessing the impact that adoption of this new accounting guidance will have on its consolidated financial statements and footnote disclosures.

 

NOTE 3 — ASSETS HELD FOR SALE

 

In September 2014, the Company entered into an agreement to sell Railroad Pass for $8 million which is contingent upon regulatory approvals and other customary closing conditions. The assets and liabilities of Railroad Pass have been classified as held for sale as of September 30, 2014.  The Company recognized a $1 million impairment charge recorded in “Property transactions, net” at September 30, 2014 based on fair value less cost to sell of the related assets and liabilities.  Assets held for sale of $9 million, comprised predominantly of property, plant and equipment, are classified within “Prepaid expenses and other”  and  liabilities related

7

---

 

to assets held for sale of $2 million, comprised of accounts payable and other accrued liabilities, are classified  within “Other accrued liabilities.”  Railroad Pass has not been classified as discontinued operations because the Company has concluded that the sale will not have a major effect on the Company’s operations or its financial results and it does not represent a disposal of a major geographic segment or product line.

 

In October 2014, the Company entered into an agreement to sell Gold Strike and related assets in Jean, Nevada, for $12 million which is contingent upon regulatory approvals and other customary closing conditions.   The carrying value of the assets and liabilities to be sold of $15 million and $2 million, respectively, were not classified as held for sale as of September 30, 2014. Gold Strike will not be classified as discontinued operations because the Company has concluded that the sale will not have a major effect on the Company’s operations or its financial results and it does not represent a disposal of a major geographic segment or product line.

 

NOTE 4 — INVESTMENTS IN AND ADVANCES TO UNCONSOLIDATED AFFILIATES

 

Investments in and advances to unconsolidated affiliates consisted of the following:

 

 

The Company recorded its share of the results of operations of unconsolidated affiliates as follows:

  

 

CityCenter

 

CityCenter summary financial information. Summarized balance sheet information for CityCenter is as follows:

 

 

Summarized income statement information for CityCenter is as follows:

 

8

---

 

 

Grand Victoria

 

At June 30, 2014, the Company reviewed the carrying value of its Grand Victoria investment for impairment due to a greater than anticipated decline in operating results, as well as a decrease in forecasted cash flows for 2014 through 2017 compared to the prior forecast. The Company used a blended discounted cash flow analysis and guideline public company method to determine the estimated fair value from a market participant’s viewpoint. Key assumptions included in the discounted cash flow analysis were estimates of future cash flows including outflows for capital expenditures, a long-term growth rate of 2% and a discount rate of 10.5%. Key assumptions in the guideline public company method included business enterprise value multiples selected based on the range of multiples in Grand Victoria’s peer group. As a result of the analysis, the Company determined that it was necessary to record an other-than-temporary impairment charge of $29 million at June 30, 2014, based on an estimated fair value of $140 million for the Company’s 50% interest. The Company intends to, and believes it will be able to, retain the investment in Grand Victoria; however, due to the extent of the shortfall and the Company’s assessment of the uncertainty of fully recovering its investment, the Company has determined that the impairment was other-than-temporary. At June 30, 2013, the Company recorded an impairment charge of $37 million on its investment in Grand Victoria based on the then estimated fair value of $170 million for its 50% interest.

 

Borgata

 

In September 2014, the New Jersey Casino Control Commission (“CCC”) approved the Company’s request for licensure in the State of New Jersey.  The Company’s request for licensure was submitted pursuant to its amended settlement agreement with the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement.  Prior to receiving the approval, the Company’s Borgata interest was held in trust and the sale of the Company’s interest was mandated within a defined divestiture period pursuant to the amended settlement agreement.  In connection with the approval of the Company’s request for licensure, the CCC agreed to terminate the amended settlement agreement and dissolve and terminate the divestiture trust.  Upon dissolution of the trust, all of the trust assets, including $83 million of cash, were transferred to the Company.  

