XML 54 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.3.0.814

Commitments And Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments And Contingencies | NOTE 11 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings The Company records an accrual for legal contingencies to the extent that it concludes that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Except as disclosed below, no estimate of the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued, if any, can be made at this time regarding the matters specifically described below. We do not believe that the final outcome of these matters will have a material adverse impact, individually or in the aggregate, on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Big Fish Casino On April 17, 2015, Cheryl Kater, by and through counsel, filed a Complaint - Class Action styled Cheryl Kater v. Churchill Downs Incorporated. Plaintiff, Cheryl Kater, filed the purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, for the Western District of Washington, in Seattle, alleging, among other claims, that the Company’s “Big Fish Casino” violates Washington law, including the Washington Consumer Protection Act, by facilitating unlawful gambling through its virtual casino games (namely the Company’s slots, blackjack, poker, and roulette games offered through Big Fish Casino). On June 30, 2015, the Company filed its Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. On July 15, 2015, Plaintiff and the Company, (collectively, the "Parties"), filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order to Extend the Briefing Schedule for Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. On July 16, 2015, the U.S. District Court accepted the Parties Stipulation and issued an Order extending Plaintiffs' deadline to file opposition to the Company's Motion to Dismiss to August 7, 2015, and moving the Company's deadline to file its reply to Plaintiff's opposition to August 28, 2015. On August 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed her response to the Company’s Motion to Dismiss. In turn, the Company filed its reply brief in support of its Motion to Dismiss on September 18, 2015. The Company awaits the U.S. District Court’s ruling on its Motion to Dismiss. Louisiana Horsemens' Purses On April 21, 2014, John L. Soileau and other individuals filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Permanent Injunction, and Damages - Class Action styled John L. Soileau, et. al. versus Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, LLC, Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC (Suit No. 14-3873) in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana ("District Court"). The petition defines the “alleged plaintiff class” as quarter-horse owners, trainers and jockeys that have won purses at the “Fair Grounds Race Course & Slots” facility in New Orleans, Louisiana since the first effective date of La. R.S. 27:438 and specifically since 2008. The petition alleges that Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, L.L.C. and Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company, L.L.C. (“Fair Grounds”) have collected certain monies through video draw poker devices that constitute monies earned for purse supplements and all of those supplemental purse monies have been paid to thoroughbred horsemen during Fair Grounds’ live thoroughbred horse meets while La. R.S. 27:438 requires a portion of those supplemental purse monies to be paid to quarter-horse horsemen during Fair Grounds’ live quarter-horse meets. The petition requests that the Court declare that Fair Grounds violated La. R.S. 27:438, issue a permanent and mandatory injunction ordering Fair Grounds to pay all future supplements due to the plaintiff class pursuant to La. R.S. 27:438, and to pay the plaintiff class such sums as it finds to reasonably represent the value of the sums due to the plaintiff class. On August 14, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amendment to their petition naming the Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association 1993, Inc. (“HBPA”) as an additional defendant and alleging that HBPA is also liable to plaintiffs for the disputed purse funds. On October 9, 2014, HBPA and Fair Grounds filed exceptions to the suit, including an exception of primary jurisdiction seeking a referral to the Louisiana Racing Commission. By Judgment dated November 21, 2014, the District Court granted the exception of primary jurisdiction and referred the matter to the Louisiana Racing Commission. On January 26, 2015, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs’ request for supervisory review of the Judgment. The Louisiana Racing Commission requested and received memoranda from the parties in the case on the issue of whether plaintiffs have standing to pursue the claims against Fair Grounds. On August 24, 2015, the Louisiana Racing Commission ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing or a right of action to pursue the case. On September 18, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Petition for Appeal of Administrative Order Dismissing Case for No Right of Action in the District Court seeking a reversal of the Louisiana Racing