Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	8. 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. After the February 28, 2014 Massachusetts Gaming Commission (“Commission”) slots parlor license award to the Company’s subsidiary Springfield Gaming and Redevelopment LLC (“SGR”), individuals and entities associated with Raynham Park, LLC, an unsuccessful bidder for the same license who did not receive any votes in the application process, filed a writ of certiorari and mandamus action on May 9, 2014 in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County seeking to annul or revoke the license award and named the Commission and SGR as defendants. The plaintiffs allege that the Commission’s decision was arbitrary and capricious because it awarded the license to an applicant whose license application failed to disclose pertinent information. Plaintiffs also contend that the seller of Plainridge Park property retains an improper interest in the operation. SGR contends that all required information was submitted to and carefully considered by the Commission including the specific items that are discussed in the plaintiffs’ action. SGR also contends that the seller of the Plainridge Park property will have no involvement in the operation. The Company has moved to dismiss the action, and the motion is currently pending. 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”) refused to approve the extension. The IRGC nevertheless concluded that the casino could continue to operate without an effective operating agreement. The IRGC also announced a schedule for requests for proposals for a new land-based Woodbury County casino. Under protest, 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 numerous petitions challenging the IRGC’s actions in the Iowa District Court in Polk County, Iowa. 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. On March 5-6, 2014, the IRGC held a contested case hearing to determine whether Belle could retain its gaming license. On April 17, 2014, the IRGC ruled that Argosy Casino Sioux City must cease operations by July 1, 2014. In response, the Company filed a petition for judicial review to vacate or reverse the IRGC’s April 17, 2014 order. This petition was dismissed by the court; however, on July 18, 2014, the Iowa Supreme Court granted a motion for an emergency stay until the Iowa Supreme Court considers whether to hear the appeal of the court’s decision to dismiss the petition. On July 25, 2014, the Iowa Supreme Court denied the request to hear the appeal. Therefore, on July 30, 2014, Argosy Casino Sioux City ceased its operations.

8. 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.

After the February 28, 2014 Massachusetts Gaming Commission (“Commission”) slots parlor license award to the Company’s subsidiary Springfield Gaming and Redevelopment LLC (“SGR”), individuals and entities associated with Raynham Park, LLC, an unsuccessful bidder for the same license who did not receive any votes in the application process, filed a writ of certiorari and mandamus action on May 9, 2014 in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County seeking to annul or revoke the license award and named the Commission and SGR as defendants. The plaintiffs allege that the Commission’s decision was arbitrary and capricious because it awarded the license to an applicant whose license application failed to disclose pertinent information. Plaintiffs also contend that the seller of Plainridge Park property retains an improper interest in the operation. SGR contends that all required information was submitted to and carefully considered by the Commission including the specific items that are discussed in the plaintiffs’ action. SGR also contends that the seller of the Plainridge Park property will have no involvement in the operation. The Company has moved to dismiss the action, and the motion is currently pending.

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”) refused to approve the extension. The IRGC nevertheless concluded that the casino could continue to operate without an effective operating agreement. The IRGC also announced a schedule for requests for proposals for a new land-based Woodbury County casino. Under protest, 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 numerous petitions challenging the IRGC’s actions in the Iowa District Court in Polk County, Iowa. 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.

On March 5-6, 2014, the IRGC held a contested case hearing to determine whether Belle could retain its gaming license. On April 17, 2014, the IRGC ruled that Argosy Casino Sioux City must cease operations by July 1, 2014. In response, the Company filed a petition for judicial review to vacate or reverse the IRGC’s April 17, 2014 order. This petition was dismissed by the court; however, on July 18, 2014, the Iowa Supreme Court granted a motion for an emergency stay until the Iowa Supreme Court considers whether to hear the appeal of the court’s decision to dismiss the petition. On July 25, 2014, the Iowa Supreme Court denied the request to hear the appeal. Therefore, on July 30, 2014, Argosy Casino Sioux City ceased its operations.