 

Prior to dissolution, the Company had consolidated the trust because it was the sole economic beneficiary, and accounted for its interest in Borgata under the cost method.  In conjunction with the dissolution of the trust, the Company regained significant influence in Borgata and therefore resumed accounting for its interest under the equity method.  The Company’s investment in Borgata, current and prior period net income and retained earnings have been adjusted retroactively on a step-by-step basis as if the equity method had been in effect during all previous periods in which the Company’s investment was held in trust.  The impact of the adjustments on net income for the three months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013 was an increase of $11 million and an increase of $10 million, respectively.  The impact of the adjustments to net income for the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013 was an increase of $10 million and an increase of $3 million, respectively.  The impact of the retroactive adjustments on retained earnings was a decrease of $15 million at December 31, 2013.

 

Las Vegas Arena

 

In September 2014, a wholly-owned subsidiary of LVAC entered into a senior secured credit facility to finance construction of the Las Vegas Arena. The senior secured credit facility consists of a $125 million term loan A and a $75 million term loan B. The senior secured credit facility matures in October 2016, with an option to extend the maturity for three years. The senior secured credit facility is secured by substantially all the assets of the LVAC, and contains certain financial covenants applicable upon opening of the Las Vegas Arena. See Note 6 for discussion of the Company’s joint and several completion and payment guarantees.

 

9

---

 

NOTE 5 — LONG-TERM DEBT

 

Long-term debt consisted of the following:

 

 

As of September 30, 2014, the amount available under the Company’s revolving senior credit facility is less than current maturities related to the Company’s senior notes, convertible senior notes and term loan credit facilities. The Company has excluded from the current portion of long-term debt the amount available for refinancing under its revolving credit facility.

 

Senior credit facility. At September 30, 2014, the Company’s senior credit facility consisted of a $1.2 billion revolving credit facility, a $1.03 billion term loan A facility and a $1.72 billion term loan B facility. The revolving and term loan A facilities bear interest at LIBOR plus an applicable rate determined by the Company’s credit rating (2.75% as of September 30, 2014). The term loan B facility bears interest at LIBOR plus 2.50%, with a LIBOR floor of 1.00%. The revolving and term loan A facilities mature in December 2017 and the term loan B facility matures in December 2019. The term loan A and term loan B facilities are subject to scheduled amortization payments on the last day of each calendar quarter in an amount equal to 0.25% of the original principal balance. The Company permanently repaid $7 million and $21 million in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, respectively, in accordance with the scheduled amortization. The Company had $1.2 billion of available borrowing capacity under its senior credit facility at September 30, 2014. At September 30, 2014, the interest rate on the term loan A was 2.9%, the interest rate on the term loan B was 3.5%.

 

The land and substantially all of the assets of MGM Grand Las Vegas, Bellagio and The Mirage secure up to $3.35 billion of obligations outstanding under the senior credit facility. In addition, the land and substantially all of the assets of New York-New York and Gold Strike Tunica secure the entire amount of the senior credit facility and the land and substantially all of the assets of MGM Grand Detroit secure its $450 million of obligations as a co-borrower under the senior credit facility. In addition, the senior credit facility is secured by a pledge of the equity or limited liability company interests of the subsidiaries that own the pledged properties.

 

The senior credit facility contains customary representations and warranties and customary affirmative and negative covenants. In addition, the senior credit facility requires the Company and its restricted subsidiaries to maintain a minimum trailing four-quarter EBITDA and limits the ability of the Company and its restricted subsidiaries to make capital expenditures and investments. As of September 30, 2014, the Company and its restricted subsidiaries are required to maintain a minimum EBITDA (as defined in the senior credit facility) of $1.20 billion. The minimum EBITDA requirement is $1.20 billion through December 31, 2014 and increases to $1.25 billion for March 31, 2015 and June 30, 2015 and to $1.30 billion for September 30, 2015, with periodic increases thereafter. EBITDA for the trailing four quarters ended September 30, 2014, calculated in accordance with the terms of the senior credit facility, was $1.36 billion. The senior credit facility limits the Company and its restricted subsidiaries to capital expenditures of $500 million

10

---

 

per fiscal year, with unused amounts in any fiscal year rolling over to the next fiscal year, but not any fiscal year thereafter. The Company’s total capital expenditures allowable under the senior credit facility for fiscal year 2014, after giving effect to unused amounts from 2013, was $681 million. In addition, the senior credit facility limits the Company’s ability to make investments subject to certain thresholds and other important exceptions. As of September 30, 2014, the Company and its restricted subsidiaries were within the limit of capital expenditures and other investments for the calendar year 2014.

 

The senior credit facility provides for customary events of default, including, without limitation, (i) payment defaults, (ii) covenant defaults, (iii) cross-defaults to certain other indebtedness in excess of specified amounts, (iv) certain events of bankruptcy and insolvency, (v) judgment defaults in excess of specified amounts, (vi) the failure of any loan document by a significant party to be in full force and effect and such circumstance, in the reasonable judgment of the required lenders, is materially adverse to the lenders, or (vii) the security documents cease to create a valid and perfected first priority lien on any material portion of the collateral. In addition, the senior credit facility provides that a cessation of business due to revocation, suspension or loss of any gaming license affecting a specified amount of its revenues or assets, will constitute an event of default.

 

MGM China credit facility. At September 30, 2014, the MGM China credit facility consisted of approximately $550 million of term loans and an approximately $1.45 billion revolving credit facility due October 2017. The credit facility is subject to scheduled amortization payments beginning in 2016. The outstanding balance at September 30, 2014 was comprised solely of term loans. The interest rate on the facility fluctuates annually based on HIBOR plus a margin, which ranges between 1.75% and 2.50%, based on MGM China’s leverage ratio. The margin was 1.75% at September 30, 2014. MGM China is a joint and several co-borrower with MGM Grand Paradise. The MGM China credit facility is secured by MGM Grand Paradise’s interest in the Cotai land use right, and MGM China, MGM Grand Paradise and their guarantor subsidiaries have granted a security interest in substantially all of their assets to secure the facility. The material subsidiaries of MGM China guarantee the facility. The credit facility will be used for general corporate purposes and for the development of MGM Cotai.

 

The MGM China credit facility agreement contains customary representations and warranties, events of default, affirmative covenants and negative covenants, which impose restrictions on, among other things, the ability of MGM China and its subsidiaries to make investments, pay dividends and sell assets, and to incur additional debt and additional liens. MGM China is also required to maintain compliance with a maximum consolidated total leverage ratio of 4.50 to 1.00 prior to the first anniversary of the MGM Cotai opening date and 4.00 to 1.00 thereafter, in addition to a minimum interest coverage ratio of 2.50 to 1.00. MGM China was in compliance with its credit facility covenants at September 30, 2014.

 

Senior notes. The Company repaid its $509 million 5.875% senior notes in February 2014 at maturity.

 

Senior convertible notes. In April 2010, the Company issued $1.15 billion of 4.25% convertible senior notes due 2015 for net proceeds to the Company of $1.12 billion. The notes are general unsecured obligations of the Company and rank equally in right of payment with the Company’s other existing senior unsecured indebtedness. The notes are convertible at an initial conversion rate of approximately 53.83 shares of the Company’s common stock per $1,000 principal amount of the notes, representing an initial conversion price of approximately $18.58 per share of the Company’s common stock. In connection with the offering, the Company entered into capped call transactions to reduce the potential dilution of the Company’s stock upon conversion of the notes. The capped call transactions have a cap price equal to approximately $21.86 per share.

 

In June 2011, the Company sold an additional $300 million in aggregate principal amount of 4.25% convertible senior notes due 2015 (the “Notes”) on terms that were consistent with those governing the Company’s existing convertible senior notes due 2015 for a purchase price of 103.805% of the principal amount. The Company received approximately $311 million in proceeds related to this transaction. The Notes were recorded at fair value determined by the trading price (105.872%) of the Company’s existing convertible notes on the date of issuance of the Notes, with the excess over the principal amount recorded as a premium to be recognized over the term of the Notes.

 

Fair value of long-term debt. The estimated fair value of the Company’s long-term debt at September 30, 2014 was $13.9 billion. At December 31, 2013, the estimated fair value of the Company’s long-term debt was $14.9 billion. Fair value was estimated using quoted market prices for the Company’s senior notes and senior credit facility. Carrying value of the MGM Grand Paradise credit facility approximates fair value.

 

NOTE 6 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

 

CityCenter construction litigation. In March 2010, Perini Building Company, Inc. (“Perini”), general contractor for CityCenter, filed a lawsuit in the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, State of Nevada, against MGM MIRAGE Design Group (a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company which was the original party to the Perini construction agreement) and certain direct or indirect subsidiaries of CityCenter Holdings, LLC (the “CityCenter Owners”). Perini asserted that CityCenter was substantially completed, but the defendants failed to pay Perini approximately $490 million allegedly due and owing under the

11

---

 

construction agreement for labor, equipment and materials expended on CityCenter. The complaint further charged the defendants with failure to provide timely and complete design documents, late delivery to Perini of design changes, mismanagement of the change order process, obstruction of Perini’s ability to complete the Harmon component, and fraudulent inducement of Perini to compromise significant amounts due for its general conditions. The complaint advanced claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel, and fraud and intentional misrepresentation. Perini seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.

 

In April 2010, Perini served an amended complaint in this case which joins as defendants many owners of CityCenter residential condominium units (the “Condo Owner Defendants”), added a count for foreclosure of Perini’s recorded master mechanic’s lien against the CityCenter property in the amount of approximately $491 million, and asserted the priority of this mechanic’s lien over the interests of the CityCenter Owners, the Condo Owner Defendants and CityCenter lenders in the CityCenter property.

 

The CityCenter Owners and the other defendants dispute Perini’s allegations and contend that the defendants are entitled to substantial amounts from Perini, including offsets against amounts claimed to be owed to Perini and its subcontractors and damages based on breach of their contractual and other duties to CityCenter, duplicative payment requests, non-conforming work, lack of proof of alleged work performance, defective work related to the Harmon, property damage and Perini’s failure to perform its obligations to pay certain subcontractors and to prevent filing of liens against CityCenter. Parallel to the court litigation, CityCenter management conducted an extra-judicial program for settlement of CityCenter subcontractor claims. CityCenter has resolved the claims of 219 first-tier Perini subcontractors (including the claims of any lower-tier subcontractors that might have claims through those first-tier subcontractors), with only three remaining for further proceedings along with trial of Perini’s claims and CityCenter’s Harmon-related counterclaim and other claims by CityCenter against Perini and its parent guarantor, Tutor Perini. Two of the remaining subcontractors are implicated in the defective work at the Harmon. In August 2013, Perini recorded an amended notice of lien reducing its lien to approximately $167 million.

 

In November 2012, Perini filed a second amended complaint which, among other things, added claims against the CityCenter defendants of breach of contract (alleging that CityCenter’s Owner Controlled Insurance Program (“OCIP”) failed to provide adequate project insurance for Perini with broad coverages and high limits), and tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (alleging improper administration by CityCenter of the OCIP and Builders Risk insurance programs).

 

In 2013, CityCenter reached a settlement agreement with certain professional service providers against whom it had asserted claims in this litigation for errors or omissions with respect to the CityCenter project, which settlement has been approved by the court. In April 2014, CityCenter settled for $55 million, net of deductible, its 2008 builder’s risk insurance claim for loss and damage with respect to the Harmon’s defective condition.

 

Further, CityCenter and Perini have entered a settlement agreement which resolves most but not all of the components of Perini’s non-Harmon-related lien claim against CityCenter. The settlement established a stipulated value for Perini’s mechanic’s lien, which amount will not be paid until resolution of CityCenter’s damages claim for the Harmon and will be offset against any judgment CityCenter obtains against Perini for damages relating to construction of the Harmon. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, on February 24, 2014, Perini filed a revised lien for $174 million as the amount claimed by Perini and the remaining Harmon-related subcontractors. Discovery has been completed. Trial of the remainder of Perini’s lien claim, the remaining subcontractors’ claims against CityCenter, and CityCenter’s counterclaims against Perini and certain subcontractors for defective work at the Harmon commenced October 28, 2014.

 

The CityCenter Owners and the other defendants will continue to vigorously assert and protect their interests in the Perini lawsuit. The Company believes it is probable that the CityCenter Owners and the other defendants will be liable for $172 million in connection with the non-Harmon settlement agreement and remaining claims in this lawsuit. Amounts determined to be owed would be funded in part under the Company’s completion guarantee which is discussed below. The Company does not believe it is reasonably possible it will be liable for any material amount in excess of its estimate of its probable liability. The Company’s estimate of its probable liability does not include any offset for amounts that may be recovered on its counterclaims against Perini and certain subcontractors for defective work at the Harmon.

 

Please see below for further discussion on the Company’s completion guarantee obligation which may be impacted by the outcome of the above litigation and CityCenter’s extra-judicial settlement process.

 

CityCenter completion guarantee. In October 2013, the Company entered into a third amended and restated completion and cost overrun guarantee, which is collateralized by substantially all of the assets of Circus Circus Las Vegas, as well as certain land adjacent to that property. The terms of the amended and restated completion guarantee provide CityCenter the ability to utilize up to $72 million of net residential proceeds to fund construction costs, or to reimburse the Company for construction costs previously expended. As of September 30, 2014, CityCenter is holding approximately $72 million in a separate bank account representing the

12

---

 

remaining condo proceeds available to fund completion guarantee obligations or be reimbursed to the Company. In accordance with the amended and restated completion guarantee such amounts may only be used to fund construction lien obligations or to reimburse the Company once the Perini litigation is settled.

 

As of September 30, 2014, the Company has funded $734 million under the completion guarantee and has accrued a liability of $152 million, which includes estimated litigation costs related to the resolution of disputes with contractors concerning the final construction costs and estimated amounts to be paid to contractors in connection with the Perini litigation. The Company’s estimated obligation has been offset by the $72 million of condominium proceeds received and held in escrow by CityCenter, which are available to fund construction lien claims upon final resolution of the Perini litigation. Also, the Company’s accrual reflects certain estimated offsets to the amounts claimed by the contractors. The Company does not believe it is reasonably possible it could be liable for amounts in excess of what it has accrued related to the Perini Litigation claims. However, an insurer participating in the OCIP for the CityCenter construction project has initiated an arbitration against the Company in an attempt to recover certain costs it has allegedly incurred in connection with CityCenter’s claims against Perini and certain subcontractors for defective work at the Harmon. The Company disputes that such amounts are owed to the insurance company, but believes it is reasonably possible it may ultimately be found liable for some portion of the claim. There are significant factual and legal issues to be determined and resolved, including the amount of any damages to the insurer. Although the insurer recently asserted it is owed approximately $43 million to date pursuant to the disputed policy provisions, subject to certain contingencies that could reduce that amount, the parties have not made discovery exchanges, and the amount of damages to be sought by the insurer is indeterminate. Because of these factors, the Company does not currently have sufficient information to determine a range of reasonably possible liability. On October 21, 2014, the arbitration panel granted the insurer’s application under the policy contract for additional collateral pending the arbitration outcome, and issued an order that the Company post additional interim collateral of approximately $55 million no later than December 1, 2014, bringing the total collateral to approximately $88 million. The panel expressly reserved any ruling on the merits of the parties’ respective positions, and recognized that the Company may recover the costs of posting collateral if it ultimately prevails in the arbitration.