Commission’s ruling. The plaintiffs’ appeal is pending. Illinois Department of Revenue In October 2012, the Company filed a verified complaint for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and for declaratory judgment (the “Complaint”) against the Illinois Department of Revenue (the “Department”). The Company's complaint was filed in response to Notices of Deficiency issued by the Department on March 18, 2010, and September 6, 2012. In response to said Notices of Deficiency, the Company, on October 4, 2012, issued a payment in protest in the amount of $2.9 million (the “Protest Payment”) under the State Officers and Employees Money Disposition Act and recorded this amount in other assets. The Company subsequently filed its complaint in November 2012 alleging that the Department erroneously included handle, instead of the Company's commissions from handle, in the computation of the Company's sales factor (a computation of the Company's gross receipts from wagering within the State of Illinois) for determining the applicable tax owed. On October 30, 2012, the Company's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief was granted, which prevents the Department from depositing any monies from the Protest Payment into the State of Illinois General Fund and from taking any further action against the Company until the Circuit Court takes final action on the Company's Complaint. On December 3, 2014, the Company filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on all material aspects of its case. Also on December 3, 2014, the Department, by and through its counsel, the Illinois Attorney General, filed its Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Oral arguments on the parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment occurred on March 5, 2015. On May 14, 2015, the Tax and Miscellaneous Remedies Section of the Circuit Court of Cook County issued an Opinion and Order, granting in part, the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of the Department’s erroneous inclusion of handle in the sales factor used to determine applicable tax owed to the State of Illinois. In rendering its Opinion and Order, the Court found that the Company is entitled to a full refund of the Protest Payment. The State of Illinois did not appeal the Order of the Court, and the Company received a refund of the $2.9 million Protest Payment on July 16, 2015. Kentucky Downs On September 5, 2012, Kentucky Downs Management, Inc. (“KDMI”) filed a petition for declaration of rights in Kentucky Circuit Court located in Simpson County, Kentucky styled Kentucky Downs Management Inc. v. Churchill Downs Incorporated (Civil Action No. 12-CI-330) (the “Simpson County Case”) requesting a declaration that the Company does not have the right to exercise its put right and require Kentucky Downs, LLC (“Kentucky Downs”) and/or Kentucky Downs Partners, LLC (“KDP”) to purchase the Company’s ownership interest in Kentucky Downs. On September 18, 2012, the Company filed a complaint in Kentucky Circuit Court located in Jefferson County, Kentucky, styled Churchill Downs Incorporated v. Kentucky Downs, LLC; Kentucky Downs Partners, LLC; and Kentucky Downs Management Inc. (Civil Action No. 12-CI-04989) (the “Jefferson County Case”) claiming that Kentucky Downs and KDP had breached the operating agreement for Kentucky Downs and requesting a declaration that the Company had validly exercised its put right and a judgment compelling Kentucky Downs and/or KDP to purchase the Company’s ownership interest in Kentucky Downs pursuant to the terms of the applicable operating agreement. On October 9, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Simpson County Case and Kentucky Downs, KDP and KDMI filed a motion to dismiss the Jefferson County Case. A hearing for the motion to dismiss in the Simpson County Case occurred November 30, 2012. At that hearing the Company’s motion to dismiss the Simpson County Case was denied. Subsequently, Kentucky Downs, KDMI and KDP’s motion to dismiss the Jefferson County Case was granted on January 23, 2013, due to the Simpson County Circuit Court’s assertion of jurisdiction over the dispute. On May 16, 2013, Kentucky Downs, KDP and KDMI filed a Motion for Summary Judgment against the Company and Turfway Park, LLC. On September 19, 2013, the Company filed its response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. A hearing occurred before the Simpson County Circuit Court on September 23, 2013, on the Kentucky Downs, KDP and KDMI Motion for Summary Judgment. All parties appeared before the Simpson County Court and oral arguments were heard. On October 31, 2013, the Simpson County Court entered an Order Denying Petitioners’ (Kentucky Downs Management Inc. et al.) Motion for Summary Judgment. On September 17, 2015, Kentucky Downs, LLC, et. al. filed Petitioners’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Court II of the Amended Petition previously filed. The Company has until November 23, 2015 to file its response to the Petitioners' Motion for Summary Judgment. There are no other material pending legal proceedings.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51674963&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration