COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	Sep. 30, 2014
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 10—COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES *Litigation* We are a party to various lawsuits, which have arisen in the normal course of our business. Estimated losses are accrued for these lawsuits and claims when the loss is probable and can be estimated. The current liability for the estimated losses associated with those lawsuits is not material to our consolidated financial condition and those estimated losses are not expected to have a material impact on our results of operations. In connection with the Mergers, three putative class action lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of the Company challenging the Mergers. All three cases were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. By order of the Court of Chancery, the cases were consolidated for all purposes and a consolidated amended complaint was filed. This consolidated case, which purported to be brought as a class action on behalf of all of the Company's stockholders, excluding the members of the board of directors, alleged, among other things, that the consideration to be received by MTR stockholders will receive in connection with the Mergers is inadequate and that the Company's directors and current President breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders in negotiating and approving the Merger Agreement. On August 25, September 17, and October 9, 2014 Plaintiffs separately moved to voluntarily dismiss their claims. On October 21, 2011, a complaint was filed challenging certain aspects of the casino referendum and the Ohio Governor's and legislature's approval of legislation authorizing VLTs at Ohio's seven horse racetracks. Scioto Downs, in order to protect its right to VLT gaming, filed a motion to intervene on February 2, 2012. Dispositive motions were filed by the Ohio Attorney General, Scioto Downs, Inc. and others on February 20, 2012, and, on May 30, 2012, the litigation was dismissed. On March 13, 2013, the appeals court affirmed the lower court decision. On April 26, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. On July 24, 2013, the Ohio Supreme Court agreed to hear the matter upon the outcome of another case with comparable legal issues that was before the court. On June 10, 2014, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the appeal of the matter involving the comparable legal issues. In light of the decision on the comparable matter, Scioto Downs and the other parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal of this matter on July 2, 2014, which is still pending before the court. *Environmental Remediation* In October 2004, we acquired 229 acres of real property, known as the International Paper site, as an alternative site to build Presque Isle Downs. In connection with our acquisition of the International Paper site, we entered into a consent order and decree (the "Consent Order") with the PaDEP and International Paper insulating us from liability for certain pre-existing contamination, subject to compliance with the Consent Order, which included a proposed environmental remediation plan for the site, which was tied specifically to the use of the property as a racetrack. The proposed environmental remediation plan in the Consent Order was based upon a "baseline environmental report" and management estimated that such remediation would be subsumed within the cost of developing the property as a racetrack. The racetrack was never developed at this site. In October 2005, we sold approximately 205 acres to GEIDC who assumed primary responsibility for the remediation obligations under the Consent Order relating to the property they acquired. However, we were advised by the PaDEP that we were not released from our liability and responsibility under the Consent Order. We also purchased an Environmental Risk Insurance Policy in the amount of $10.0 million with respect to the property, which expires in October 2015. We believe the insurance coverage is in excess of any exposure that we may have in this matter. *Regulatory Gaming Assessments* The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (the "PGCB"), the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue and the Pennsylvania State Police (collectively "the Borrowers"), were required to fund the costs they incurred in connection with the initial development of the infrastructure to support gaming operations in Pennsylvania as well as the initial ongoing costs of the Borrowers. The initial funding of these costs was provided from a loan from the Pennsylvania General Fund in the amount of approximately $36.1 million, and further funding was provided from additional loans from the Pennsylvania Property Tax Reserve Fund in the aggregate amount of approximately $63.8 million. The Pennsylvania Department of Revenue will assess all licensees, including Presque Isle Downs, their proportionate share of amounts represented by the borrowings, which are in the aggregate amount of $99.9 million, once the designated number of Pennsylvania's slot machine licensees is operational. On July 11, 2011, the PGCB issued an administrative order which established that payments associated with the $63.8 million that was borrowed from the Property Tax Reserve Fund would commence on January 1, 2012. The repayment allocation between all current licensees is based upon equal weighting of (i) cumulative gross slot revenue since inception in relation to the combined cumulative gross slot revenue for all licensees and (ii) single year gross slot revenue (during the state's fiscal year ending June 30) in relation to the combined single year gross slot revenue for all licensees; and amounts paid each year will be adjusted annually based upon changes in the licensee's proportionate share of gross slot revenue. We have estimated that our total proportionate share of the aggregate $63.8 million to be assessed to the gaming facilities will be approximately $4.2 million and will be paid quarterly over a ten-year period, which began effective January 1, 2012. For the $36.1 million that was borrowed from the General Fund, payment is scheduled to begin after all fourteen licensees are operational. Although we cannot determine when payment will begin, we have considered a similar repayment model for the General Fund borrowings and estimated that our total proportionate share of the aggregate $36.1 million to all fourteen gaming facilities will approximate $2.2 million, which has been accrued in our consolidated balance sheet at September 30, 2014. The recorded estimate is subject to revision based upon future changes in the revenue assumptions utilized to develop the estimate. Our estimated total obligation at September 30, 2014 (Successor) and December 31, 2013 (Predecessor) was $5.1 million and $5.2 million, respectively, and is accrued in the respective accompanying consolidated balance sheets. As of and during the nine months ended September 30, 2014, our total estimated liability increased as a result of changes in the forecasted assumptions utilized in the model by $0.2 million and was recognized in gaming operating expenses. The Company paid approximately $0.3 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2014.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.

+ References+ Details

MTR GAMING GROUP INC 10-Q