Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	7. Commitments and Contingencies Litigation The Company is subject to various legal and administrative proceedings relating to personal injuries, employment matters, commercial transactions and other matters arising in the normal course of business. The Company does not believe that the final outcome of these matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations. In addition, the Company maintains what it believes is adequate insurance coverage to further mitigate the risks of such proceedings. However, such proceedings can be costly, time consuming and unpredictable and, therefore, no assurance can be given that the final outcome of such proceedings may not materially impact the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Further, no assurance can be given that the amount or scope of existing insurance coverage will be sufficient to cover losses arising from such matters. The following proceedings could result in costs, settlements, damages, or rulings that materially impact the Company’s consolidated financial condition or operating results. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses, claims and/or counter-claims with respect to these proceedings, and intends to vigorously defend itself or pursue its claims. Gaming licenses in Iowa are typically issued jointly to a gaming operator and a local charitable organization known as a QSO. The agreement between the Company’s gaming operator subsidiary in Iowa, Belle of Sioux City, L.P. (“Belle”), and its QSO, Missouri River Historical Development, Inc. (“MRHD”), expired in early July 2012. On July 12, 2012, when presented with an extension of the Company’s QSO/operating agreement for the Sioux City facility through March 2015, the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission (“IRGC”) failed to approve the extension and urged a shorter extension. In mid-August 2012, MRHD offered a revised contract to the Company that would require a yearly renewal from the IRGC and stated that MRHD would be able to continue searching for an operator for a new land-based casino. The Company rejected this contract offer and, at the August 23, 2012 IRGC meeting, urged the IRGC to reconsider the original extension agreement through March 2015. The IRGC did not act on this request and concluded that the casino could continue to operate without an effective operating agreement. The IRGC also announced at the July 12, 2012 meeting the schedule for requests for proposals for a new land-based Woodbury County casino. The Company submitted two proposals for a new gaming and entertainment destination in Woodbury County for the IRGC’s consideration. On April 18, 2013, the IRGC awarded the license to another gaming operator. In August 2013, the IRGC formally denied the Company’s application for a renewal of its state license; however, the IRGC affirmed its intention to permit the Company to continue operations at its Sioux City facility until such time as the new casino opens to the public, but not beyond. The Belle has filed four petitions challenging the IRGC’s actions, namely its refusing to consider the Belle’s request to replace MRHD with another non-profit partner and opening up the gaming license to bidding for a land-based casino, its failure to approve the 2015 extension agreement and any extension, its announcing a process would be instituted to deny the Belle’s license and continued operation, and its selection of another gaming operator to replace the Argosy Casino Sioux City. The four separate petitions, filed on July 6, 2012, August 10, 2012, September 21, 2012 and May 17, 2013, are pending in the Iowa District Court in Polk County, Iowa and have now been consolidated into one proceeding to be tried later this year. The Company contends that the IRGC violated the Belle’s constitutional rights, Iowa State law, and its own rules and regulations in the actions the IRGC has taken against the Belle and its license. In August 2013, the IRGC formally took action to deny renewal of the Belle’s gaming license. On September 26, 2013, the Belle requested an administrative proceeding to contest the IRGC’s decision not to renew the Belle’s license. This contested case proceeding was heard by the IRGC in March 2014. The IRGC ruled in April 2014 that the Argosy Casino Sioux City must cease operations by July 1, 2014. On April 23, 2014, the Company filed a motion for the IRGC to reconsider its ruling and is exploring all other available legal options to change this outcome. In a separate proceeding, the Belle has filed suit against MRHD for breach of contract, seeking to enjoin MRHD from disavowing the 2015 extension agreement it signed and seeking to enforce the exclusivity obligations in the agreement. A request for a preliminary injunction was denied on October 29, 2012. A trial date has not been set.

7. Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

The Company is subject to various legal and administrative proceedings relating to personal injuries, employment matters, commercial transactions and other matters arising in the normal course of business. The Company does not believe that the final outcome of these matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations. In addition, the Company maintains what it believes is adequate insurance coverage to further mitigate the risks of such proceedings. However, such proceedings can be costly, time consuming and unpredictable and, therefore, no assurance can be given that the final outcome of such proceedings may not materially impact the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Further, no assurance can be given that the amount or scope of existing insurance coverage will be sufficient to cover losses arising from such matters.

The following proceedings could result in costs, settlements, damages, or rulings that materially impact the Company’s consolidated financial condition or operating results. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses, claims and/or counter-claims with respect to these proceedings, and intends to vigorously defend itself or pursue its claims.

Gaming licenses in Iowa are typically issued jointly to a gaming operator and a local charitable organization known as a QSO. The agreement between the Company’s gaming operator subsidiary in Iowa, Belle of Sioux City, L.P. (“Belle”), and its QSO, Missouri River Historical Development, Inc. (“MRHD”), expired in early July 2012. On July 12, 2012, when presented with an extension of the Company’s QSO/operating agreement for the Sioux City facility through March 2015, the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission (“IRGC”) failed to approve the extension and urged a shorter extension. In mid-August 2012, MRHD offered a revised contract to the Company that would require a yearly renewal from the IRGC and stated that MRHD would be able to continue searching for an operator for a new land-based casino. The Company rejected this contract offer and, at the August 23, 2012 IRGC meeting, urged the IRGC to reconsider the original extension agreement through March 2015. The IRGC did not act on this request and concluded that the casino could continue to operate without an effective operating agreement. The IRGC also announced at the July 12, 2012 meeting the schedule for requests for proposals for a new land-based Woodbury County casino. The Company submitted two proposals for a new gaming and entertainment destination in Woodbury County for the IRGC’s consideration. On April 18, 2013, the IRGC awarded the license to another gaming operator. In August 2013, the IRGC formally denied the Company’s application for a renewal of its state license; however, the IRGC affirmed its intention to permit the Company to continue operations at its Sioux City facility until such time as the new casino opens to the public, but not beyond. The Belle has filed four petitions challenging the IRGC’s actions, namely its refusing to consider the Belle’s request to replace MRHD with another non-profit partner and opening up the gaming license to bidding for a land-based casino, its failure to approve the 2015 extension agreement and any extension, its announcing a process would be instituted to deny the Belle’s license and continued operation, and its selection of another gaming operator to replace the Argosy Casino Sioux City. The four separate petitions, filed on July 6, 2012, August 10, 2012, September 21, 2012 and May 17, 2013, are pending in the Iowa District Court in Polk County, Iowa and have now been consolidated into one proceeding to be tried later this year. The Company contends that the IRGC violated the Belle’s constitutional rights, Iowa State law, and its own rules and regulations in the actions the IRGC has taken against the Belle and its license.

In August 2013, the IRGC formally took action to deny renewal of the Belle’s gaming license. On September 26, 2013, the Belle requested an administrative proceeding to contest the IRGC’s decision not to renew the Belle’s license. This contested case proceeding was heard by the IRGC in March 2014. The IRGC ruled in April 2014 that the Argosy Casino Sioux City must cease operations by July 1, 2014. On April 23, 2014, the Company filed a motion for the IRGC to reconsider its ruling and is exploring all other available legal options to change this outcome.

In a separate proceeding, the Belle has filed suit against MRHD for breach of contract, seeking to enjoin MRHD from disavowing the 2015 extension agreement it signed and seeking to enforce the exclusivity obligations in the agreement. A request for a preliminary injunction was denied on October 29, 2012. A trial date has not been set.