 

Harmon demolition. In response to a request by the Clark County Building Division (the “Building Division”), CityCenter engaged an engineer to conduct an analysis, based on all available information, as to the structural stability of the Harmon under building-code-specified load combinations. On July 11, 2011, that engineer submitted the results of his analysis of the Harmon tower and podium in its current as-built condition. The engineer opined, among other things, that “[i]n a code-level earthquake, using either the permitted or current code specified loads, it is likely that critical structural members in the tower will fail and become incapable of supporting gravity loads, leading to a partial or complete collapse of the tower. There is missing or misplaced reinforcing steel in columns, beams, shear walls, and transfer walls throughout the structure of the tower below the twenty-first floor.” Based on this engineering opinion, the Building Division requested a plan of action from CityCenter. CityCenter informed the Building Division that it decided to abate the potential for structural collapse of the Harmon in the event of a code-level earthquake by demolishing the building, and enclosed a plan of action for demolition by implosion prepared by LVI Environmental Services of Nevada, Inc (“LVI”). CityCenter also advised that prior to undertaking the demolition plan of action, it would seek relief from a standing order of the district court judge presiding over the Perini litigation that prohibits alteration or destruction of the building without court approval. In addition, CityCenter supplied the foundational data for the engineering conclusions stated in the July 11, 2011 letter declaring the Harmon’s structural instability in the event of a code-level earthquake. On November 22, 2011, the Building Division required that CityCenter submit a plan to abate the code deficiencies discovered in the Harmon tower.

 

In December 2011, CityCenter resubmitted to the Building Division the plan of abatement action prepared by LVI which was first submitted on August 15, 2011, and met with the Building Division about the requirements necessary to obtain demolition permits and approvals. As discussed above, the timing of the demolition of the Harmon was subject to rulings in the Perini litigation.

 

The district court presiding over the Perini litigation had previously granted CityCenter’s motion to demolish the Harmon, but stayed the demolition to allow CityCenter an opportunity to conduct additional Phase 4 destructive testing at the Harmon following the court’s order prohibiting CityCenter’s structural engineering expert from extrapolating the results of pre-Phase 4 testing to untested portions of the building.

 

In May 2013, CityCenter completed additional Phase 4 destructive testing of 468 structural elements at the Harmon, analysis of which data confirmed the existence of a wide variety of construction defects throughout the Harmon tower. In his June 2013 expert report CityCenter’s structural engineer opined that the additional test results and extrapolation thereof to untested portions of the building show that after a service-level earthquake (typically defined as an earthquake with a 50% chance of occurring in 30 years), the Harmon can be expected to sustain extensive damage and failure of many structural elements, and in a large earthquake, such as a building code-level earthquake, critical elements of the Harmon are likely to fail and lead to a partial or complete collapse of the tower. In April 2013, Perini’s structural engineering expert John A. Martin & Associates (“JAMA”) had sent a letter to the Building Division which declared in part that JAMA no longer believes that the Harmon Tower can be repaired to a code compliant structure, which condition JAMA attributed to CityCenter’s building testing. On July 18, 2013 CityCenter filed a renewed motion with the district court for permission to demolish the Harmon. On August 23, 2013, the court granted CityCenter’s motion, and CityCenter commenced planning for demolition of the building. On January 31, 2014, the court revoked its prior authorization of demolition of

13

---

 

the Harmon, without prejudice to renewal of the application, on the grounds that CityCenter’s non-party builder’s risk insurer requested further testing in the building. That request for further testing was withdrawn pursuant to the insurer’s settlement of CityCenter’s Harmon 2008 policy claim. On April 22, 2014 the court granted CityCenter’s renewed application for permission to demolish the Harmon. The Clark County Building Department issued the necessary permits required for demolition of this building. CityCenter is in the process of a controlled deconstruction of the Harmon structure in accordance with the standards set by its expert consultants and the Clark County Building Department.

 

The Company does not believe it would be responsible for funding any additional amounts under the completion guarantee that might be required with respect to the Harmon; however, the Company’s view is based on a number of developing factors, including with respect to on-going litigation with CityCenter’s contractors and other developments related to the CityCenter venture, all of which are subject to change.

 

Cotai land concession contract. MGM Grand Paradise’s land concession contract for an approximate 17.8 acre site in Cotai, Macau became effective on January 9, 2013 and has an initial term of 25 years. The total land premium payable to the Macau government for the land concession contract is $161 million and is composed of a down payment and eight additional semi-annual payments. As of September 30, 2014, MGM China had paid $100 million of the contract premium, including interest due on the semi-annual payments, and the amount paid is recorded within “Other long-term assets, net”. Including interest on the five remaining semi-annual payments, MGM China has $73 million remaining payable for the land concession contract. Under the terms of the land concession contract, MGM Grand Paradise is required to complete the development of the land by January 2018.

 

Las Vegas Arena. In conjunction with the LVAC’s senior secured credit facility, the Company and AEG each entered joint and several unlimited completion guarantees for the project, as well as a repayment guarantee for the term loan B. Additionally, in conjunction with the senior secured credit facility, the Company and AEG have pledged to contribute a total of $175 million for construction, of which $37 million has been contributed as of September 30, 2014.

 

Other guarantees. The Company is party to various guarantee contracts in the normal course of business, which are generally supported by letters of credit issued by financial institutions. The Company’s senior credit facility limits the amount of letters of credit that can be issued to $500 million, and the amount of available borrowings under the senior credit facility is reduced by any outstanding letters of credit. At September 30, 2014, the Company had provided $35 million of letters of credit. The Company expects to post an additional letter of credit of $55 million by December 1, 2014 to comply with an arbitration order for interim collateral related to the CityCenter project OCIP discussed above under “CityCenter completion guarantee.” MGM China’s senior credit facility limits the amount of letters of credit that can be issued to $100 million, and the amount of available borrowings under the senior credit facility is reduced by any outstanding letters of credit. At September 30, 2014, MGM China had provided $39 million of letters of credit under its credit facility.

 

In connection with the development of MGM Springfield as discussed in Note 1, the Company will be required to either deposit 10% of the total investment proposed in the license application into an interest-bearing account, or secure a deposit bond insuring that 10% of the proposed capital investment shall be forfeited to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts if the Company’s subsidiary is unable to complete the gaming establishment.  As a result, the Company expects to obtain a surety bond for approximately $52 million during the fourth quarter of 2014 naming the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as beneficiary.

 

Other litigation. The Company is a party to various legal proceedings, most of which relate to routine matters incidental to its business. Management does not believe that the outcome of such proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

 

14

---

 

NOTE 7 — INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK

 

The weighted-average number of common and common equivalent shares used in the calculation of basic and diluted income (loss) per share consisted of the following:

 

 

The $300 million 4.25% senior convertible notes issued in June 2011 and the $1.15 billion 4.25% senior convertible notes issued in April 2010 were excluded from the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013 calculation of diluted earnings per share as their effect would be antidilutive.

 

NOTE 8 — STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

 

MGM China dividends. MGM China paid a $137 million interim dividend in September 2014, of which $70 million remained within the consolidated entity and $67 million was distributed to noncontrolling interests, a $127 million final dividend in June 2014, of which $65 million remained within the consolidated entity and $62 million was distributed to noncontrolling interests, and a $499 million special dividend in March 2014, of which $254 million remained within the consolidated entity and $245 million was distributed to noncontrolling interests.

 

MGM China paid a $113 million interim dividend in September 2013, of which $58 million remained within the consolidated entity and $55 million was distributed to noncontrolling interests, and a $500 million special dividend in March 2013, of which $255 million remained within the consolidated entity and $245 million was distributed to noncontrolling interests.

 

Supplemental equity information. The following table presents the Company’s changes in stockholders’ equity for the nine months ended September 30, 2014: