WebFilings | EDGAR view
Table of Contents 

 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
____________________________________________________________________ 
FORM 10-K
____________________________________________________________________ 
(Mark One)
 
x
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010
OR
o
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Commission file number: 1-12882
____________________________________________________________________
BOYD GAMING CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Nevada
88-0242733
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ninth Floor, Las Vegas NV 89169
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)
(702) 792-7200
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of each class
Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock, par value of $0.01 per share
New York Stock Exchange
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None.
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes  o  No  x
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes  o  No  x
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  o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Website, 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  o  No  o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. o
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.
Large accelerated filer
 
o
Accelerated filer
 
x
Non-accelerated filer
 
o  (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Smaller reporting company
 
o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes  o  No  x
As of June 30, 2010, the aggregate market value of the voting common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based on the

Table of Contents 

closing price on the New York Stock Exchange for such date, was approximately $446.4 million.
Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.
Class
 
Outstanding as of March 7, 2011
Common stock, $0.01 par value
 
86,271,482 shares
____________________________________________________________________
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Portions of the definitive Proxy Statement for the registrant's 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A within 120 days after the registrant's fiscal year end of December 31, 2010 are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K.
 
 
 
 
 

Table of Contents 

BOYD GAMING CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
 
 
Page No.
 
PART I
 
ITEM 1.
 
 
 
ITEM 1A.
 
 
 
ITEM 1B.
 
 
 
ITEM 2.
 
 
 
ITEM 3.
 
 
 
ITEM 4.
 
 
 
ITEM 4A.
 
 
 
 
PART II
 
 
 
 
ITEM 5.
 
 
 
ITEM 6.
 
 
 
ITEM 7.
 
 
 
ITEM 7A.
 
 
 
ITEM 8.
 
 
 
ITEM 9.
 
 
 
ITEM 9A.
 
 
 
ITEM 9B.
 
 
 
 
PART III
 
 
 
 
ITEM 10.
 
 
 
ITEM 11.
 
 
 
ITEM 12.
 
 
 
ITEM 13.
 
 
 
ITEM 14.
 
 
 
 
PART IV
 
 
 
 
ITEM 15.
 
 
 
 

Table of Contents 

PART I
 
ITEM 1.    
Business.
Overview
Boyd Gaming Corporation (the “Company,” the “Registrant,” “Boyd Gaming,” “we” or “us”) is a multi-jurisdictional gaming company that has been operating for approximately 35 years.
We are a diversified operator of 15 wholly-owned gaming entertainment properties and one controlling interest in a limited liability company that operates Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa (“Borgata”) in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Headquartered in Las Vegas, we have gaming operations in Nevada, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Indiana and New Jersey, which we aggregate in order to present four reportable segments: (i) Las Vegas Locals; (ii) Downtown Las Vegas; (iii) Midwest and South; and (iv) Atlantic City.
We also own and operate Dania Jai-Alai, which is a pari-mutuel jai-alai facility with approximately 47 acres of related land located in Dania Beach, Florida, a travel agency in Hawaii, and a captive insurance company, also in Hawaii, that underwrites travel-related insurance.
Additionally, we own 85 acres of land on the Las Vegas Strip, where our multibillion dollar Echelon development project (“Echelon”) is located. On August 1, 2008, due to the difficult environment in the capital markets, as well as weak economic conditions, we announced the delay of Echelon. At such time, however, we did not anticipate the severity or the long-term effects of the current economic downturn, evidenced by lower occupancy rates, declining room rates and reduced consumer spending across the country, but particularly in the Las Vegas geographical area; nor did we predict that the incremental supply becoming available on the Las Vegas Strip would face such depressed demand levels, thereby elongating the time for absorption of this additional supply into the market. As we do not believe that a significant level of economic recovery has occurred along the Las Vegas Strip, we do not expect to resume construction of Echelon for three to five years, as previously disclosed. We also believe financing for a development project like Echelon continues to be unavailable.
Our main business emphasis is on slot revenues, which are highly dependent upon the volume and spending levels of customers at our properties. Gross and net revenues are one of the main performance indicators of our properties. Our properties have historically generated significant operating cash flow, with the majority of our revenue being cash-based. Our industry is capital intensive; we rely heavily on the ability of our properties to generate operating cash flow in order to fund maintenance capital expenditures, repay debt financing and associated interest costs, purchase our debt or equity securities, pay income taxes, fund acquisitions, provide excess cash for future development and pay dividends.
Throughout the current recession, global economic issues affecting both consumer wealth and consumer confidence have resulted in a meaningful decrease in expenditures on gaming and leisure activities. As a result, over the past several years, we have undertaken several programs aimed at reducing our cost structure in an effort to manage our properties' operations with the current revenue trends. In addition, we have established a more efficient business model that we believe will help enable us to realize improved results when normalized business volumes return. Our present objective is to manage our cost and expense structure to address the current deterioration in business volumes and generate strong and stable cash flow.
We continually work to position our Company for greater success by strengthening our existing operations and growing through capital investment and other strategic initiatives. For instance, in January 2009, we opened our 22-story hotel at Blue Chip Casino, Hotel and Spa in Michigan City, Indiana, which includes 300 guest rooms, a spa and fitness center, additional meeting and event space, as well as new dining and nightlife venues. In addition, Borgata's second hotel, The Water Club, opened in June 2008. The Water Club is a 798-room hotel, featuring five swimming pools, a state-of-the-art spa, and additional meeting room space.
We have also established a nationwide branding initiative and loyalty program. Previously, players were able to use their “Club Coast” or “B Connected” cards to earn and redeem points at nearly all of our wholly-owned Boyd Gaming properties in Nevada, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana and Mississippi. In June 2010, we launched an enhanced, multi-property player loyalty program under the “B Connected” brand, which replaced the “Club Coast” program. Customers under the “Club Coast” program were able to keep all earned benefits and club points they had previously earned under the program. The new “B Connected” club, among other benefits, extends the time period over which players may qualify for promotion from player level to level and increases the credits awarded to reel slot and table games players.
In addition to the “B Connected” player loyalty program, we launched the “B Connected Mobile” program in July 2010. “B Connected Mobile,” the first multi-property, loyalty program-based iPhone application of its kind in the gaming industry, is a personalized mobile application that delivers customized offers and information directly to a customer's iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad. The application also further expands the benefits of the “B Connected” program. “B Connected Mobile,” a GPS powered feature, provides real-time personalized information when a customer visits a Boyd property, including: hotel, dining and gaming

1

Table of Contents 

offers, such as “Best Rates Available” on hotel rooms for “B Connected” members, instant access to event information, schedules and special offers at all Boyd Gaming properties using “B Connected,” a search engine that allows customers to find Boyd Gaming casinos that have their favorite machines and that displays the games' locations on a casino floor map, the ability to track “B Connected” point balances in real time, and the ability to make immediate hotel or restaurant reservations.
General Business Developments
Significant developments affecting our business during the past five years are as follows:
•    
On March 24, 2010, as a result of the amendment to our operating agreement with MGM Resorts International (the successor in interest to MGM MIRAGE) ("MGM"), which provided, among other things, for the termination of MGM's participating rights in the operations of Borgata, we effectively obtained control of Borgata. As a result, we have consolidated the financial position and results of operations of Borgata from March 24, 2010 through December 31, 2010. Prior period amounts were not restated or recasted as a result of this change.
•    
Our hotel at Blue Chip Casino, Hotel and Spa opened on January 22, 2009, following completion of an expansion project that added a 22-story hotel, which includes 300 guest rooms, a spa and fitness center, additional meeting and event space, as well as new dining and nightlife venues to the existing property structures.
•    
In 2008, we established our nationwide branding initiative and loyalty program. Players are able to use their “B Connected” (or, formerly, "Club Coast") cards to earn and redeem points at nearly all of our wholly-owned Boyd Gaming properties in Nevada, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana and Mississippi.
•    
The Water Club, a 798-room boutique hotel expansion project at Borgata, opened in June 2008. The expansion includes five swimming pools, a state-of-the-art spa, additional meeting and retail space, and a separate porte-cochere and front desk.
•    
We began construction on Echelon, our multibillion dollar Las Vegas Strip development project, in the second quarter of 2007. Echelon is located on the former Stardust site, which we closed in November 2006 and demolished in March 2007. On August 1, 2008, due to the difficult environment in the capital markets, as well as weak economic conditions, we announced the delay of our Echelon development project. We remain committed to having a meaningful presence on the Las Vegas Strip, but do not anticipate resuming construction for three to five years. During the period of delay, we intend to consider alternative development options for Echelon, which may include developing the project in phases, alternative capital structures for the project, scope modifications to the project, or additional strategic partnerships, among others. We can provide no assurances as to when, or if, construction will resume on the project, or if we will be able to obtain alternative sources of financing for the project.
•    
In February 2007, we completed our exchange of the Barbary Coast Hotel and Casino and its related 4.2 acres of land for approximately 24 acres located north of and contiguous to our Echelon development project on the Las Vegas Strip in a nonmonetary, tax-free transaction.
•    
In October 2006, we sold the South Coast Hotel and Casino for total consideration of approximately $513 million, consisting of approximately $401 million in cash and approximately 3.4 million shares of our common stock valued at $112 million.
•    
In January 2006, we expanded our Blue Chip Casino, Hotel and Spa through the construction of a single-level boat that allowed us to expand our casino. In connection with this expansion, we also added a new parking structure and enhanced the land-based pavilion.
Business Strategy
Our properties generally operate in highly competitive environments. We compete against other gaming companies as well as other hospitality and leisure companies. We believe that the following factors have contributed to our success in the past and are central to our future success:
•    
we emphasize slot revenues, the most consistently profitable segment of the gaming industry;
•    
we have comprehensive marketing and promotion programs;
•    
six of our Las Vegas properties are well-positioned to capitalize on the Las Vegas locals market;
•    
our downtown Las Vegas properties focus their marketing programs on, and derive a majority of their revenues

2

Table of Contents 

from, a unique niche - Hawaiian customers;
•    
our operations are geographically diversified within the United States;
•    
we have the ability to expand certain existing properties and make opportunistic and strategic acquisitions; and
•    
we have an experienced management team.
Properties
As of December 31, 2010, we owned an aggregate of approximately 812,500 square feet of casino space, containing approximately 21,062 slot machines, 416 table games and 7,549 hotel rooms. We derive the majority of our gross revenues from our gaming operations, which produced approximately 73%, 75% and 74% of gross revenues for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. Food and beverage gross revenues, which produced approximately 14%, 13% and 13% of gross revenues for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively, represent the only other revenue source which produced more than 10% of gross revenues during these periods.
The following table sets forth certain information regarding our properties (listed by the segment in which each such property is reported), as of and for the year ended December 31, 2010.
 
Year Opened or Acquired
 
Casino Space (Sq. ft.)
 
Slot Machines
 
Table Games
 
Hotel Rooms
 
Hotel Occupancy
 
Average Daily Rate
Las Vegas Locals
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Gold Coast Hotel and Casino
2004
 
85,500
 
 
1,970
 
 
49
 
 
711
 
 
85
%
 
$
47
 
The Orleans Hotel and Casino
2004
 
133,800
 
 
2,713
 
 
60
 
 
1,885
 
 
91
%
 
$
48
 
Sam's Town Hotel and Gambling Hall
1979
 
126,700
 
 
2,296
 
 
29
 
 
646
 
 
88
%
 
$
42
 
Suncoast Hotel and Casino
2004
 
95,000
 
 
2,143
 
 
35
 
 
426
 
 
81
%
 
$
63
 
Eldorado Casino
1993
 
24,200
 
 
438
 
 
3
 
 
 
 
%
 
$
 
Jokers Wild Casino
1993
 
28,100
 
 
472
 
 
6
 
 
 
 
%
 
$
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Downtown Las Vegas
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
California Hotel and Casino
1975
 
36,000
 
 
1,064
 
 
28
 
 
781
 
 
85
%
 
$
33
 
Fremont Hotel and Casino
1985
 
30,200
 
 
1,059
 
 
24
 
 
447
 
 
84
%
 
$
36
 
Main Street Casino, Brewery and Hotel
1993
 
27,000
 
 
861
 
 
19
 
 
406
 
 
88
%
 
$
37
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Midwest and South
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mississippi
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sam's Town Hotel and Gambling Hall
1994
 
66,000
 
 
1,293
 
 
34
 
 
842
 
 
76
%
 
$
47
 
Illinois
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Par-A-Dice Hotel Casino
1996
 
26,000
 
 
1,161
 
 
21
 
 
202
 
 
91
%
 
$
64
 
Indiana
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Blue Chip Casino, Hotel & Spa
1999
 
65,000
 
 
1,960
 
 
43
 
 
486
 
 
79
%
 
$
69
 
Louisiana
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Treasure Chest Casino
1997
 
24,000
 
 
968
 
 
36
 
 
 
 
%
 
$
 
Delta Downs Racetrack Casino & Hotel
2001
 
15,000
 
 
1,620
 
 
 
 
203
 
 
91
%
 
$
56
 
Sam's Town Hotel and Casino
2004
 
30,000
 
 
1,044
 
 
29
 
 
514
 
 
90
%
 
$
82
 
Total of wholly-owned properties
 
 
812,500
 
 
21,062
 
 
416
 
 
7,549
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Atlantic City, New Jersey
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa
2003
 
160,287
 
 
3,474
 
 
269
 
 
2,769
 
 
86
%
 
$
131
 
In addition to the properties discussed above, we own and operate a pari-mutuel jai-alai facility in Dania Beach, Florida, one travel agency, and an insurance company that underwrites travel-related insurance. We also own 85 contiguous acres of land on the Las Vegas Strip where the Stardust was formerly located, of which 62 acres has been designated for our multibillion dollar Echelon

3

Table of Contents 

development project.
Las Vegas Locals Segment
Our Las Vegas Locals segment consists of six casinos that serve the resident population of the Las Vegas metropolitan area, which had been one of the fastest growing areas in the United States prior to the economic downturn beginning in 2007. Las Vegas has historically been characterized by a vibrant economy and strong demographics that include a large population of retirees and other active gaming customers; however, although we are seeing signs of stabilization, the current recession has had an adverse impact on the growth and economy of Las Vegas, resulting in significant declines in the local housing market and rising unemployment in the Las Vegas valley, which has negatively affected consumer spending. Our Las Vegas Locals segment competes directly with other locals' casinos and gaming companies, some of which operate larger casinos than ours.
Gold Coast Hotel and Casino
Gold Coast Hotel and Casino (“Gold Coast”) is located on Flamingo Road, approximately one mile west of the Las Vegas Strip and one-quarter mile west of Interstate 15, the major highway linking Las Vegas and southern California. Its location offers easy access from all four directions in the Las Vegas valley. The primary target market for Gold Coast consists of local middle-market customers who actively gamble. Gold Coast's amenities include 711 hotel rooms and suites along with meeting facilities, multiple restaurant options, a 70-lane bowling center and gaming, including slots, table games, a race and sports book and a bingo center.
The Orleans Hotel and Casino
The Orleans Hotel and Casino (“The Orleans”) is located on Tropicana Avenue, a short distance from the Las Vegas Strip. The target markets for The Orleans are both local residents and visitors to the Las Vegas area. The Orleans provides an exciting New Orleans French Quarter-themed environment. Amenities at The Orleans include 1,885 hotel rooms, a variety of restaurants and bars, a spa and fitness center, 18 stadium-seating movie theaters, a 70-lane bowling center, banquet and meeting space, and a special events arena that seats up to 9,500 patrons.
Sam's Town Hotel and Gambling Hall
Sam's Town Hotel and Gambling Hall (“Sam's Town Las Vegas”) is located on the Boulder Strip, approximately six miles east of the Las Vegas Strip, and features a contemporary western theme. Its informal, friendly atmosphere appeals to both local residents and visitors alike. Amenities at Sam's Town Las Vegas include 646 hotel rooms, a variety of restaurants and bars, 18 stadium-seating movie theaters, and a 56-lane bowling center. Gaming, bowling and live entertainment create a social center that has attracted many Las Vegas residents to Sam's Town Las Vegas.
Suncoast Hotel and Casino
Suncoast Hotel and Casino (“Suncoast”) is located in Peccole Ranch, a master-planned community adjacent to Summerlin, and is readily accessible from most major points in Las Vegas, including downtown and the Las Vegas Strip. The primary target market for Suncoast consists of local middle-market customers who gamble frequently. Suncoast is a Mediterranean-themed facility that features 426 hotel rooms, multiple restaurant options, 25,000 square feet of banquet and meeting facilities, 16 stadium-seating movie theatres, and a 64-lane bowling center.
Eldorado Casino and Jokers Wild Casino
Located in downtown Henderson, the Eldorado Casino (“Eldorado”) is approximately 14 miles from the Las Vegas Strip. Jokers Wild Casino (“Jokers Wild”) is also located in Henderson. The amenities at each of these properties include slots, table games, a sports book, and dining options. The principal customers of these properties are Henderson residents.
Downtown Las Vegas Segment
We directly compete with 11 casinos that operate in downtown Las Vegas; however, we have developed a distinct niche for our downtown properties by focusing on customers from Hawaii. Our downtown properties focus their marketing on gaming enthusiasts from Hawaii and tour and travel agents in Hawaii with whom we have cultivated relationships since we opened our California Hotel and Casino (“California”) in 1975. Through our Hawaiian travel agency, Vacations Hawaii, we operate as many as five charter flights from Honolulu to Las Vegas each week, helping to ensure a stable supply of air transportation. We also have strong, informal relationships with other Hawaiian travel agencies and offer affordable all-inclusive packages. These relationships, combined with our Hawaiian promotions, have allowed California, Fremont Hotel and Casino (“Fremont”) and Main Street Station Casino, Brewery and Hotel (“Main Street Station”) to capture a significant share of the Hawaiian tourist trade in Las Vegas. For the year ended December 31, 2010, patrons from Hawaii comprised approximately 66% of the occupied room nights at California, 51% of the occupied room nights at Fremont, and 52% of the occupied room nights at Main Street Station.
California Hotel and Casino
California's amenities include 781 hotel rooms, multiple dining options, a sports book, and meeting space. California and Main Street Station are connected by an indoor pedestrian bridge.
Fremont Hotel and Casino

4

Table of Contents 

Fremont is adjacent to the principal pedestrian thoroughfare in downtown Las Vegas known as the Fremont Street Experience. The property's amenities include 447 hotel rooms, a race and sports book, and meeting space.
Main Street Station Casino, Brewery and Hotel
Main Street Station's amenities include 406 hotel rooms and three restaurants, one of which includes a brewery. In addition, Main Street Station features a 96-space recreational vehicle park, the only such facility in the downtown area.
Midwest and South Segment
Our Midwest and South properties consist of four dockside riverboat casinos, one racino and one barge-based casino that operate in four states in the Midwest and southern United States. Generally, these states allow casino gaming on a limited basis through the issuance of a limited number of gaming licenses. Our Midwest and South properties generally serve customers within a 100-mile radius and compete directly with other casino facilities operating in their respective immediate and surrounding market areas, as well as with gaming operations in surrounding jurisdictions.
Sam's Town Hotel and Gambling Hall
Sam's Town Hotel and Gambling Hall (“Sam's Town Tunica”) is a barge-based casino located in Tunica County, Mississippi. The property has extensive amenities, including 842 hotel rooms, an entertainment lounge, four dining venues, and the 1,600-seat River Palace Arena. Tunica is the closest gaming market to Memphis, Tennessee and is located approximately 30 miles south of Memphis. The adult population within a 250-mile radius is over nine million people, which includes the cities of Nashville and Memphis in Tennessee, Jackson, Mississippi and Little Rock, Arkansas.
Par-A-Dice Hotel Casino
Par-A-Dice Hotel Casino (“Par-A-Dice”) is a dockside riverboat casino located on the Illinois River in East Peoria, Illinois that features a 202-room hotel. Located adjacent to the Par-A-Dice riverboat is a land-based pavilion, which includes three restaurants, a cocktail lounge, and a gift shop. Par-A-Dice is strategically located near Interstate 74, a major east-west interstate highway. Par-A-Dice is the only gaming facility located within approximately 90 miles of Peoria, Illinois.
Blue Chip Casino, Hotel & Spa
Blue Chip Casino, Hotel & Spa (“Blue Chip”) is a dockside riverboat casino located in Michigan City, Indiana, which is 40 miles west of South Bend, Indiana and 60 miles east of Chicago, Illinois. The property competes primarily with five casinos in northern Indiana and southern Michigan and, to a lesser extent, with casinos in the Chicago area and racinos located near Indianapolis. On January 31, 2006, we began operations on our newly constructed single-level dockside riverboat at Blue Chip. The new boat allowed us to expand our casino and, in connection with the construction of our new boat, add a new parking structure and enhance the land-based pavilion. On January 22, 2009, we completed an expansion project at Blue Chip that added a 22-story hotel, which includes 300 guest rooms, a spa and fitness center, additional meeting and event space, as well as new dining and nightlife venues to the existing property structure.
Treasure Chest Casino
Treasure Chest Casino (“Treasure Chest”) is a dockside riverboat casino located on Lake Pontchartrain in the western suburbs of New Orleans, Louisiana. The property is designed as a classic 18th century Victorian style paddlewheel riverboat, with a total capacity for 1,750 people. The entertainment complex located adjacent to the riverboat houses a 140-seat Caribbean showroom and two restaurants. Located approximately five miles from the New Orleans International Airport, Treasure Chest primarily serves residents of suburban New Orleans.
Delta Downs Racetrack Casino & Hotel
In 2001, we acquired substantially all of the assets of the Delta Downs Racetrack Casino & Hotel (“Delta Downs”) in Vinton, Louisiana. Delta Downs has historically conducted horse races on a seasonal basis and operated year-round simulcast facilities for customers to wager on races held at other tracks. In 2002, we began slot operations in connection with a renovation project that expanded the facility. We completed an expansion of the casino in 2004 and opened a 203-room hotel at the property in 2005. Delta Downs is approximately 25 miles closer to Houston than the next closest gaming property, located in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Customers traveling from Houston, Beaumont and other parts of southeastern Texas will generally drive past Delta Downs to reach Lake Charles.
Sam's Town Hotel and Casino
Sam's Town Hotel and Casino (“Sam's Town Shreveport”) is a dockside riverboat casino located along the Red River in Shreveport, Louisiana. Amenities at the property include 514 hotel rooms, a spa, four restaurants, a live entertainment venue, and convention and meeting space. Feeder markets include east Texas (including Dallas), Texarkana, Arkansas and surrounding Louisiana cities, including Bossier City, Minden, Ruston and Monroe. The continued expansion of Native American gaming in Oklahoma could have a material adverse impact on the operations of Sam's Town Shreveport.
Atlantic City, New Jersey

5

Table of Contents 

Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa
Borgata opened in Atlantic City, New Jersey in July 2003. Atlantic City is predominantly a regional day-trip and overnight-trip market. Borgata directly competes with ten other Atlantic City casinos as well as with gaming operations in surrounding jurisdictions.
Borgata is an upscale destination resort that features a 160,000 square-foot casino with a total of 2,769 guest rooms and suites comprised of 1,971 guest rooms and suites at the Borgata hotel and 798 guest rooms and suites at The Water Club. Marina District Development Company, LLC ("MDDC") developed, owns and operates Borgata.
Borgata features six fine-dining restaurants with acclaimed chefs including Bobby Flay, Michael Mina, Wolfgang Puck, Michael Schulson and Stephen Kalt, six casual dining restaurants, eight quick dining options, 17 retail boutiques, two European-style spas, two nightclubs and over 8,200 parking spaces. In addition, the property contains approximately 88,000 square feet of meeting and event space, as well as two entertainment venues. Borgata was master-planned with ease of access and designed as a single-level casino floor with appealing design elements, creating an immediate sense of excitement upon entrance, heightened by the placement of multiple food and beverage outlets on the casino floor itself. Its location at Renaissance Pointe provides guests with convenient access to the property via the Atlantic City Expressway Connector tunnel, without the delays associated with driving to competing casinos located on the Boardwalk of Atlantic City.
We own a 50% interest in Marina District Development Holding Co., LLC (“Holding Company”), which owns all the equity interests in MDDC, d.b.a. Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa. As the managing member, we are responsible for the day-to-day operations of Borgata, including the operation and maintenance of the facility. Borgata employs a management team and full staff to perform these services for the property. We maintain the oversight and responsibility for the operations, but do not receive a management fee from Borgata.
 
As discussed further in Other Events below, we amended our operating agreement with MGM (our original 50% partner in Borgata), which provided, among other things, for the termination of MGM's participating rights in the operations of Borgata.
Segments
For further information related to our segment information for revenues and operating income as of and for the three years in the period ended December 31, 2010, see Note 19, Segment Information to our consolidated financial statements presented in Part IV, Item 15, Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules.
Development Project
Echelon
On August 1, 2008, due to the difficult environment in the capital markets, as well as weak economic conditions, we announced the delay of our multibillion dollar Echelon development project on the Las Vegas Strip. At that time, we did not anticipate the long-term effects of the current economic downturn, evidenced by lower occupancy rates, declining room rates and reduced consumer spending across the country, but particularly in the Las Vegas geographical area; nor did we predict that the incremental supply becoming available on the Las Vegas Strip would face such depressed demand levels, thereby elongating the time for absorption of this additional supply into the market. The credit markets have yet to show significant recovery, thereby rendering financing for this type of development unavailable. Based on our current outlook, and as previously disclosed, we do not expect to resume construction for three to five years. We also believe financing for a development project like Echelon continues to be unavailable.
Nonetheless, we remain committed to having a significant presence on the Las Vegas Strip. During the suspension period, we intend to consider alternative development options for Echelon, which may include developing the project in phases, alternative capital structures for the project, scope modifications to the project, or additional strategic partnerships, among others. We can provide no assurances as to when, or if, construction will resume on the project, or if we will be able to obtain alternative sources of financing for the project.
 
Central Energy Facility
LVE Energy Partners, LLC (“LVE”) is a joint venture between Marina Energy LLC and DCO ECH Energy, LLC. We have entered into an Energy Sales Agreement ("ESA") with LVE, to design, build, own (other than the underlying real property which is leased from Echelon) and operate a district energy system and central energy center for our planned Echelon resort development. Pursuant to the ESA, LVE will provide electricity, emergency electricity generation, and chilled and hot water to Echelon and potentially other joint venture entities associated with the Echelon development project or other third parties. However, since we are obligated to purchase substantially all of the output of the central energy center, we are the primary beneficiary under the terms of the ESA.
 

6

Table of Contents 

LVE began construction of the facility in 2007 and expected to provide full energy services to Echelon in 2010, when we originally expected to open. However, LVE suspended construction in January 2009, after our announcement of the delay of Echelon. On April 6, 2009, LVE notified us that, in its view, Echelon would be in breach of the ESA unless it recommences and proceeds with construction of the Echelon development project by May 6, 2009. We believe that LVE's position is without merit; however, in the event of litigation, we cannot state with certainty the eventual outcome nor estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this matter.
 
On March 7, 2011, Echelon and LVE entered into both a purchase option agreement (the "Purchase Option Agreement") and a periodic fee agreement (the "Periodic Fee Agreement"). LVE has agreed not to initiate any litigation with respect to its April 6, 2009 claim of an alleged breach of the ESA and both Echelon and LVE have mutually agreed that neither LVE nor Echelon would give notice of, file or otherwise initiate any claim or cause of action, in or before any court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator or other tribunal, that arises under the ESA, subject to certain exceptions, and any statute of limitations or limitation periods for defenses, claims, causes of actions and counterclaims shall be tolled while the Periodic Fee Agreement is in effect. Under the Periodic Fee Agreement, Echelon has agreed to pay LVE, beginning March 4, 2011, a monthly periodic fee (the “Periodic Fee”) and an operation and maintenance fee until Echelon either (i) resumes construction of the project or (ii) exercises its option to purchase LVE's assets pursuant to the terms of the Purchase Option Agreement. The amount of the Periodic Fee is fixed at $11.9 million annually through November 2013. Thereafter, the amount of the Periodic Fee will be approximately $10.8 million annually. The operation and maintenance fee cannot exceed $0.6 million per annum without Echelon's prior approval.
 
Under the Purchase Option Agreement, Echelon has the right, upon written notice to LVE, to purchase the assets of LVE relating to the central energy center and energy distribution system for a price of $195.1 million, subject to certain possible adjustments. The ESA will be terminated concurrent with the purchase of the LVE assets.
 
Other Events
We and MGM each originally held a 50% interest in the Holding Company.
By letter of July 27, 2009 (the “Letter”), the New Jersey Department of Gaming Enforcement (the “NJDGE”) made a formal request to the NJCCC that the NJCCC reopen the gaming license held by Borgata, which had been renewed in June 2005 for a five-year term. The Letter indicated that the NJDGE's reopening request was for the exclusive purpose of examining the qualifications of MGM, in light of the issues raised by the “Special Report” of the NJDGE to the NJCCC on its investigation of MGM's joint venture in Macau, Special Administrative Region, People's Republic of China. The Letter noted that the NJDGE had found that neither we nor the Holding Company had any involvement with MGM's development activities in Macau and also expressed the NJDGE's confidence that the NJCCC could thoroughly examine the issues raised in the Special Report as to MGM's qualifications without negatively affecting the casino license, the operation of Borgata or us.
The NJCCC informed us that, pursuant to Section 88(a) of the New Jersey Casino Control Act (the “Casino Control Act”), the MDDC gaming license was reopened on July 27, 2009, the date of the Letter. This was a procedural step required by the Casino Control Act that does not represent a finding as to the issues raised by the NJDGE.
In February 2010, we entered into an agreement with MGM to amend the operating agreement to, among other things, facilitate the transfer of MGM's interest in the holding company ("MGM Interest") to a divestiture trust (“Divestiture Trust”) established for the purpose of selling the MGM Interest to a third party. The proposed sale of the MGM Interest through the Divestiture Trust was a part of a then-proposed settlement agreement between MGM and the NJDGE. Pursuant to the terms of the amended operating agreement, in connection with the refinancing of the Borgata bank credit facility on August 6, 2010, the Holding Company made a $135.4 million one-time distribution to us, of which $30.8 million was a priority distribution equal to the excess prior capital contributions made by us.
On March 17, 2010, MGM announced that its settlement agreement with the NJDGE had been approved by the NJCCC. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, MGM agreed to transfer the MGM Interest into the Divestiture Trust and further agreed to sell such interest within a 30-month period. During the first 18 months of such period, MGM has the power to direct the trustee to sell the MGM Interest, subject to the approval of the NJCCC. If the sale has not occurred by such time, the trustee will be solely responsible for the sale of the MGM Interest. The MGM Interest was transferred to the Divestiture Trust on March 24, 2010.
In connection with the amendments to the operating agreements, MGM relinquished all of its specific participating rights under the operating agreement, and we retained all authority to manage the day-to-day operations of Borgata. MGM's relinquishment of its participating rights effectively provided us with direct control of Borgata. This resulting change in control required acquisition method accounting in accordance with the authoritative accounting guidance for business combinations.
The application of the acquisition method accounting guidance had the following effects on our consolidated financial statements: (i) our previously held equity interest was measured at a provisional fair value at the date control was obtained; (ii) we recognized

7

Table of Contents 

and measured the identifiable assets and liabilities in accordance with promulgated valuation recognition and measurement provisions; and (iii) we recorded the noncontrolling interest held in trust for the economic benefit of MGM as a separate component of our stockholders' equity.
We provided a preliminary estimated fair value of the aforementioned assets and liabilities related to the effective change in control of Borgata at March 31, 2010. The provisional fair value measurements and estimates of these items approximated their historical carrying values as of the date we effectively obtained control. We have provisionally recorded these fair values using an earnings valuation multiple model, because, at the time of the preliminary estimate, we had not completed our procedures with respect to the independent valuation of the business enterprise and Borgata's tangible and intangible assets. Our subsequent valuation procedures will necessitate a revision of the valuation of the provisional assets and liabilities; however, we will continue to refine our valuation modeling as information regarding the tangible and intangible assets is obtained, which may result in a possible change to these provisional fair value measurements and estimates in future periods. These measurement adjustments, which impact all prior quarterly periods during 2010, will be retrospectively revised as these periods are presented in our future Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and our Annual Reports on Form 10-K as we report on subsequent interim condensed consolidated and annual consolidated financial statements.
Seasonality
Our cash flows from operating activities are seasonal in nature. Spring and summer are traditionally the peak seasons for our business, with autumn and winter being non-peak seasons. Any excess cash flow achieved from operations during peak seasons is used to subsidize non-peak seasons. Performance in non-peak seasons is usually dependent on favorable weather and a long-weekend holiday calendar. In the event that we are unable to generate excess cash flows in one or more peak seasons, we may not be able to subsidize non-peak seasons.
Competition
We face significant competition in each of the jurisdictions in which we operate. Such competition may intensify in some of these jurisdictions if new gaming operations open in these markets or existing competitors expand their operations. Our properties compete directly with other gaming properties in each state in which we operate, as well as in adjacent states. We also compete for customers with other casino operators in other markets, including casinos located on Native American reservations, and other forms of gaming, such as lotteries and internet gaming. Many of our competitors are larger and have substantially greater name recognition and marketing and financial resources. In some instances, particularly with Native American casinos, our competitors pay substantially lower taxes or no taxes at all. We believe that increased legalized gaming in other states, particularly in areas close to our existing gaming properties such as Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky or Oklahoma and the development or expansion of Native American gaming in or near the states in which we operate, could create additional competition for us and could adversely affect our operations or future development projects.
Government Regulation
We are subject to extensive regulation under laws, rules and supervisory procedures primarily in the jurisdictions where our facilities are located or docked. If additional gaming regulations are adopted in a jurisdiction in which we operate, such regulations could impose restrictions or costs that could have a significant adverse effect on us. From time to time, various proposals have been introduced in the legislatures of some of the jurisdictions in which we have existing or planned operations that, if enacted, could adversely affect the tax, regulatory, operational or other aspects of the gaming industry and us. We do not know whether or not such legislation will be enacted. The federal government has also previously considered a federal tax on casino revenues and the elimination of betting on NCAA events and may consider such a tax or eliminations on betting in the future. In addition, gaming companies are currently subject to significant state and local taxes and fees in addition to normal federal and state corporate income taxes, and such taxes and fees are subject to increase at any time. Any material increase in these taxes or fees could adversely affect us.
Some jurisdictions, including Nevada, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi and New Jersey, empower their regulators to investigate participation by licensees in gaming outside their jurisdiction and require access to periodic reports respecting those gaming activities. Violations of laws in one jurisdiction could result in disciplinary action in other jurisdictions.
For a more detailed description of the regulations to which we are subject, please see Exhibit 99.1 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K, “Government Gaming Regulations” which is incorporated herein by reference.
Employees and Labor Relations
At December 31, 2010, we employed approximately 21,300 persons, of which 15,000 were employed by Boyd Gaming Corporation and 6,300 were employed by Borgata. On such date, Boyd had collective bargaining agreements with four unions covering approximately 1,600 employees and Borgata had collective bargaining agreements with four unions covering approximately 2,400

8

Table of Contents 

employees. Other agreements are in various stages of negotiation. Employees covered by expired agreements have continued to work during the negotiations, in two cases under the terms of the expired agreements.
Corporate Information
We were incorporated in Nevada in June 1988. Our principal executive offices are currently located at 3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ninth Floor, Las Vegas, NV 89169, and our main telephone number is (702) 792-7200. Our website is www.boydgaming.com.
Available Information
We file annual, quarterly and special reports, proxy statements and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"). You may read and copy, at prescribed rates, any document we have filed at the SEC's public reference room in Washington, D.C. Please call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 (1-800-732-0330) for further information on the public reference room. The SEC also maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding registrants that file electronically with the SEC (http://www.sec.gov). You also may read and copy reports and other information filed by us at the office of the New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 20 Broad Street, New York, New York 10005.
We make our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, our Current Reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments to these reports, available free of charge on our corporate website as soon as reasonably practicable after such reports are filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. In addition, our Code of Business Conduct, Corporate Governance Guidelines, and charters of the Audit Committee, Compensation and Stock Option Committee, and the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee are available on our website. We will provide reasonable quantities of electronic or paper copies of filings free of charge upon request. In addition, we will provide a copy of the above referenced charters to stockholders upon request.
Important Information Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such statements contain words such as “may,” “will,” “might,” “expect,” “believe,” “anticipate,” “outlook,” “could,” “would,” “estimate,” “continue,” “pursue,” “target,” “project,” “intend,” “plan,” “seek,” “estimate,” “should,” “may,” “assume,” and “continue,” or the negative thereof or comparable terminology, and may include statements regarding:
•    
the factors that contribute to our ongoing success and our ability to be successful in the future;
•    
our business model and strategy for realizing improved results when normalized business volumes return;
•    
competition, including expansion of gaming into additional markets, the impact of competition on our operations, our ability to respond to such competition, and our expectations regarding continued competition in the markets in which we compete;
•    
expenses;
•    
indebtedness, including our ability to refinance or pay amounts outstanding under our bank credit facilities and notes when they become due and our compliance with related covenants, and our expectation that we and Borgata will need to refinance all or a portion of our respective indebtedness at maturity;
•    
our expectations with respect to Borgata, including our responsibility and control over day-to-day operations and the managerial resources we expect to devote to effectuate the sale of the MGM Interest;
•    
our expectation that our future results will be positively impacted by a trend of increased or stable Las Vegas visitor attendance over the past year and increasing Las Vegas convention attendance in recent sequential months;
•    
our expectations with respect to the valuation of Borgata's tangible and intangible assets;
•    
the type of covenants that will be included in any future debt instruments;
•    
our expectations with respect to continued disruptions in the global capital markets and reduced levels of consumer spending and the impact of these trends on our financial results;
•    
our ability to meet our projected operating and maintenance capital expenditures and the costs associated with our expansion, renovations and development of new projects;
•    
our ability to pay dividends or to pay any specific rate of dividends, and our expectations with respect to the

9

Table of Contents 

receipt of dividends from Borgata;
•    
our intention to fund purchases made under our share repurchase program, if any, with existing cash resources and availability under our Amended Credit Facility;
•    
Adjusted EBITDA and its usefulness as a measure of operating performance or valuation;
•    
the impact of new accounting pronouncements on our consolidated financial statements;
•    
that our Amended Credit Facility and cash flows from operating activities will be sufficient to meet our projected operating and maintenance capital expenditures for the next twelve months;
•    
our market risk exposure and efforts to minimize risk;
•    
the timing of the delay of construction at Echelon, when, or if, construction will recommence, the effect that such delay will have on our business, operations or financial condition, our expectations as to the costs associated with wind-down procedures and delays related to the project, and our belief that financing for a development project like Echelon continues to be unavailable;
•    
expansion, development, investment and renovation plans, including the scope of such plans, expected costs, financing (including sources thereof and our expectation that long-term debt will substantially increase in connection with such projects), timing and the ability to achieve market acceptance;
•    
development opportunities in new jurisdictions and our ability to successfully take advantage of such opportunities;
•    
regulations, including anticipated taxes, tax credits or tax refunds expected, and the ability to receive and maintain necessary approvals for our projects;
•    
our asset impairment analyses and our intangible asset and goodwill impairment tests;
•    
the resolution of our pending litigation, including the litigation involving Treasure Chest casino;
•    
our relationship with LVE including, without limitation, our mutual agreement to not initiate litigation, the monthly periodic fee and our option to purchase LVE's assets;
•    
our intention to file a registration statement pursuant to the registration rights agreement entered into in connection with the private placement of our 9.125% senior notes due 2018;
•    
MDFC's intention to file a registration statement pursuant to the registration rights agreement entered into in connection with its private placement of 9.50% senior secured notes due 2015 and 9.875% senior secured notes due 2018;
•    
the outcome of various tax audits and assessments, including our appeals thereof, timing of resolution of such audits, our estimates as to the amount of taxes that will ultimately be owed and the impact of these audits on our consolidated financial statements;
•    
our overall outlook, including all statements under the heading Overall Outlook in Part II, Item 7, Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations;
•    
our ability to receive insurance reimbursement, our estimates of self-insurance accruals and future liability and our ability to terminate our insurance policies;
•    
our belief that several trends are expected to continue to adversely affect the gaming industry over the next few years, including the delayed development of new construction, increased bankruptcy filings and decreased consolidation;
•    
the decrease in merger and acquisition activity and the anticipation that the economic slowdown will continue into 2011;
•    
that operating results for previous periods are not necessarily indicative of future performance;
•    
that estimates and assumptions made in the preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP may differ from actual results;

10

Table of Contents 

•    
our expectations with respect to qualification of the Echelon development project for LEED Silver Standard (or equivalent) certification;
•    
our estimates as to the effect of any changes in our Consolidated EBITDA on our ability to remain in compliance with certain Amended Credit Facility covenants; and
•    
our expectations with respect to recognition of total unrecognized share-based compensation costs related to unvested stock options and RSUs;
•    
our expectations with respect to accretion of deferred net gain related to derivative instruments as a reduction of interest expense during the next twelve months; and
•    
expectations, plans, beliefs, hopes or intentions regarding the future.
Forward-looking statements involve certain risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ materially from those discussed in any such statement. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from such forward-looking statements include:
•    
The effects of intense competition that exists in the gaming industry.
•    
The economic downturn and its effect on consumer spending.
•    
The fact that our expansion, development and renovation projects (including enhancements to improve property performance) are subject to many risks inherent in expansion, development or construction of a new or existing project, including:
•    
design, construction, regulatory, environmental and operating problems and lack of demand for our projects;
•    
delays and significant cost increases, shortages of materials, shortages of skilled labor or work stoppages;
•    
poor performance or nonperformance of any of our partners or other third parties upon whom we are relying in connection with any of our projects;
•    
construction scheduling, engineering, environmental, permitting, construction or geological problems, weather interference, floods, fires or other casualty losses;
•    
failure by us, our partners, or Borgata to obtain financing on acceptable terms, or at all; and
•    
failure to obtain necessary government or other approvals on time, or at all.
•    
The risk that our ongoing suspension of construction at Echelon may result in adverse affects on our business, results of operations or financial condition, including with respect to our joint venture participants and other resulting liabilities.
•    
The risk that any of our projects may not be completed, if at all, on time or within established budgets, or that any project will result in increased earnings to us.
•    
The risk that significant delays, cost overruns, or failures of any of our projects to achieve market acceptance could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
•    
The risk that our projects may not help us compete with new or increased competition in our markets.
•    
The risk that new gaming licenses or jurisdictions become available (or offer different gaming regulations or taxes) that results in increased competition to us.
•    
The risk that the actual fair value for assets acquired and liabilities assumed from any of our acquisitions differ materially from our preliminary estimates.
•    
The risk that negative industry or economic trends, including the market price of our common stock trading below its book value, reduced estimates of future cash flows, disruptions to our business, slower growth rates or lack of growth in our business, may result in significant write-downs or impairments in future periods.
•    
The risks associated with growth and acquisitions, including our ability to identify, acquire, develop or profitably

11

Table of Contents 

manage additional companies or operations or successfully integrate such companies or operations into our existing operations without substantial costs, delays or other problems.
•    
The risk that we may not receive gaming or other necessary licenses for new projects.
•    
Our inability to select the new joint venture partner for Borgata and the possibility that a new operating agreement will be entered into with the new venture partner, which could result in changes to Borgata's ongoing operations.
•    
The risk that we may be unable to finance our expansion, development and renovation projects, including cost overruns on any particular project, as well as other capital expenditures through cash flow, borrowings under our Amended Credit Facility or Borgata's bank credit facility and additional financings, which could jeopardize our expansion, development and renovation efforts.
•    
The risk that we or Borgata may be unable to refinance our respective outstanding indebtedness as it comes due, or that if we or Borgata do refinance, the terms are not favorable to us or them.
•    
Risks associated with our ability to comply with the Total Leverage, Secured Leverage and Interest Coverage ratios in our bank credit facilities.
•    
The risk that we ultimately may not be successful in dismissing the action filed against Treasure Chest and may lose our ability to operate that property, which result could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
•    
The effects of the extensive governmental gaming regulation and taxation policies that we are subject to, as well as any changes in laws and regulations, including increased taxes, which could harm our business.
•    
The effects of extreme weather conditions or natural disasters on our facilities and the geographic areas from which we draw our customers, and our ability to recover insurance proceeds (if any).
•    
The risks relating to mechanical failure and regulatory compliance at any of our facilities.
•    
The risk that the instability in the financial condition of our lenders could have a negative impact on our credit facility.
•    
The effects of events adversely impacting the economy or the regions from which we draw a significant percentage of our customers, including the effects of the current economic recession, war, terrorist or similar activity or disasters in, at, or around our properties.
•    
The effects of energy price increases on our cost of operations and our revenues.
•    
Financial community and rating agency perceptions of our Company, and the effect of economic, credit and capital market conditions on the economy and the gaming and hotel industry.
•    
Borgata's expected customer base.
•    
The effect of the expansion of legalized gaming in the mid-Atlantic region.
•    
Borgata's expected liability under the multiemployer pension in which it operates.
Additional factors that could cause actual results to differ are discussed in Part I, Item 1A, Risk Factors of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 and in other current and periodic reports filed from time to time with the SEC. All forward-looking statements in this document are made as of the date hereof, based on information available to us as of the date hereof, and we assume no obligation to update any forward-looking statement.
 
ITEM 1A.    
Risk Factors.
The material risks and uncertainties that management believes affect us are described below. This report is qualified in its entirety by these risk factors.
If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. If this were to happen, the value of our securities, including our common stock, senior notes and senior subordinated notes, could decline significantly, and investors could lose all or part of their investment. We encourage investors to also review the risks and uncertainties relating to our business contained in Part I, Item 1, Business - Important Information

12

Table of Contents 

Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.
Risks Related to our Business
 
Our business is particularly sensitive to reductions in discretionary consumer spending as a result of downturns in the economy.
Consumer demand for entertainment and other amenities at casino hotel properties, such as ours, are particularly sensitive to downturns in the economy and the corresponding impact on discretionary spending on leisure activities. Changes in discretionary consumer spending or consumer preferences brought about by factors such as perceived or actual general economic conditions, effects of the current decline in consumer confidence in the economy, including the current housing, employment and credit crisis, the impact of high energy and food costs, the increased cost of travel, the potential for continued bank failures, decreased disposable consumer income and wealth, or fears of war and future acts of terrorism could further reduce customer demand for the amenities that we offer, thus imposing practical limits on pricing and negatively impacting our results of operations and financial condition.
For example, the year ended December 31, 2009 was one of the toughest economic periods in Las Vegas Locals history. The current housing crisis and economic slowdown in the United States has resulted in a significant decline in the amount of tourism and spending in Las Vegas. Similarly, weak economic conditions have also adversely affected tourism and spending in Atlantic City, where Borgata is located. Since our business model relies on consumer expenditures on entertainment, luxury and other discretionary items, continuation or deepening of the economic downturn will further adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.
Intense competition exists in the gaming industry, and we expect competition to continue to intensify.
The gaming industry is highly competitive for both customers and employees, including those at the management level. We compete with numerous casinos and hotel casinos of varying quality and size in market areas where our properties are located. We also compete with other non-gaming resorts and vacation destinations, and with various other casino and other entertainment businesses, and could compete with any new forms of gaming that may be legalized in the future. The casino entertainment business is characterized by competitors that vary considerably in their size, quality of facilities, number of operations, brand identities, marketing and growth strategies, financial strength and capabilities, level of amenities, management talent and geographic diversity. In most markets, we compete directly with other casino facilities operating in the immediate and surrounding market areas. In some markets, we face competition from nearby markets in addition to direct competition within our market areas.
 
In recent years, with fewer new markets opening for development, competition in existing markets has intensified. We have invested in expanding existing facilities, developing new facilities, and acquiring established facilities in existing markets. In addition, our competitors have also invested in expanding their existing facilities and developing new facilities. This expansion of existing casino entertainment properties, the increase in the number of properties and the aggressive marketing strategies of many of our competitors have increased competition in many markets in which we compete, and this intense competition can be expected to continue. In addition, competition may intensify if our competitors commit additional resources to aggressive pricing and promotional activities in order to attract customers.
If our competitors operate more successfully than we do, if they attract customers away from us as a result of aggressive pricing and promotion, if they are more successful than us in attracting and retaining employees, if their properties are enhanced or expanded, if they operate in jurisdictions that give them operating advantages due to differences or changes in gaming regulations or taxes, or if additional hotels and casinos are established in and around the locations in which we conduct business, we may lose market share or the ability to attract or retain employees. In particular, the expansion of casino gaming in or near any geographic area from which we attract or expect to attract a significant number of our customers could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Also, our business may be adversely impacted by the additional gaming and room capacity in states which may be competitive in the other markets where we operate or intend to operate. Several states are also considering enabling the development and operation of casinos or casino-like operations in their jurisdictions.
For example, the expansion of casino gaming in or near the mid-Atlantic region from which Borgata attracts and expects to attract most of its customers could have a significant adverse effect on its business, results of operations and financial condition. In January 2010, table game legislation was signed into Pennsylvania law which allows up to 250 table games at each of the twelve largest authorized casinos and up to 50 table games at each of the remaining two smaller authorized casinos. Table games became operational at the nine existing casinos in Philadelphia in mid-July 2010. In addition, other states near New Jersey, including New York and Delaware, either have or are currently contemplating gaming legislation. In January 2010, Delaware legalized table games, which became operational in June 2010 at all three Delaware casinos. Convenience may be a more important factor than amenities for some customers, especially mid-week and repeat customers. These customers may prefer the convenience of a closer drive to a nearby casino rather than dealing with a longer drive to enjoy the amenities that Borgata has to offer. Expansion of

13

Table of Contents 

gaming facilities in Pennsylvania and other nearby states therefore could result in fewer customer visits to Borgata, which could adversely impact Borgata's business, results of operations and financial condition.
We also compete with legalized gaming from casinos located on Native American tribal lands. Expansion of Native American gaming in areas located near our properties, or in areas in or near those from which we draw our customers, could have an adverse effect on our operating results. For example, increased competition from federally recognized Native American tribes near Blue Chip and Sam's Town Shreveport has had a negative impact on our results. Native American gaming facilities typically have a significant operating advantage over our properties due to lower gaming taxes, allowing those facilities to market more aggressively and to expand or update their facilities at an accelerated rate. Although we have expanded our facility at Blue Chip in an effort to be more competitive in this market, these competing Native American properties could continue to have an adverse impact on the operations of Blue Chip and Sam's Town Shreveport.
The global financial crisis and decline in consumer spending may have an effect on our business and financial condition in ways that we currently cannot accurately predict.
The significant distress recently experienced by financial institutions has had, and may continue to have, far-reaching adverse consequences across many industries, including the gaming industry. The ongoing credit and liquidity crisis has greatly restricted the availability of capital and has caused the cost of capital (if available) to be much higher than it has traditionally been. Therefore, we have no assurance that we will have further access to credit or capital markets at desirable times or at rates that we would consider acceptable, and the lack of such funding could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition, including our ability to refinance our or Borgata's indebtedness, our flexibility to react to changing economic and business conditions and our ability or willingness to fund new development projects.
 
We are not able to predict the duration or severity of the economic downturn, and the resulting impact on the solvency of many of the financial institutions, that have been negatively impacted. If a large percentage of our lenders were to file for bankruptcy or otherwise default on their obligations to us, we may not have the liquidity under our Amended Credit Facility to fund our current projects. There is no certainty that our lenders will continue to remain solvent or fund their respective obligations under our Amended Credit Facility. If we were otherwise required to renegotiate or replace our Amended Credit Facility, there is no assurance that we would be able to secure terms that are as favorable to us, if at all.
We may incur impairments to goodwill, indefinite-lived intangible assets, or long-lived assets.
In accordance with the authoritative accounting guidance for goodwill and other intangible assets, we test our goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets for impairment annually or if a triggering event occurs. We perform the annual impairment testing for goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets in the second quarter of each fiscal year. The results of our annual scheduled impairment test of goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets did not require us to record an impairment charge during the year ended December 31, 2010; however, as discussed below, if our estimates of projected cash flows related to these assets are not achieved, we may be subject to a future impairment charge, which could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial statements. In addition, in accordance with the provisions of the authoritative accounting guidance for the impairment or disposal of long-lived assets, we test long-lived assets for impairment if a triggering event occurs.
 
We are entirely dependent upon our properties for future cash flows and our continued success depends on our ability to draw customers to our properties. Significant negative industry or economic trends, reduced estimates of future cash flows, disruptions to our business, slower growth rates or lack of growth in our business have resulted in significant write-downs and impairment charges during the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, and, if one or more of such events were to recur, additional impairment charges may be required in future periods. If we are required to record additional impairment charges, this could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial statements.
On August 1, 2008, due to the difficult environment in the capital markets, as well as weak economic conditions, we announced the delay of our multibillion dollar Echelon development project on the Las Vegas Strip. At such time, we did not anticipate the long-term effects of the current economic downturn, evidenced by lower occupancy rates, declining room rates and reduced consumer spending across the country, but particularly in the Las Vegas geographical area; nor did we predict that the incremental supply becoming available on the Las Vegas Strip would face such depressed demand levels, thereby elongating the time for absorption of this additional supply into the market. As we do not yet believe that a significant level of economic recovery has occurred along the Las Vegas Strip, we do not expect to resume construction for three to five years, as previously disclosed.
The change in circumstances implies that the carrying amounts of the assets related to Echelon may not be recoverable; therefore, we performed an impairment test of these assets during the year ended December 31, 2009. While the outcome of this evaluation resulted in no impairment of Echelon's assets, as the estimated weighted net undiscounted cash flows from the project exceeded the current carrying value of the assets of approximately $928 million at December 31, 2009, we can provide no assurances that future evaluations will not result in impairment charges. As we further develop and explore the viability of alternatives for the

14

Table of Contents 

project, we will continue to monitor these assets for recoverability. If we are subject to a non-cash write-down of these assets, it could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial statements.
Due to the circumstances regarding the final development plan of Echelon, we reviewed our former investment in the Morgans joint venture for impairment during 2009. Considering the subsequent mutual termination of this joint venture, certain of our contributions, primarily related to the architectural and design plans, were ultimately not realizable and, as a result, we recorded an other-than-temporary non-cash impairment charge of $13.5 million during the year ended December 31, 2009 related to such costs.
In addition, during the year ended December 31, 2009, in conjunction with an amendment to the Dania Jai-Alai purchase agreement to settle the contingent payment prior to the satisfaction of the legal conditions, we recorded the remaining $28.4 million of the $75 million contingent liability as an additional cost of the acquisition (goodwill). We tested the goodwill for recoverability, which resulted in a noncash impairment charge of $28.4 million during the year ended December 31, 2009.
During the year ended December 31, 2008, we recorded $290.2 million in aggregate noncash impairment charges to write-down certain portions of our goodwill, intangible assets and other long-lived assets to their fair value at December 31, 2008. The impairment test for these assets was principally due to the decline in our stock price that caused our book value to exceed our market capitalization, which was an indication that these assets may not be recoverable. The primary reason for these impairment charges relates to the ongoing economic downturn and increased discount rates in the credit and equity markets, which has caused us to reduce our estimates for projected cash flows, and has reduced overall industry valuations.
Our partner in the Holding Company, the limited liability company that owns and operates Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa in Atlantic City, New Jersey, has divested its 50% interest and we do not have the ability to select the new partner.
We own a 50% controlling interest in the limited liability company that operates Borgata. MGM currently beneficially owns the other 50% interest. As a result of the NJDGE's investigation of MGM's relationship with its joint venture partner in Macau, MGM entered into a settlement agreement with the NJDGE and the NJCCC under which MGM placed its 50% ownership interest in Borgata into a Divestiture Trust, which was established for the purpose of selling the MGM Interest to a third party.
We are the managing member of the limited liability company that operates Borgata, and have been, and will continue to be responsible for the day-to-day operations of Borgata, including the operations and improvement of the facility and business. Additionally, we hold a right of first refusal on any sale of the MGM Interest in Borgata. However, we believe we will expend managerial resources to effectuate the eventual sale of the MGM Interest from the Divestiture Trust to a new partner, regardless of whether we exercise our right of first refusal. Other than exercising our right of first refusal, we do not have the ability to affect the selection of the potential new partner at Borgata.
While we believe we will retain direct control of the operations of Borgata, based on our current and amended operating agreement, a new partner may want to negotiate greater rights or different terms. If we agree to consider changes to the operating agreement, these negotiations may decrease our ability to directly control the facility and effectively manage our financial risk. Any new partner could have economic or business interests or goals that are inconsistent with our economic or business interests or goals. The ongoing operation of the facility could change if we agree to negotiate agreements with a new partner that contain terms that differ from our existing operating agreement.
Borgata's bank credit facility matures in August 2014. At the time of maturity, if Borgata is unable to refinance its bank credit facility on favorable terms, additional credit support and/or capital contributions may be necessary to fund the ongoing operations of Borgata. This additional credit and/or equity may need to be contributed by us or a new partner, if any, or from both. If we are unable to obtain adequate financing in a timely manner, or at all, we may be unable to meet the operating cash flow needs of Borgata, and our investment would be at risk. Moreover, if any new partner does not have the financial resources to meet its share of the obligations, or subsequently declares bankruptcy, we could be required to fund more than our 50% share.
We face risks associated with growth and acquisitions.
As part of our business strategy, we regularly evaluate opportunities for growth through development of gaming operations in existing or new markets, through acquiring other gaming entertainment facilities or through redeveloping our existing gaming facilities. For example, in 2007, we completed the Barbary Coast exchange transaction and the acquisition of Dania Jai-Alai. In January 2009, we completed the hotel construction project at Blue Chip. We may also pursue expansion opportunities, including joint ventures, in jurisdictions where casino gaming is not currently permitted in order to be prepared to develop projects upon approval of casino gaming. The expansion of our operations, whether through acquisitions, development or internal growth, could divert management's attention and could also cause us to incur substantial costs, including legal, professional and consulting fees. There can be no assurance that we will be able to identify, acquire, develop or profitably manage additional companies or operations or successfully integrate such companies or operations into our existing operations without substantial costs, delays or other

15

Table of Contents 

problems. Additionally, there can be no assurance that we will receive gaming or other necessary licenses or approvals for our new projects or that gaming will be approved in jurisdictions where it is not currently approved.
 
Ballot measures or other voter-approved initiatives to allow gaming in jurisdictions where gaming, or certain types of gaming (such as slots), was not previously permitted could be challenged, and, if such challenges are successful, these ballot measures or initiatives could be invalidated. Furthermore, there can be no assurance that there will not be similar or other challenges to legalized gaming in existing or current markets in which we may operate or have development plans, and successful challenges to legalized gaming could require us to abandon or substantially curtail our operations or development plans in those locations, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
On August 1, 2008, we announced that, due to the difficult environment in both the capital markets and the economy, our Echelon project would be delayed. As previously disclosed, we do not anticipate that Echelon will resume construction for three to five years. We also believe financing for a project like Echelon continues to be unavailable. We can provide no assurances regarding the timing or effects of our delay of construction at Echelon and when, or if, construction will recommence, or the effect that such delay will have on our business, operations or financial condition. In addition, our agreements or arrangements with third parties could require additional fees or terms in connection with modifying their agreements that may be unfavorable to us, and we can provide no assurances that we will be able to reach agreement on any modified terms.
Additionally, in February 2008, management determined to indefinitely postpone redevelopment of our Dania Jai-Alai facility, and in connection with that determination we recorded an $84.0 million noncash impairment charge to write-off Dania Jai-Alai's intangible license rights and to write-down its property and equipment to their estimated fair values. Our decision to postpone the development was based on numerous factors, including the introduction of expanded gaming at a nearby Native American casino, the potential for additional casino gaming venues in Florida, and the existing Broward County pari-mutuel casinos performing below our expectations for the market. There can be no assurance that we will not face similar challenges and difficulties with respect to new development projects or expansion efforts that we may undertake, which could result in significant sunk costs that we may not be able to fully recoup or that otherwise have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
Our expansion, development, investment and renovation projects may face significant risks inherent in construction projects or implementing a new marketing strategy, including receipt of necessary government approvals.
We regularly evaluate expansion, development, investment and renovation opportunities. On January 4, 2006, we announced our planned Las Vegas Strip development, Echelon, which represents the largest and most expensive development project we have undertaken to date.
This project and any other development projects we may undertake will be subject to the many risks inherent in the expansion or renovation of an existing enterprise or construction of a new enterprise, including unanticipated design, construction, regulatory, environmental and operating problems and lack of demand for our projects. Our current and future projects could also experience:
•    
delays and significant cost increases;
•    
shortages of materials;
•    
shortages of skilled labor or work stoppages;
•    
poor performance or nonperformance by any of our joint venture partners or other third parties on whom we place reliance;
•    
unforeseen construction scheduling, engineering, environmental, permitting, construction or geological problems; and
•    
weather interference, floods, fires or other casualty losses.
The completion dates of any of our projects could differ significantly from expectations for construction-related or other reasons. For example, on August 1, 2008, we announced that, due to the difficult environment in the capital markets, as well as weak economic conditions, our Echelon project would be delayed. As we do not yet believe that a significant level of economic recovery has occurred along the Las Vegas Strip, we do not expect to resume construction for three to five years, as previously disclosed.
In addition, actual costs and construction periods for any of our projects can differ significantly from initial expectations. Our initial project costs and construction periods are based upon budgets, conceptual design documents and construction schedule estimates prepared at inception of the project in consultation with architects and contractors. Many of these costs can increase over time as the project is built to completion. We have incurred significant incremental costs in connection with delaying construction of Echelon and anticipate that additional cost increases could continue to occur if and when we recommence development of Echelon.
Additional costs upon restarting construction of Echelon could include, without limitation, costs associated with remobilization,

16

Table of Contents 

changes in design, increases in material, labor, or insurance costs, construction code changes during the delay period, corrosive damage risk, damage to uncompleted structures, etc. The cost of any project may vary significantly from initial budget expectations and we may have a limited amount of capital resources to fund cost overruns. If we cannot finance cost overruns on a timely basis, the completion of one or more projects may be delayed until adequate funding is available. We can provide no assurance that any project will be completed on time, if at all, or within established budgets, or that any project will result in increased earnings to us. Significant delays, cost overruns, or failures of our projects to achieve market acceptance could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
LVE Energy Partners, LLC (“LVE”) is a joint venture between Marina Energy LLC and DCO ECH Energy, LLC. We have entered into an Energy Sales Agreement ("ESA") with LVE, to design, build, own (other than the underlying real property which is leased from Echelon) and operate a district energy system and central energy center for our planned Echelon resort development. Pursuant to the ESA, LVE will provide electricity, emergency electricity generation, and chilled and hot water to Echelon and potentially other joint venture entities associated with the Echelon development project or other third parties. However, since we are obligated to purchase substantially all of the output of the central energy center, we are the primary beneficiary under the terms of the ESA.
 
LVE has suspended construction of the central energy center while the Echelon project is delayed. On April 6, 2009, LVE notified us that, in its view, Echelon would be in breach of the ESA unless it recommences and proceeds with construction of the Echelon development project by May 6, 2009. We believe that LVE's position is without merit; however, in the event of litigation, we cannot state with certainty the eventual outcome nor estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this matter. On March 7, 2011, Echelon and LVE entered into both the Purchase Option Agreement and Periodic Fee Agreement. LVE has agreed not to initiate any litigation with respect to its April 6, 2009 claim of an alleged breach of the ESA and both Echelon and LVE have mutually agreed that neither LVE nor Echelon would give notice of, file or otherwise initiate any claim or cause of action, in or before any court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator or other tribunal, that arises under the ESA, subject to certain exceptions, and any statute of limitations or limitation periods for defenses, claims, causes of actions and counterclaims shall be tolled while the Periodic Fee Agreement is in effect. Under the Periodic Fee Agreement, Echelon has agreed to pay LVE, beginning March 4, 2011, the Periodic Fee and an operation and maintenance fee until Echelon either (i) resumes construction of the project or (ii) exercises its option to purchase LVE's assets pursuant to the terms of the Purchase Option Agreement. The amount of the Periodic Fee is fixed at $11.9 million annually through November 2013. Thereafter, the amount of the Periodic Fee will be approximately $10.8 million annually. The operation and maintenance fee cannot exceed $0.6 million per annum without Echelon's prior approval. We have posted a letter of credit in the amount of $6.0 million to secure Echelon's obligation to pay the Periodic Fee and the operation and maintenance fee.
Under the Purchase Option Agreement, Echelon has the right, upon written notice to LVE, to purchase the assets of LVE relating to the central energy center and energy distribution system for a price of $195.1 million, subject to certain possible adjustments. The ESA will be terminated concurrent with the purchase of LVE's assets.
Certain permits, licenses and approvals necessary for some of our current or anticipated projects have not yet been obtained. The scope of the approvals required for expansion, development, investment or renovation projects can be extensive and may include gaming approvals, state and local land-use permits and building and zoning permits. Unexpected changes or concessions required by local, state or federal regulatory authorities could involve significant additional costs and delay the scheduled openings of the facilities. We may not obtain the necessary permits, licenses and approvals within the anticipated time frames, or at all.
In addition, although we design our projects to minimize disruption of our existing business operations, expansion and renovation projects require, from time to time, all or portions of affected existing operations to be closed or disrupted. For example, to make way for the development of Echelon, we closed Stardust in November 2006 and demolished the property in March 2007. Any significant disruption in operations of a property could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
If we are unable to finance our expansion, development, investment and renovation projects, as well as other capital expenditures, through cash flow, borrowings under our Amended Credit Facility and additional financings, our expansion, development, investment and renovation efforts will be jeopardized.
We intend to finance our current and future expansion, development, investment and renovation projects, as well as our other capital expenditures, primarily with cash flow from operations, borrowings under our Amended Credit Facility, and equity or debt financings. If we are unable to finance our current or future expansion, development, investment and renovation projects, or our other capital expenditures, we will have to adopt one or more alternatives, such as reducing, delaying or abandoning planned expansion, development, investment and renovation projects as well as other capital expenditures, selling assets, restructuring debt, reducing the amount or suspending or discontinuing the distribution of dividends, obtaining additional equity financing or joint venture partners, or modifying our Amended Credit Facility. These sources of funds may not be sufficient to finance our

17

Table of Contents 

expansion, development, investment and renovation projects, and other financing may not be available on acceptable terms, in a timely manner, or at all. In addition, our existing indebtedness contains certain restrictions on our ability to incur additional indebtedness.
Recently, there have been significant disruptions in the global capital markets that have adversely impacted the ability of borrowers to access capital. We anticipate that these disruptions may continue for the foreseeable future. We anticipate that funding for any of our expansion projects would come from cash flows from operations and availability under our Amended Credit Facility (to the extent that availability exists under our Amended Credit Facility, as applicable, after we meet our working capital needs).
If availability under our Amended Credit Facility does not exist or we are otherwise unable to make sufficient borrowings thereunder, any additional financing that is needed may not be available to us or, if available, may not be on terms favorable to us. As a result, if we are unable to obtain adequate project financing in a timely manner, or at all, we may be forced to sell assets in order to raise capital for projects, limit the scope of, or defer such projects, or cancel the projects altogether. In the event that capital markets do not improve and we are unable to access capital with more favorable terms, additional equity and/or credit support may be necessary to obtain construction financing for the remaining cost of the project.
Risks Related to the Regulation of our Industry
We are subject to extensive governmental regulation, as well as federal, state and local laws affecting business in general, which may harm our business.
We are subject to a variety of regulations in the jurisdictions in which we operate. Regulatory authorities at the federal, state and local levels have broad powers with respect to the licensing of casino operations and may revoke, suspend, condition or limit our gaming or other licenses, impose substantial fines and take other actions, any one of which could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. A more detailed description of the governmental gaming regulations to which we are subject is included in Exhibit 99.1 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K, “Government Gaming Regulations” which is incorporated herein by reference. If additional gaming regulations are adopted in a jurisdiction in which we operate, such regulations could impose restrictions or costs that could have a significant adverse effect on us. From time to time, various proposals are introduced in the legislatures of some of the jurisdictions in which we have existing or planned operations that, if enacted, could adversely affect the tax, regulatory, operational or other aspects of the gaming industry and our company. Legislation of this type may be enacted in the future.
Regulation of smoking
Each of New Jersey and Illinois has adopted laws that significantly restrict, or otherwise ban, smoking at our properties in those jurisdictions. The New Jersey and Illinois laws that restrict smoking at casinos, and similar legislation in other jurisdictions in which we operate, could materially impact the results of operations of our properties in those jurisdictions.
Additionally, on April 15, 2007, an ordinance in Atlantic City became effective which extended smoking restrictions under the New Jersey Smoke-Free Air Act. This ordinance mandated that casinos restrict smoking to designated areas of up to 25% of the casino floor. During April 2008, Atlantic City's City Council unanimously approved an amendment to the ordinance, banning smoking entirely on all casino gaming floors and casino simulcasting areas, but allowing smoking in separately exhausted, non-gaming, smoking lounges. The amendment to the ordinance became effective on October 15, 2008, however, on October 27, 2008, Atlantic City's City Council voted to postpone the full smoking ban for at least one year due to, among other things, the weakened economy and increased competition in adjoining states. The postponement of the full smoking ban became effective on November 16, 2008. In December 2009, Atlantic City's City Council announced that it would not consider a full smoking ban in casinos until at least the end of 2011.
Regulation of directors, officers, key employees and partners
Our directors, officers, key employees and joint venture partners must meet approval standards of certain state regulatory authorities. If state regulatory authorities were to find a person occupying any such position or a joint venture partner unsuitable, we would be required to sever our relationship with that person or the joint venture partner may be required to dispose of their interest in the joint venture. State regulatory agencies may conduct investigations into the conduct or associations of our directors, officers, key employees or joint venture partners to ensure compliance with applicable standards.
Certain public and private issuances of securities and other transactions that we are party to also require the approval of some state regulatory authorities.
Regulations affecting businesses in general
In addition to gaming regulations, we are also subject to various federal, state and local laws and regulations affecting businesses in general. These laws and regulations include, but are not limited to, restrictions and conditions concerning alcoholic beverages,

18

Table of Contents 

environmental matters, smoking, employees, currency transactions, taxation, zoning and building codes, and marketing and advertising. Such laws and regulations could change or could be interpreted differently in the future, or new laws and regulations could be enacted. For example, Nevada recently enacted legislation that eliminated, in most instances, and, for certain pre-existing development projects such as Echelon, reduced, property tax breaks and retroactively eliminated certain sales tax exemptions offered as incentives to companies developing projects that meet certain environmental “green” standards. As a result, we, along with other companies developing projects that meet such standards, may not realize the full tax benefits that were originally anticipated.
 
We are subject to extensive taxation policies, which may harm our business.
The federal government has, from time to time, considered a federal tax on casino revenues and may consider such a tax in the future. In addition, gaming companies are currently subject to significant state and local taxes and fees, in addition to normal federal and state corporate income taxes, and such taxes and fees are subject to increase at any time. For example, in June 2006, the Illinois legislature passed certain amendments to the Riverboat Gambling Act, which affected the tax rate at Par-A-Dice. The legislation, which imposes an incremental 5% tax on adjusted gross gaming revenues, was retroactive to July 1, 2005. As a result of this legislation, we were required to pay additional taxes, resulting in a $6.7 million tax assessment in June 2006. Also, in May 2007, Blue Chip received a valuation notice indicating an unanticipated increase of nearly 400% to its assessed property value as of January 1, 2006. At that time, we estimated that the increase in assessed property value could result in a property tax assessment ranging between $4 million and $11 million for the eighteen-month period ended June 30, 2007. We recorded an additional charge of $3.2 million during the three months ended June 30, 2007 to increase our property tax liability to $5.8 million at June 30, 2007 as we believed that was the most likely amount to be assessed within the range. We subsequently received a property tax bill related to our 2006 tax assessment for $6.2 million in December 2007. As we have appealed the assessment, Indiana statutes allow for a minimum required payment of $1.9 million, which was paid against the $6.2 million assessment in January 2008. In February 2009, we received a notice of revaluation, which reduced the property's assessed value by $100 million and the tax assessment by approximately $2.2 million per year. We have subsequently paid the minimum required payment of $1.9 million against provisional bills received in 2007 through 2010, all of which were based on the 2006 valuation notice. We have not received valuation notices for years 2007 through 2010. We believe the assessment for the period from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2010 could result in a property tax assessment ranging between $13.7 million and $28.6 million. We have accrued, net of the payments discussed above, approximately $21.0 million of property tax liability as of December 31, 2010, based on what we believe to be the most likely assessment within our range, once all appeals have been exhausted; however, we can provide no assurances that the estimated amount will approximate the actual amount. The final 2006 assessment, post appeals, as well as the March 1, 2007 through 2010 assessment notices, which have not been received as of December 31, 2010, could result in further adjustment to our estimated property tax liability at Blue Chip.
 
If there is any material increase in state and local taxes and fees, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.
On March 27, 2008, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a decision in Sparks Nugget, Inc. vs. The State of Nevada Department of Taxation (the “Department”), holding that food purchased for subsequent use in the provision of complimentary and/or employee meals was exempt from use tax. On April 14, 2008, the Department filed a Petition for Rehearing (the “Petition”) on the decision. Additionally, on the same date the Nevada Legislature filed an Amicus Curiae brief in support of the Department's position. The Nevada Supreme Court denied the Department's Petition on July 17, 2008. We paid use tax, over the period November 2000 through May 2008, on food purchased for subsequent use in complimentary and employee meals at our Nevada casino properties and estimate the refund to be in the range of $17.1 million to $19.4 million, including interest. In late 2009, the Department audited our refund claim and subsequently issued a $12.3 million sales tax assessment, plus interest of $7.5 million. The Department continues to deny our refund claim and issued the assessment based on their position that the complimentary and employee meals at issue are now subject to sales tax. We do not believe the Department's arguments have any merit, and we appealed both the denial of the refund claim as well as the assessment in a hearing before the Nevada Administrative Law Judge in September 2010. All post hearing briefs were filed by January 31, 2011. In December 2010, a split decision was issued by the same judge, in a factually similar hearing with another taxpayer; and such decision was appealed to the Nevada State Tax Commission (the "Commission") by both the taxpayer and the Department. As a result of the Commission appeal, the judge has postponed a decision in our case, pending the outcome of the Commission's decision, the timing of which is uncertain as of December 31, 2010.
Due to uncertainty surrounding the judge's decision in our case, as well as the ultimate resolution of the Commission appeal, we will not record any gain until the tax refund is realized. For periods subsequent to May 2008, although we have received an assessment from the Department, we have not accrued a liability for sales tax on complimentary and employee meals at our Nevada casino properties, as we do not believe it is probable, based on both procedural issues and the technical merits of the Department's arguments, that we will owe this tax.
Atlantic City casinos, including Borgata, currently pay a 9.25% effective tax rate on gross gaming revenues. We also pay property

19

Table of Contents 

taxes, sales and use taxes, payroll taxes, and franchise taxes, room taxes, parking fees, various license fees, investigative fees and our proportionate share of regulatory costs. Our profitability depends on generating enough revenues to pay gaming taxes and other largely variable expenses, such as payroll and marketing, as well as largely fixed expenses, such as property taxes and interest expense. Borgata is treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes and therefore federal income taxes are the responsibility of its members. Casino partnerships in New Jersey, however, are subject to state income taxes under the Casino Control Act. Therefore, Borgata is required to record New Jersey state income taxes. We cannot assure you that the State of New Jersey will not enact legislation that increases gaming tax rates.
We own real property and are subject to extensive environmental regulation, which creates uncertainty regarding future environmental expenditures and liabilities.
We may incur costs to comply with environmental requirements, such as those relating to discharges into the air, water and land, the handling and disposal of solid and hazardous waste and the cleanup of our property affected by hazardous substances. Under these and other environmental requirements we may be required to investigate and clean up hazardous or toxic substances or chemical releases at our property. As an owner or operator, we could also be held responsible to a governmental entity or third parties for property damage, personal injury and investigation and cleanup costs incurred by them in connection with any contamination. These laws typically impose cleanup responsibility and liability without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of or caused the presence of the contaminants. The liability under those laws has been interpreted to be joint and several unless the harm is divisible and there is a reasonable basis for allocation of the responsibility. The costs of investigation, remediation or removal of those substances may be substantial, and the presence of those substances, or the failure to remediate a property properly, may impair our ability to use our property.
 
Borgata is a participant in a multiemployer pension plan, and the plan has been certified in critical status by the fund's actuary.
In connection with Borgata's collective bargaining agreement with the culinary and hotel workers union, Local 54/UNITE HERE, it participates in the UNITE HERE National Retirement Fund pension plan (the “Fund”). On March 31, 2010, as a result of the extraordinary decline in the financial markets and downturn in the economy, the Fund was certified in critical status by the Fund's actuary under the federal multiemployer plan funding laws pursuant to the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (the “PPA”). In connection with the certification, the Fund's board of trustees has adopted a rehabilitation plan effective on April 1, 2010 (the “Rehabilitation Plan”) with the goal of enabling the Fund to emerge from critical status by January 1, 2023. The Rehabilitation Plan provides for certain increases in employer contributions and, in some cases, a reduction in participant benefits.
Borgata's current monthly pension contributions to the Fund range from $0.4 million to $0.5 million, and its unfunded vested liability to the Fund is $47.1 million for the plan year beginning on January 1, 2010. A renewed economic decline could have a significant adverse effect on the financial condition of the Fund, which may require Borgata to make contributions in addition to those already contemplated. Any such increases in required contributions could adversely affect Borgata's results of operations.
Under applicable federal law, any employer contributing to a multiemployer pension plan that completely ceases participating in the plan while it is underfunded is subject to payment of such employer's assessed share of the aggregate unfunded vested benefits of the plan. In certain circumstances, an employer can also be assessed withdrawal liability for a partial withdrawal from a multiemployer pension plan. Based on an estimate provided by the Fund in April 2010, Borgata has estimated that its pre-tax withdrawal, assuming a hypothetical immediate and complete withdrawal from the Fund, could be in excess of $47 million. However, the exact amount of potential exposure could be higher or lower than the estimate, depending on, among other things, the nature and timing of any triggering events and the funded status of the Fund at that time.
Risks Related to our Properties
We own facilities that are located in areas that experience extreme weather conditions.
Extreme weather conditions may interrupt our operations, damage our properties and reduce the number of customers who visit our facilities in the affected areas.
 
For example, our Treasure Chest Casino, which is located near New Orleans, Louisiana, suffered minor damage and was closed on August 30, 2008 for eight days over Labor Day weekend, as the New Orleans area was under mandatory evacuation orders during Hurricane Gustav. Hurricane Ike resulted in a two-day closure starting September 12, 2008 at Treasure Chest. Although Hurricane Katrina in 2005 caused only minor damage at Treasure Chest, it was closed for 44 days as a result of that hurricane. Additionally, at our Delta Downs Racetrack Casino & Hotel, which is located in Southwest Louisiana, Hurricane Gustav forced us to close for six days, beginning on August 30, 2008, and Hurricane Ike led to a second closure from September 11, 2008 to September 17, 2008. The hurricane closures during 2008 totaled 10 days for Treasure Chest and 13 days for Delta Downs, including two full weekends at both properties. In 2005, Delta Downs suffered significant property damage as a result of Hurricane Rita and closed for 42 days.
Moreover, Blue Chip, Par-A-Dice, Sam's Town Tunica, Sam's Town Shreveport, Treasure Chest and Borgata are each located in

20

Table of Contents 

an area that has been identified by the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) as a special flood hazard area, which, according to the FEMA statistics, has a 1% chance of a flood equal to or exceeding the base flood elevation (a 100-year flood) in any given year.
In addition to the risk of flooding, hurricanes, snowstorms and other adverse weather conditions. may interrupt our operations, damage our properties and reduce the number of customers who visit our facilities in the affected area. For example, February 2010 was the snowiest month ever recorded in Atlantic City, which generally kept would-be gamblers from traveling to Borgata, contributing to a drop in Borgata's monthly revenues from January to February. The 2010 winter season was the worst on record, and travel throughout the entire Northeast was extremely difficult. The residual impact from these record winter storms resulted in day trip visitations to Atlantic City that were reduced or delayed as regional school calendars were extended in order to make up for prior school closures. Additionally, extreme heat and low precipitation levels in the latter half of the six months, particularly in the month of June, have had an adverse impact on visitation and spending at Borgata's property. If there is a prolonged disruption at Borgata or any of our other properties due to natural disasters, terrorist attacks or other catastrophic events, our results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.
While we maintain insurance coverage that may cover certain of the costs and loss of revenue that we incur as a result of some extreme weather conditions, our coverage is subject to deductibles and limits on maximum benefits. There can be no assurance that we will be able to fully collect, if at all, on any claims resulting from extreme weather conditions. If any of our properties are damaged or if their operations are disrupted as a result of extreme weather in the future, or if extreme weather adversely impacts general economic or other conditions in the areas in which our properties are located or from which they draw their patrons, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.
If we are not ultimately successful in dismissing the action filed against Treasure Chest Casino, we may potentially lose our ability to operate the Treasure Chest Casino property and our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.
Alvin C. Copeland, the sole shareholder (deceased) of an unsuccessful applicant for a riverboat license at the location of our Treasure Chest Casino (“Treasure Chest”), has made several attempts to have the Treasure Chest license revoked and awarded to his company. In 1999 and 2000, Copeland unsuccessfully opposed the renewal of the Treasure Chest license and has brought two separate legal actions against Treasure Chest. In November 1993, Copeland objected to the relocation of Treasure Chest from the Mississippi River to its current site on Lake Pontchartrain. The predecessor to the Louisiana Gaming Control Board allowed the relocation over Copeland's objection. Copeland then filed an appeal of the agency's decision with the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. Through a number of amendments to the appeal, Copeland unsuccessfully attempted to transform the appeal into a direct action suit and sought the revocation of the Treasure Chest license. Treasure Chest intervened in the matter in order to protect its interests. The appeal/suit, as it related to Treasure Chest, was dismissed by the District Court and that dismissal was upheld on appeal by the First Circuit Court of Appeal. Additionally, in 1999, Copeland filed a direct action against Treasure Chest and certain other parties seeking the revocation of Treasure Chest's license, an award of the license to him, and monetary damages. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, citing that Copeland failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The dismissal was appealed by Copeland to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal. On September 21, 2002, the First Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the matter to the trial court. On January 14, 2003, we filed a motion to dismiss the matter and that motion was partially denied. The Court of Appeal refused to reverse the denial of the motion to dismiss. In May 2004, we filed additional motions to dismiss on other grounds. There was no activity regarding this matter during 2005 and 2006, and the case was set to be dismissed by the court for failure to prosecute by the plaintiffs in mid-May 2007; however on May 1, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion to set a hearing date related to the motions to dismiss. The hearing was scheduled for September 10, 2007, at which time all parties agreed to postpone the hearing indefinitely. The hearing has not yet been rescheduled. Mr. Copeland has since passed away and his son, the executor of his estate, has petitioned the court to be substituted as plaintiff in the case. On June 9, 2009, the plaintiff filed to have the exceptions set for hearing. The parties decided to submit the exceptions to the court on the previously filed briefs. The court issued a ruling denying the exceptions on August 9, 2010. Copeland's counsel indicated a desire to move forward with the litigation and requested that the parties respond to outstanding discovery. Subsequently, on August 11, 2010, Robert J. Guidry, the co-defendant, filed a third party demand against the U.S. Attorney's Office seeking enforcement of Guidry's plea agreement which would limit Guidry's exposure in the case. On September 9, 2010, the U.S. Attorney's Office removed the suit to the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana. Pending before the District Court are a Motion to Dismiss for failing to state a cause of action filed by Guidry, asserting the same arguments he tried in state court, which the Company joined and a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed by the U.S. Attorney. The motions have been fully briefed and submitted to the Court and will be heard by the U.S. District Court on March 16, 2011. If the case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it will be remanded to the state court. We currently are vigorously defending the lawsuit. If this matter ultimately results in the Treasure Chest license being revoked, it could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Our insurance coverage may not be adequate to cover all possible losses that our properties could suffer. In addition, our

21

Table of Contents 

insurance costs may increase and we may not be able to obtain similar insurance coverage in the future.
Although we have “all risk” property insurance coverage for our operating properties, which covers damage caused by a casualty loss (such as fire, natural disasters, acts of war, or terrorism), each policy has certain exclusions. In addition, our property insurance coverage is in an amount that may be significantly less than the expected replacement cost of rebuilding the facilities if there was a total loss. Our level of insurance coverage also may not be adequate to cover all losses in the event of a major casualty. In addition, certain casualty events, such as labor strikes, nuclear events, acts of war, loss of income due to cancellation of room reservations or conventions due to fear of terrorism, deterioration or corrosion, insect or animal damage and pollution, may not be covered at all under our policies. Therefore, certain acts could expose us to substantial uninsured losses.
We also have “builder's risk” insurance coverage for our development and expansion projects, including Echelon. Builder's risk insurance provides coverage for projects during their construction for damage caused by a casualty loss. In general, our builder's risk coverage is subject to the same exclusions, risks and deficiencies as those described above for our all risk property coverage. Our level of builder's risk insurance coverage may not be adequate to cover all losses in the event of a major casualty.
Blue Chip, Par-A-Dice, Sam's Town Tunica, Sam's Town Shreveport, Treasure Chest and Borgata are each located in an area that has been identified by the director of the FEMA as a special flood hazard area. According to the FEMA statistics, a special flood hazard area has a 1% chance of a flood equal to or exceeding the base flood elevation (a 100-year flood) in any given year. Over a 30-year period, the risk of a 100-year flood in a special flood hazard area is 26%. At all times when we have a loan or credit facility from federally insured or regulated lender or lenders, we are required to maintain flood insurance at least equal to the lesser of (i) the outstanding principal balance of the loan; (ii) the maximum amount of coverage allowed for the type of property under the National Flood Insurance Program (“NFIP”) managed by FEMA; or (iii) the full replacement cost value of the collateral. The maximum amount of NFIP insurance currently available on a commercial building is currently $0.5 million. Our level of flood insurance coverage may not be adequate to cover all losses in the event of a major flood.
In addition to the damage caused to our properties by a casualty loss, we may suffer business disruption as a result of these events or be subject to claims by third parties that may be injured or harmed. While we carry business interruption insurance and general liability insurance, this insurance may not be adequate to cover all losses in any such event.
We renew our insurance policies (other than our builder's risk insurance) on an annual basis. The cost of coverage may become so high that we may need to further reduce our policy limits or agree to certain exclusions from our coverage.
Our debt instruments and other material agreements require us to meet certain standards related to insurance coverage. Failure to satisfy these requirements could result in an event of default under these debt instruments or material agreements.
We draw a significant percentage of our customers from certain geographic regions. Events adversely impacting the economy or these regions, including public health outbreaks and man-made or natural disasters, may adversely impact our business.
The Cal, Fremont and Main Street Station draw a substantial portion of their customers from the Hawaiian market. For the year ended December 31, 2010, patrons from Hawaii comprised 66% of the room nights sold at the California, 51% at Fremont and 52% at Main Street Station. Decreases in discretionary consumer spending, as well as an increase in fuel costs or transportation prices, a decrease in airplane seat availability, or a deterioration of relations with tour and travel agents, particularly as they affect travel between the Hawaiian market and our facilities, could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
 
Our Las Vegas properties also draw a substantial number of customers from certain other specific geographic areas, including the Southern California, Arizona and Las Vegas local markets. Native American casinos in California and other parts of the United States have diverted some potential visitors away from Nevada, which has had and could continue to have a negative effect on Nevada gaming markets. In addition, due to our significant concentration of properties in Nevada, any man-made or natural disasters in or around Nevada, or the areas from which we draw customers to our Las Vegas properties, could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Each of our properties located outside of Nevada depends primarily on visitors from their respective surrounding regions and are subject to comparable risk.
Additionally, the expansion of casino gaming in or near the mid-Atlantic region from which Borgata attracts and expects to attract most of its customers could have a significant adverse effect on its business, results of operations and financial condition. In 2010, Pennsylvania passed legislation allowing table games at certain casinos in the state, and other states near New Jersey, including New York, Delaware, Connecticut, and Maryland have or are currently contemplating gaming legislation. The expansion of gaming facilities in nearby states will further increase competition and may adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Borgata also competes with Native American tribes in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region. Expansion of Native American

22

Table of Contents 

gaming could have an adverse effect on Borgata's business, results of operations and financial condition, as Native American gaming facilities typically have a significant operating advantage over Borgata due to lower gaming taxes, allowing those facilities to market more aggressively and to expand or update their facilities at an accelerated rate.
The strength and profitability of our business depends on consumer demand for hotel casino resorts in general and for the type of amenities our properties offer. Changes in consumer preferences or discretionary consumer spending could harm our business. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, other terrorist activities in the United States and elsewhere, military conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and in the Middle East, outbreaks of infectious disease and pandemics, adverse weather conditions and natural disasters, among other things, have had negative impacts on travel and leisure expenditures. In addition, other factors affecting travel and discretionary consumer spending, including general economic conditions, disposable consumer income, fears of further economic decline and reduced consumer confidence in the economy, may negatively impact our business. We cannot predict the extent to which similar events and conditions may continue to affect us in the future. An extended period of reduced discretionary spending and/or disruptions or declines in tourism could significantly harm our operations.
Furthermore, our facilities are subject to the risk that operations could be halted for a temporary or extended period of time, as a result of casualty, flooding, forces of nature, adverse weather conditions, mechanical failure, or extended or extraordinary maintenance, among other causes. If there is a prolonged disruption at any of our properties due to natural disasters, terrorist attacks or other catastrophic events, our results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.
The outbreak of public health threats at any of our properties or in the areas in which they are located, or the perception that such threats exist, including pandemic health threats, such as the avian influenza virus, SARS, or the H1N1 flu, among others, could have a significant adverse affect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Likewise, adverse economic conditions that affect the national or regional economies in which we operate, whether resulting from war, terrorist activities or other geopolitical conflict, weather, general or localized economic downturns or related events or other factors, could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
In addition, to the extent that the airline industry is negatively impacted due to the effects of the economic recession and continued economic downturn, outbreak of war, public health threats, terrorist or similar activity, increased security restrictions or the public's general reluctance to travel by air, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.
Energy price increases may adversely affect our cost of operations and our revenues.
Our casino properties use significant amounts of electricity, natural gas and other forms of energy. In addition, our Hawaiian air charter operation uses a significant amount of jet fuel. While no shortages of energy or fuel have been experienced to date, substantial increases in energy and fuel prices, including jet fuel prices, in the United States have, and may continue to, negatively affect our results of operations. The extent of the impact is subject to the magnitude and duration of the energy and fuel price increases, of which the impact could be material. In addition, energy and gasoline price increases could result in a decline of disposable income of potential customers, an increase in the cost of travel and a corresponding decrease in visitation and spending at our properties, which could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
 
Borgata has an executory contract with a wholly-owned subsidiary of a local utility company with terms that extend to June 2028, 20 years from the opening of The Water Club. The utility company provides Borgata with electricity and thermal energy (hot water and chilled water). Obligations under the thermal energy executory contract contain both fixed fees and variable fees based upon usage rates. The fixed fee components under the thermal energy executory contract were estimated at approximately $11.4 million per annum as of December 31, 2010. Borgata is also obligated to purchase a certain portion of its electricity demand at essentially a fixed rate which is estimated at approximately $1.7 million per annum. Electricity demand in excess of the commitment is subject to market rates based on Borgata's tariff class.
 
Our facilities, including our riverboats and dockside facilities, are subject to risks relating to mechanical failure and regulatory compliance.
Generally, all of our facilities are subject to the risk that operations could be halted for a temporary or extended period of time, as the result of casualty, forces of nature, mechanical failure, or extended or extraordinary maintenance, among other causes. In addition, our gaming operations, including those conducted on riverboats or at dockside facilities could be damaged or halted due to extreme weather conditions.
 
We currently conduct our Treasure Chest, Par-A-Dice, Blue Chip and Sam's Town Shreveport gaming operations on riverboats. Each of our riverboats must comply with United States Coast Guard (“USCG”) requirements as to boat design, on-board facilities, equipment, personnel and safety. Each riverboat must hold a Certificate of Inspection for stabilization and flotation, and may also be subject to local zoning codes. The USCG requirements establish design standards, set limits on the operation of the vessels and require individual licensing of all personnel involved with the operation of the vessels. Loss of a vessel's Certificate of Inspection

23

Table of Contents 

would preclude its use as a casino.
USCG regulations require a hull inspection for all riverboats at five-year intervals. Under certain circumstances, alternative hull inspections may be approved. The USCG may require that such hull inspections be conducted at a dry-docking facility, and if so required, the cost of travel to and from such docking facility, as well as the time required for inspections of the affected riverboats, could be significant. To date, the USCG has allowed in-place underwater inspections of our riverboats twice every five years on alternate two and three year schedules. The USCG may not continue to allow these types of inspections in the future. The loss of a dockside casino or riverboat casino from service for any period of time could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Indiana and Louisiana have adopted alternate inspection standards for riverboats in those states. The standards require inspection by the American Bureau of Shipping Consulting (“ABSC”). ABSC inspection for our riverboats at Blue Chip, Treasure Chest and Sam's Town Shreveport commenced during 2010. The Par-A-Dice riverboat will remain inspected by the USCG for the foreseeable future. ABSC imposes essentially the same design, personnel, safety, and hull inspection standards as the USCG. Therefore, the risks to our business associated with USCG inspection should not change by reason of inspection by ABSC. Failure of a vessel to meet the applicable USCG or ABSC standards would preclude its use as a casino.
USCG regulations also require us to prepare and follow certain security programs. In 2004, we implemented the American Gaming Association's Alternative Security Program at our riverboat casinos and dockside facilities. The American Gaming Association's Alternative Security Program is specifically designed to address maritime security requirements at riverboat casinos and their respective dockside facilities. Only portions of those regulations will apply to our riverboats inspected by ABSC. Changes to these regulations could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Some of our hotels and casinos are located on leased property. If we default on one or more leases, the applicable lessors could terminate the affected leases and we could lose possession of the affected hotel and/or casino.
We lease certain parcels of land on which The Orleans, Suncoast, Treasure Chest, Sam's Town Shreveport and Borgata's hotel and gaming facility are located. In addition, we lease other parcels of land on which portions of the Cal and the Fremont are located. As a ground lessee, we have the right to use the leased land; however, we do not retain fee ownership in the underlying land. Accordingly, with respect to the leased land, we will have no interest in the land or improvements thereon at the expiration of the ground leases. Moreover, since we do not completely control the land underlying the property, a landowner could take certain actions to disrupt our rights in the land leased under the long term leases. While such interruption is unlikely, such events are beyond our control. If the entity owning any leased land chose to disrupt our use either permanently or for a significant period of time, then the value of our assets could be impaired and our business and operations could be adversely affected. If we were to default on any one or more of these leases, the applicable lessors could terminate the affected leases and we could lose possession of the affected land and any improvements on the land, including the hotels and casinos. This would have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations as we would then be unable to operate all or portions of the affected facilities.
Risks Related to our Indebtedness
We have a significant amount of indebtedness.
We had total consolidated long-term debt, net of current maturities, of approximately $3.2 billion at December 31, 2010. If we pursue, or continue to pursue, any expansion, development, investment or renovation projects, we expect that our long-term debt will substantially increase in connection with related capital expenditures. This indebtedness could have important consequences, including:
•    
difficulty in satisfying our obligations under our current indebtedness;
•    
increasing our vulnerability to general adverse economic and industry conditions;
•    
requiring us to dedicate a substantial portion of our cash flows from operations to payments on our indebtedness, which would reduce the availability of our cash flows to fund working capital, capital expenditures, expansion efforts and other general corporate purposes;
•    
limiting our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and the industry in which we operate;
•    
placing us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors that have less debt; and
•    
limiting, along with the financial and other restrictive covenants in our indebtedness, among other things, our ability to borrow additional funds.
Failure to comply with these covenants could result in an event of default, which, if not cured or waived, could have a significant adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

24

Table of Contents 

Our debt instruments contain, and any future debt instruments likely will contain, a number of restrictive covenants that impose significant operating and financial restrictions on us, including restrictions on our ability to, among other things:
•    
incur additional debt, including providing guarantees or credit support;
•    
incur liens securing indebtedness or other obligations;
•    
dispose of assets;
•    
make certain acquisitions;
•    
pay dividends or make distributions and make other restricted payments;
•    
enter into sale and leaseback transactions;
•    
engage in any new businesses; and
•    
enter into transactions with our stockholders and our affiliates.
On December 3, 2010, we entered into an Amendment and Restatement Agreement among us, certain financial institutions (each a “Lender”), Bank of America, N.A., as administrative agent and letter of credit issuer, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as swing line lender (the “Amendment and Restatement Agreement”). Pursuant to the terms of the Amendment and Restatement Agreement, our First Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of May 24, 2007, as amended by the First Amendment and Consent to First Amended Credit Agreement, dated as of December 21, 2009 (as amended, the “Amended Credit Facility”), was amended and restated to, among other things, (i) reduce the aggregate commitments under the Credit Facility and (ii) permit consenting Lenders to extend the maturity date of their commitments, new Lenders to issue revolving commitments and term loans and existing Lenders to increase their commitments (each, an “Extending Lender”) in each case with a maturity date five years from the Restatement Effective Date.
 
Each of the Extending Lenders permanently reduced their commitments under the Amended Credit Facility by up to 50% of the amount thereof. As a result, the aggregate commitments under the Amended Credit Facility were reduced from $3 billion to approximately $1.5 billion (excluding the non-extending amounts), which commitments may be increased from time to time by up to $500 million (instead of $1 billion commitment increases provided for under the previous credit facility) through additional revolving credit or term loans under the Amended Credit Facility.
Our current debt service requirements on the extending amounts under the Amended Credit Facility primarily consist of interest payments on the outstanding borrowings. However, pursuant to the terms of the Amended Credit Facility, the term loans amortize in an annual amount equal to 5% of the original principal amount thereof, commencing March 31, 2011, payable on a quarterly basis. The interest rate per annum applicable to revolving loans under the Amended Credit Facility is based upon, at our option, LIBOR or the “base rate,” plus an applicable margin in either case. Debt service requirements under our current outstanding senior subordinated and senior notes consist of semi-annual interest payments (based upon fixed annual interest rates ranging from 6.75% to 9.125%) and repayment of our senior subordinated and senior notes due April 15, 2014, February 1, 2016 and December 1, 2018 for each of our 6.75% and 7.125% senior subordinated notes and our 9.125% senior notes, respectively.
The Amended Credit Facility contains certain financial and other covenants, including, without limitation, various covenants (i) requiring the maintenance of a minimum consolidated interest coverage ratio, (ii) establishing a maximum permitted consolidated total leverage ratio, (iii) establishing a maximum permitted secured leverage ratio, (iv) imposing limitations on the incurrence of indebtedness, (v) imposing limitations on transfers, sales and other dispositions and (vi) imposing restrictions on investments, dividends and certain other payments. Subject to certain exceptions, we may be required to repay the amounts outstanding under the Amended Credit Facility in connection with certain asset sales and issuances of certain additional secured indebtedness.
In addition, our Amended Credit Facility requires us to maintain certain ratios, including a minimum Interest Coverage Ratio (as defined in the Amended Credit Facility) of 2.00 to 1.00, a Total Leverage Ratio and a Secured Leverage Ratio (both as defined in the Amended Credit Facility) that adjust over the life of our Amended Credit Facility. We believe that we were in compliance with the Amended Credit Facility covenants, including the minimum consolidated Interest Coverage Ratio, the maximum permitted consolidated Total Leverage Ratio and the maximum permitted Secured Leverage Ratio, which, at December 31, 2010, were 2.84 to 1.00, 7.07 to 1.00 and 4.21 to 1.00, respectively.
At December 31, 2010, assuming our current level of Consolidated Funded Indebtedness remains constant, we estimate that an 8.7% or greater decline in our twelve-month trailing Consolidated EBITDA, as compared to December 31, 2010, would cause us to exceed our maximum permitted consolidated Total Leverage Ratio covenant for that period. In addition, at December 31, 2010, assuming our current level of Secured Indebtedness remains constant, we estimate that a 6.4% or greater decline in our twelve-month trailing Consolidated EBITDA, as compared to December 31, 2010, would cause us to exceed our maximum permitted Secured Leverage Ratio covenant for that period. Additionally, at December 31, 2010, assuming our current level of interest expense remains constant, we estimate that a 29.5% or greater decline in our twelve-month trailing Consolidated EBITDA, as compared to December 31, 2010, would cause us to go below our minimum consolidated Interest Coverage Ratio covenant for that period.

25

Table of Contents 

However, in the event that we project our Consolidated EBITDA may decline by such levels or more, we could implement certain actions in an effort to minimize the possibility of a breach of the maximum permitted consolidated Total Leverage Ratio, the maximum permitted Secured Leverage Ratio and the minimum consolidated Interest Coverage Ratio covenants. These actions may include, among others, reducing payroll, benefits and certain other operating costs, deferring or eliminating certain maintenance, expansion or other capital expenditures, reducing our outstanding indebtedness through repurchases or redemption, and/or increasing cash by selling assets or issuing equity.
 
In addition, Borgata has significant indebtedness which could affect its ability to pay dividends to us. While we received a one-time distribution from Borgata of approximately $135.4 million in August 2010 in connection with Borgata's financing, any future distribution from Borgata (other than distributions to satisfy tax liabilities relating to income of Borgata) will be subject to the limitations on dividends, distributions and certain other restricted payments under Borgata's bank credit agreement and the indenture governing Borgata's senior secured notes.
Excluding the one-time distribution from Borgata discussed above, our distributions from Borgata were $20.8 million, $60.1 million and $19.6 million during the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. Other than the August 2010 distribution, the distributions from Borgata have generally declined as a result of the decline in Borgata's operating results. Borgata has significant uses for its cash flows, including maintenance capital expenditures, interest payments, state income taxes and the repayment of debt. Borgata's cash flows are primarily used for its business needs and are not generally available, except to the extent distributions are paid to us, to service our indebtedness.
 
In addition, Borgata's bank credit facility contains customary affirmative and negative covenants, including covenants that limit Borgata's ability to:
•    
    incur additional debt;
•    
    pay dividends and make other distributions;
•    
    create liens;
•    
    enter into transactions with affiliates;
•    
    merge or consolidate; and
•    
    engage in unrelated business activities.
To service our indebtedness, we will require a significant amount of cash. Our ability to generate cash depends on many factors beyond our control.
Our ability to make payments on and to refinance our indebtedness and to fund planned capital expenditures and expansion efforts will depend upon our ability to generate cash in the future. This, to a certain extent, is subject to general economic, financial, competitive, legislative, regulatory and other factors that are beyond our control.
 
It is unlikely that our business will generate sufficient cash flows from operations, or that future borrowings will be available to us under our Amended Credit Facility in amounts sufficient to enable us to pay our indebtedness, as such indebtedness matures and to fund our other liquidity needs. We believe that we will need to refinance all or a portion of our indebtedness, at maturity, and cannot provide assurances that we will be able to refinance any of our indebtedness, including our Amended Credit Facility, on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. We may have to adopt one or more alternatives, such as reducing or delaying planned expenses and capital expenditures, selling assets, restructuring debt, or obtaining additional equity or debt financing or joint venture partners. These financing strategies may not be effected on satisfactory terms, if at all. In addition, certain states' laws contain restrictions on the ability of companies engaged in the gaming business to undertake certain financing transactions. Some restrictions may prevent us from obtaining necessary capital.
We and our subsidiaries may still be able to incur substantially more debt, which could further exacerbate the risks described above.
We and our subsidiaries may be able to incur substantial additional indebtedness in the future. The terms of the indentures governing our senior subordinated and senior notes and Borgata's senior secured notes do not fully prohibit us or our subsidiaries from doing so. Approximately $566.8 million of contractual availability was available for borrowing under our Amended Credit Facility as of December 31, 2010. If new debt is added to our, or our subsidiaries', current debt levels, the related risks that we or they now face could intensify.
 
Borgata may be unable to refinance its indebtedness.
In August 2010, Borgata entered into a $150 million bank credit facility that matures in August 2014 and issued $800 million in senior secured debt, $400 million of which matures in October 2015 and $400 million of which matures in August 2018. Borgata's ability to refinance its indebtedness will depend on its ability to generate future cash flow and Borgata is entirely dependent on

26

Table of Contents 

its operations, including the Water Club, for all of its cash flow. Its ability to generate cash in the future, to a certain extent, is subject to general economic, financial, competitive, legislative, regulatory and other factors that are beyond its control.
 
It is unlikely that Borgata's business will generate sufficient cash flows from operations in amounts sufficient to enable it to pay the principal on its indebtedness at maturity and to fund its other liquidity needs. We believe Borgata will need to refinance all or a portion of its indebtedness before maturity, and we cannot provide assurances that it will be able to repay or refinance its indebtedness on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Borgata may have to adopt one or more alternatives, such as reducing or delaying planned expenses and capital expenditures, selling assets, restructuring debt, or obtaining additional equity or debt financing or joint venture partners. These financing strategies may not be effected on satisfactory terms, if at all. In addition, New Jersey laws and regulations contain restrictions on the ability of companies engaged in the gaming business to undertake certain financing transactions. Such restrictions may prevent Borgata from obtaining necessary capital.
If we are unable to finance our expansion, development, investment and renovation projects, as well as other capital expenditures, through cash flow, borrowings under the credit facility and additional financings, our expansion, development, investment and renovation efforts will be jeopardized.
We intend to finance our current and future expansion, development, investment and renovation projects, as well as our other capital expenditures, primarily with cash flow from operations, borrowings under the Amended Credit Facility, and equity or debt financings. If we are unable to finance our current or future expansion, development, investment and renovation projects, or our other capital expenditures, we will have to adopt one or more alternatives, such as reducing, delaying or abandoning planned expansion, development, investment and renovation projects as well as other capital expenditures, selling assets, restructuring debt, reducing the amount or suspending or discontinuing the distribution of dividends, obtaining additional equity financing or joint venture partners, or modifying the Amended Credit Facility. These sources of funds may not be sufficient to finance our expansion, development, investment and renovation projects, and other financing may not be available on acceptable terms, in a timely manner, or at all. In addition, our existing indebtedness contains certain restrictions on our ability to incur additional indebtedness.
Recently, there have been significant disruptions in the global capital markets that have adversely impacted the ability of borrowers to access capital. We anticipate that these disruptions may continue for the foreseeable future. We anticipate that we will be able to fund any expansion projects using cash flows from operations and availability under the Amended Credit Facility (to the extent that availability exists after we meet our working capital needs).
If availability under the Amended Credit Facility does not exist or we are otherwise unable to make sufficient borrowings thereunder, any additional financing that is needed may not be available to us or, if available, may not be on terms favorable to us. As a result, if we are unable to obtain adequate project financing in a timely manner, or at all, we may be forced to sell assets in order to raise capital for projects, limit the scope of, or defer such projects, or cancel the projects altogether. In the event that capital markets do not improve and we are unable to access capital with more favorable terms, additional equity and/or credit support may be necessary to obtain construction financing for the remaining cost of the project.
Risks Related to our Equity Ownership
 
Our common stock price may fluctuate substantially, and a shareholder's investment could decline in value.
The market price of our common stock may fluctuate substantially due to many factors, including:
 
•    
actual or anticipated fluctuations in our results of operations;
•    
announcements of significant acquisitions or other agreements by us or by our competitors;
•    
our sale of common stock or other securities in the future;
•    
trading volume of our common stock;
•    
conditions and trends in the gaming and destination entertainment industries;
•    
changes in the estimation of the future size and growth of our markets; and
•    
general economic conditions, including, without limitation, changes in the cost of fuel and air travel.
In addition, the stock market in general has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to companies' operating performance. Broad market and industry factors may materially harm the market price of our common stock, regardless of our operating performance. In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company's securities, shareholder derivative lawsuits and/or securities class action litigation has often been instituted against that company. Such litigation, if instituted against us, could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management's attention and resources.
 
Certain of our stockholders own large interests in our capital stock and may significantly influence our affairs.
William S. Boyd, our Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors, together with his immediate family, beneficially owned

27

Table of Contents 

approximately 37% of the Company's outstanding shares of common stock as of December 31, 2010. As such, the Boyd family has the ability to significantly influence our affairs, including the election of members of our Board of Directors and, except as otherwise provided by law, approving or disapproving other matters submitted to a vote of our stockholders, including a merger, consolidation, or sale of assets.
 
ITEM 1B.    
Unresolved Staff Comments.
None.
 
ITEM 2.    
Properties.
Information relating to the location and general characteristics of our properties appears in tabular format under Part I, Item 1, Business - Properties, and is incorporated herein by reference.
As of December 31, 2010, some of our hotel casinos and development projects are located on leased property, including:
•    
The Orleans, located on 77 acres of leased land.
•    
Suncoast, located on 49 acres of leased land.
•    
California, located on 13.9 acres of owned land and 1.6 acres of leased land.
•    
Fremont, located on 1.4 acres of owned land and 0.9 acres of leased land.
•    
Sam's Town Tunica, located on 272 acres of leased land.
•    
Treasure Chest, located on 14 acres of leased land.
•    
Sam's Town Shreveport, located on 18 acres of leased land.
•    
Borgata, located on 26 acres of owned land and 19.6 acres of leased land.
 
ITEM 3.    
Legal Proceedings.
Copeland
Alvin C. Copeland, the sole shareholder (deceased) of an unsuccessful applicant for a riverboat license at the location of our Treasure Chest Casino (“Treasure Chest”), has made several attempts to have the Treasure Chest license revoked and awarded to his company. In 1999 and 2000, Copeland unsuccessfully opposed the renewal of the Treasure Chest license and has brought two separate legal actions against Treasure Chest. In November 1993, Copeland objected to the relocation of Treasure Chest from the Mississippi River to its current site on Lake Pontchartrain. The predecessor to the Louisiana Gaming Control Board allowed the relocation over Copeland's objection. Copeland then filed an appeal of the agency's decision with the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. Through a number of amendments to the appeal, Copeland unsuccessfully attempted to transform the appeal into a direct action suit and sought the revocation of the Treasure Chest license. Treasure Chest intervened in the matter in order to protect its interests. The appeal/suit, as it related to Treasure Chest, was dismissed by the District Court and that dismissal was upheld on appeal by the First Circuit Court of Appeal. Additionally, in 1999, Copeland filed a direct action against Treasure Chest and certain other parties seeking the revocation of Treasure Chest's license, an award of the license to him, and monetary damages. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, citing that Copeland failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The dismissal was appealed by Copeland to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal. On September 21, 2002, the First Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the matter to the trial court. On January 14, 2003, we filed a motion to dismiss the matter and that motion was partially denied. The Court of Appeal refused to reverse the denial of the motion to dismiss. In May 2004, we filed additional motions to dismiss on other grounds. There was no activity regarding this matter during 2005 and 2006, and the case was set to be dismissed by the court for failure to prosecute by the plaintiffs in mid-May 2007; however on May 1, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion to set a hearing date related to the motions to dismiss. The hearing was scheduled for September 10, 2007, at which time all parties agreed to postpone the hearing indefinitely. The hearing has not yet been rescheduled. Mr. Copeland has since passed away and his son, the executor of his estate, has petitioned the court to be substituted as plaintiff in the case. On June 9, 2009, the plaintiff filed to have the exceptions set for hearing. The parties decided to submit the exceptions to the court on the previously filed briefs. The court issued a ruling denying the exceptions on August 9, 2010. Copeland's counsel indicated a desire to move forward with the litigation and requested that the parties respond to outstanding discovery. Subsequently, on August 11, 2010, Robert J. Guidry, the co-defendant, filed a third party demand against the U.S. Attorney's Office seeking enforcement of Guidry's plea agreement which would limit Guidry's exposure in the case. On September 9, 2010, the U.S. Attorney's Office removed the suit to the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana. Pending before the District Court are a Motion

28

Table of Contents 

to Dismiss for failing to state a cause of action filed by Guidry, asserting the same arguments he tried in state court, which the Company joined and a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed by the U.S. Attorney. The motions have been fully briefed and submitted to the Court and will be heard by the U.S. District Court on March 16, 2011. If the case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it will be remanded to the state court. We currently are vigorously defending the lawsuit. If this matter ultimately results in the Treasure Chest license being revoked, it could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
 
We are also parties to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. We believe that, except for the Copeland matter discussed above, all pending claims, if adversely decided, would not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position or results of operations.
 
ITEM 4.    
Reserved.
 
ITEM 4A.    
Executive Officers of the Registrant.
The following table sets forth the non-director executive officers of Boyd Gaming Corporation as of March 7, 2011:
Name
 
Age
 
Position
Paul J. Chakmak
 
46
 
Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
Brian A. Larson
 
55
 
Executive Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel
Josh Hirsberg
 
49
 
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)
Ellie J. Bowdish
 
43
 
Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
Paul J. Chakmak has served as our Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer since January 1, 2008. Mr. Chakmak joined us in February 2004 as our Senior Vice President - Finance and Treasurer, and was appointed Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer on June 1, 2006.
Brian A. Larson has served as our Executive Vice President and General Counsel since January 1, 2008 and as our Secretary since February 2001. Mr. Larson became our Senior Vice President and General Counsel in January 1998. He became our Associate General Counsel in March 1993 and Vice President-Development in June 1993.
Josh Hirsberg joined the Company as our Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer effective January 1, 2008. Prior to his position with the Company, Mr. Hirsberg served as the Chief Financial Officer for EdgeStar Partners, a Las Vegas-based resort development concern. He previously held several senior-level finance positions in the gaming industry, including Vice President and Treasurer for Caesars Entertainment and Vice President, Strategic Planning and Investor Relations for Harrah's Entertainment.
Ellie J. Bowdish joined the Company as our Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer effective December 1, 2009. Ms. Bowdish previously served in different positions with First Data Corporation, an electronic commerce and payment solutions company, most recently as the Vice President, Legal and Business Services, of the Prepaid Services business segment and previously as the Vice President, Controller, of the Payment Services business segment.
 

29

Table of Contents 

PART II
 
ITEM 5.    
Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.
Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “BYD.” Information with respect to sales prices and record holders of our common stock is set forth below.
Market Information
The following table sets forth, for the calendar quarters indicated, the high and low sales prices of our common stock as reported by the New York Stock Exchange.
 
High
 
Low
Year Ended December 31, 2010
 
 
 
First Quarter
$
10.11
 
 
$
7.49
 
Second Quarter
13.78
 
 
8.49
 
Third Quarter
9.03
 
 
6.8
 
Fourth Quarter
10.60
 
 
7.24
 
Year Ended December 31, 2009
 
 
 
First Quarter
$
6.27
 
 
$
2.96
 
Second Quarter
12.86
 
 
3.58
 
Third Quarter
12.77
 
 
7.44
 
Fourth Quarter
11.62
 
 
6.93
 
On March 7, 2011, the closing sales price of our common stock on the NYSE was $9.66 per share. On that date, we had approximately 897 holders of record of our common stock and our directors and executive officers owned approximately 37% of the outstanding shares. There are no other classes of common equity outstanding.
Dividends
Dividends are declared at the discretion of our Board of Directors. In July 2008, our Board of Directors suspended the payment of a quarterly dividend for future periods. We are subject to certain limitations regarding the payment of dividends, such as restricted payment limitations related to our outstanding notes and our Amended Credit Facility. The following table sets forth the cash dividends declared and paid during the three year period ended December 31, 2010.
Payment Date 
 
Record Date
 
Dividend per Share
March 3, 2008
 
February 18, 2008
 
$
0.150
 
June 2, 2008
 
May 14, 2008
 
0.150
 
Share Repurchase Program
In July 2008, our Board of Directors authorized an amendment to our existing share repurchase program to increase the amount of common stock available to be repurchased to $100 million. We are not obligated to purchase any shares under our stock repurchase program. Through December 31, 2010, we have repurchased $6.9 million in shares of our common stock under the share repurchase program and are authorized to repurchase up to an additional $92.1 million in shares.
Subject to applicable corporate securities laws, repurchases under our stock repurchase program may be made at such times and in such amounts as we deem appropriate. Purchases under our stock repurchase program can be discontinued at any time that we feel additional purchases are not warranted. We intend to fund the repurchases under the stock repurchase program with existing cash resources and availability under our Amended Credit Facility.
We are subject to certain limitations regarding the repurchase of common stock, such as restricted payment limitations related to our outstanding notes and our Amended Credit Facility.
No purchases under our stock repurchase program were made during the fourth quarter of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. In the future, we may acquire our debt or equity securities, through open market purchases, privately negotiated transactions, tender offers, exchange offers, redemptions or otherwise, upon such terms and at such prices as we may determine.

30

Table of Contents 

Part III, Item 12, Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters, of this Annual Report on Form 10-K contains information concerning securities authorized for issuance under equity compensation plans.
Stock Performance Graph
The graph below compares the five-year cumulative total return on our common stock to the cumulative total return of the Standard & Poor's MidCap 400 Index (“S&P 400”) and certain companies in our peer group, which is comprised of Ameristar Casinos, Inc., Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc. and Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. The performance graph assumes that $100 was invested on December 31, 2005 in each of the Company's common stock, the S&P 400 and our peer group, and that all dividends were reinvested. The stock price performance shown in this graph is neither necessarily indicative of, nor intended to suggest, future stock price performance.
 
 
 
Indexed Returns
 
Boyd Gaming Corp.
  
S&P 400
  
Peer Group
December 2006
$
96.29
 
 
$
110.32
 
 
$
128.94
 
December 2007
73.38
 
 
119.12
 
 
97.43
 
December 2008
10.36
 
 
75.96
 
 
30.36
 
December 2009
18.33
 
 
104.36
 
 
47.95
 
December 2010
23.21
 
 
132.16
 
 
60.59
 
The performance graph should not be deemed filed or incorporated by reference into any other of our filings under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act of 1934, unless we specifically incorporate the performance graph by reference therein.
 
ITEM 6.    
Selected Financial Data.
We have derived the selected consolidated financial data presented below as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 and for the three years in the period ended December 31, 2010 from the audited consolidated financial statements contained elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The selected consolidated financial data presented below as of December 31, 2008 and as of and for the

31

Table of Contents 

years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 has been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements not contained herein. Operating results for the periods presented below are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for future years.
 
Years Ended December 31,
 
2010
 
2009
 
2008
 
2007
 
2006
Statement of Operations Data:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Revenues
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Gaming
$
1,812,487
 
 
$
1,372,091
 
 
$
1,477,476
 
 
$
1,666,422
 
 
$
1,811,716
 
Food and beverage
347,588
 
 
229,374
 
 
251,854
 
 
273,036
 
 
304,864
 
Room
211,046
 
 
122,305
 
 
140,651
 
 
153,691
 
 
172,781
 
Other
123,603
 
 
100,396
 
 
117,574
 
 
128,870
 
 
145,560
 
Gross Revenue
$
2,494,724
 
 
$
1,824,166
 
 
$
1,987,555
 
 
$
2,222,019
 
 
$
2,434,921
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Operating income (loss)
$
183,938
 
 
$
156,193
 
 
$
(153,429
)
 
$
354,232
 
 
$
404,650
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes
$
26,924
 
 
$
5,317
 
 
$
(249,536
)
 
$
184,935
 
 
$
246,839
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income taxes
$
(8,236
)
 
$
(1,076
)
 
$
26,531
 
 
$
(64,027
)
 
$
(85,491
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income from discontinued operations
$
 
 
$
 
 
$
 
 
$
182,127
 
 
$
(44,570
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Noncontrolling interest
$
(8,378
)
 
$
 
 
$
 
 
$
 
 
$
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net income (loss) attributable to Boyd Gaming Corporation
$
10,310
 
 
$
4,241
 
 
$
(223,005
)
 
$
303,035
 
 
$
116,778
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Basic net income (loss) per share from continuing operations
$
0.12
 
 
$
0.05
 
 
$
(2.54
)
 
$
1.38
 
 
$
1.83
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Basic net income per share from discontinued operations
$
 
 
$
 
 
$
 
 
$
2.08
 
 
$
(0.5
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Diluted net income (loss) per share from continuing operations
$
0.12
 
 
$
0.05
 
 
$
(2.54
)
 
$
1.36
 
 
$
1.80
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Diluted net income per share from discontinued operations
$
 
 
$
 
 
$
 
 
$
2.06
 
 
$
(0.5
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Balance Sheet Data:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cash and cash equivalents
$
145,623
 
 
$
93,202
 
 
$
98,152
 
 
$
165,701
 
 
$
169,397
 
Total assets
5,702,546
 
 
4,459,957
 
 
4,605,427
 
 
4,487,596
 
 
3,901,299
 
Long-term debt, net of current maturities
3,193,065
 
 
2,576,911
 
 
2,647,058
 
 
2,265,929
 
 
2,133,016
 
Total stockholders' equity
1,406,252
 
 
1,156,369
 
 
1,143,522
 
 
1,385,406
 
 
1,109,952
 
The following summarizes the significant transactions recorded in each of the years referenced above:
Year ended December 31, 2010
$2.5 million gain on equity distribution in connection with a $30.8 million priority distribution received from Borgata, which is equal to the excess prior capital contributions made by us;
$10 million of other income, representing a fee from MGM related to the amendment to our operating agreement, whereby we assumed effective control of Borgata;
$28.2 million of incremental interest expense at Borgata, of which $26.1 million related to the impact of additional

32

Table of Contents 

amounts at a higher rate, and $2.0 million related to the accelerated write off of deferred loan fees on refinanced borrowings;
$7.5 million of preopening expense related to the ongoing maintenance and preservation of Echelon, as well as other business development activities; and
$4.7 million of write-downs and other charges, of which $4.0 million related to acquisition expenses.
Year ended December 31, 2009
$41.8 million of write-downs and other charges, net;
$17.8 million of preopening expenses;
$15.3 million gain on the early retirement of debt;
$14.3 million gain related to our share of property damage insurance recoveries at Borgata;
$8.9 million of retroactive interest expense related to our contingent payment for Dania Jai-Alai; and
$1.8 million of accelerated interest expense related to our bank credit facility amendment.
Year ended December 31, 2008
$385.5 million of write-downs and other charges, net;
$28.6 million gain on the early retirements of debt;
$20.3 million of preopening expenses; and
$3.7 million one-time permanent unfavorable tax adjustment related to non-recurring state income tax valuation allowances.
Year ended December 31,2007
$22.8 million of preopening expenses;
$16.9 million loss on the early retirements of debt;
$12.1 million of write-downs and other charges, net;
$3.2 million for a one-time retroactive property tax adjustment at Blue Chip; and
$1.3 million of one-time permanent tax benefits resulting from a charitable contribution and a state income tax credit.
Year ended December 31,2006
$20.6 million of preopening expenses;
$11.2 million of accelerated depreciation related to the Stardust and related assets;
$8.8 million of write-downs and other charges, net; and
$6.7 million for a one-time retroactive gaming tax assessment at Par-A-Dice.
The following is a listing of significant events affecting our business during the five-year period ended December 31, 2010:
•    
On March 24, 2010, as a result of the amendment to our operating agreement with MGM, which provided, among other things, for the termination of MGM's participating rights in the operations of Borgata, we effectively obtained control of Borgata. As a result, we have consolidated the financial position and results of operations of Borgata from March 24, 2010 through December 31, 2010. Prior period amounts were not restated or recasted as a result of this change.
•    
Our hotel at Blue Chip Casino, Hotel & Spa opened on January 22, 2009. This expansion added a 22-story hotel, which includes 300 guest rooms, a spa and fitness center, additional meeting and event space, as well as new

33

Table of Contents 

dining and nightlife venues to the existing property structures.
•    
In 2008, we established our nationwide branding initiative and loyalty program. Players are able to use their “B Connected” (or, formerly, "Club Coast") cards to earn and redeem points at nearly all of our wholly-owned Boyd Gaming properties in Nevada, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana and Mississippi.
•    
The Water Club, an 798-room boutique hotel expansion project at Borgata, opened in June 2008. The expansion includes five swimming pools, a state-of-the-art spa, additional meeting and retail space, and a separate porte-cochere and front desk.
•    
We began construction on Echelon, our multibillion dollar Las Vegas Strip development project, in the second quarter of 2007. Echelon is located on the former Stardust site, which we closed in November 2006 and demolished in March 2007. On August 1, 2008, due to the difficult environment in the capital markets, as well as weak economic conditions, we announced the delay of our Echelon development project. We remain committed to having a meaningful presence on the Las Vegas Strip but we do not anticipate resuming construction on our Echelon development project for three to five years, as previously disclosed. During the delay in construction, we intend to consider alternative development options for Echelon, which may include developing the project in phases, alternative capital structures for the project, scope modifications to the project, or additional strategic partnerships, among others. We can provide no assurances as to when, or if, construction will resume on the project, or if we will be able to obtain alternative sources of financing for the project.
•    
In February 2007, we completed our exchange of the Barbary Coast Hotel and Casino and its related 4.2 acres of land for approximately 24 acres located north of and contiguous to our Echelon development project on the Las Vegas Strip in a nonmonetary, tax-free transaction. The results of Barbary Coast are classified as discontinued operations for the year ended December 31, 2007.
•    
In October 2006, we sold the South Coast Hotel and Casino for total consideration of approximately $513 million, consisting of approximately $401 million in cash and approximately 3.4 million shares of our common stock valued at $112 million.
•    
In January 2006, we expanded our Blue Chip Casino Hotel & Spa through the construction of a single-level boat that allowed us to expand our casino. In connection with this expansion, we also added a new parking structure and enhanced the land-based pavilion.
 
ITEM 7.    
Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
Executive Overview
Boyd Gaming Corporation (the “Company,” the “Registrant,” “Boyd Gaming,” “we” or “us”) is a multi-jurisdictional gaming company that has been operating for approximately 35 years.
We are a diversified operator of 15 wholly-owned gaming entertainment properties and one controlling interest in a limited liability company that operates Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa (“Borgata”) in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Headquartered in Las Vegas, we have gaming operations in Nevada, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Indiana and New Jersey, which we aggregate in order to present four reportable segments: (i) Las Vegas Locals; (ii) Downtown Las Vegas; (iii) Midwest and South; and (iv) Atlantic City.
We also own and operate Dania Jai-Alai, which is a pari-mutuel jai-alai facility with approximately 47 acres of related land located in Dania Beach, Florida, a travel agency in Hawaii, a captive insurance company, also in Hawaii, that underwrites travel-related insurance and 85 acres of land on the Las Vegas Strip, where our Echelon development project is located.
Overall Outlook
Our main business emphasis is on slot revenues, which are highly dependent upon the volume and spending levels of customers at our properties, which affects our operating results. Gross revenues are one of the main performance indicators of our properties. Our properties have historically generated significant operating cash flow, with the majority of our revenue being cash-based. Our industry is capital intensive; we rely heavily on the ability of our properties to generate operating cash flow in order to fund maintenance capital expenditures, fund acquisitions, provide excess cash for future development, repay debt financing and associated interest costs, purchase our debt or equity securities, pay income taxes and pay dividends.
Due to a number of factors affecting consumers, including the increasing Federal deficit, volatility in the stock market, the European debt crisis and high unemployment levels, all of which have resulted in reduced levels of consumer spending, the outlook for the gaming industry remains highly unpredictable. We believe the severity and length of recovery from this economic recession has had a profound effect on consumer behavior and has led to a shift in spending from discretionary items. Because of these uncertain

34

Table of Contents 

conditions, we have increasingly focused on managing our operating margins. Our present objective is to manage our cost and expense structure to address the current deterioration in business volumes and generate strong and stable cash flow.
We continually work to position our Company for greater success by strengthening our existing operations and growing through capital investment and other strategic initiatives. For instance, in January 2009, we opened our 22-story hotel at Blue Chip Casino, Hotel & Spa, which includes 300 guest rooms, a spa and fitness center, additional meeting and event space, as well as new dining and nightlife venues. In addition, Borgata's second hotel, The Water Club, opened in June 2008. The Water Club is an 798-room hotel, featuring five swimming pools, a state-of-the-art spa, and additional meeting room space.
We have also established a nationwide branding initiative and loyalty program. Previously, players were able to use their “Club Coast” or “B Connected” cards to earn and redeem points at nearly all of our wholly-owned Boyd Gaming properties in Nevada, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana and Mississippi. In June 2010, we launched an enhanced, multi-property player loyalty program under the “B Connected” brand, which replaced the “Club Coast” program. Customers under the “Club Coast” program were able to keep all earned benefits and club points they had previously earned under the program. The new “B Connected” club, among other benefits, extends the time period over which players may qualify for promotion and increases the credits awarded to reel slot and table games players.
In addition to the “B Connected” player loyalty program, we launched the “B Connected Mobile” program in July 2010. “B Connected Mobile,” the first multi-property, loyalty program-based iPhone application of its kind in the gaming industry, is a personalized mobile application that delivers customized offers and information directly to a customer's iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad. The application further expands the benefits of the “B Connected” program. “B Connected Mobile,” a GPS powered feature, provides real-time personalized information when a customer visits a Boyd property, including: hotel, dining and gaming offers, such as “Best Rates Available” on hotel rooms for “B Connected” members, instant access to event information, schedules and special offers at all Boyd Gaming properties using “B Connected,” a search engine that allows customers to find Boyd Gaming casinos that have their favorite machines and displays the games' locations on a casino floor map, the ability to track “B Connected” point balances in real time, and the ability to make immediate hotel or restaurant reservations.
Development Activities
On August 1, 2008, due to the difficult environment in the capital markets, as well as weak economic conditions, we announced the delay of our multibillion dollar Echelon development project on the Las Vegas Strip. At such time, we did not anticipate the long-term effects of the economic recession and continued economic downturn, evidenced by lower occupancy rates, declining room rates and reduced consumer spending across the country, but particularly in the Las Vegas region; nor did we predict that the incremental supply becoming available on the Las Vegas Strip would face such depressed demand levels, thereby elongating the time for absorption of this additional supply into the market. As we do not yet believe that a significant level of economic recovery has occurred along the Las Vegas Strip, we do not expect to resume construction of Echelon for three to five years, as previously disclosed. We also believe financing for a development project like Echelon continues to be unavailable.
Nonetheless, we remain committed to having a significant presence on the Las Vegas Strip. During the suspension period, we continue to consider alternative development options for Echelon, which may include developing the project in phases, alternative capital structures for the project, scope modifications to the project, or additional strategic partnerships, among others. We can provide no assurances as to when, or if, construction will resume on the project, or if we will be able to obtain alternative sources of financing for the project. As we develop and explore the viability of alternatives for the project, we will monitor these assets for recoverability. If we are subject to a non-cash write-down of these assets, it could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial statements.
LVE Energy Partners, LLC (“LVE”) is a joint venture between Marina Energy LLC and DCO ECH Energy, LLC. We have entered into an Energy Sales Agreement ("ESA") with LVE, to design, build, own (other than the underlying real property which is leased from Echelon) and operate a district energy system and central energy center for our planned Echelon resort development. Pursuant to the ESA, LVE will provide electricity, emergency electricity generation, and chilled and hot water to Echelon and potentially other joint venture entities associated with the Echelon development project or other third parties. However, since we are obligated to purchase substantially all of the output of the central energy center, we are the primary beneficiary under the terms of the ESA. The term of the ESA is 25 years, beginning when Echelon commences commercial operations. Assuming the central energy center is completed and functions as planned, we will pay a monthly service fee, which is comprised of a fixed capacity charge, an escalating operations and maintenance charge, and an energy charge. The aggregate of our monthly fixed capacity charge portion of the service fee will be $23.4 million per annum, (the “Annual Fixed Capacity Charge”). The Annual Fixed Capacity Charge, which will be payable for a 25-year period, was to commence in November 2010. However, LVE has suspended construction of the central energy center and the obligation to pay the Fixed Capacity Charge has not commenced.
On April 6, 2009, LVE notified us that, in its view, Echelon will be in breach of the ESA unless it recommences and proceeds with construction of the Echelon development project by May 6, 2009. We believe that LVE's position is without merit; however, in

35

Table of Contents 

the event of litigation, we cannot state with certainty the eventual outcome nor estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this matter.
On March 7, 2011, Echelon and LVE entered into both a purchase option agreement (the "Purchase Option Agreement") and a periodic fee agreement (the "Periodic Fee Agreement"). LVE has agreed not to initiate any litigation with respect to its April 6, 2009 claim of an alleged breach of the ESA and both Echelon and LVE have mutually agreed that neither LVE nor Echelon would give notice of, file or otherwise initiate any claim or cause of action, in or before any court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator or other tribunal, that arises under the ESA, subject to certain exceptions, and any statute of limitations or limitation periods for defenses, claims, causes of actions and counterclaims shall be tolled while the Periodic Fee Agreement is in effect. Under the Periodic Fee Agreement, Echelon agreed to pay LVE, beginning on March 4, 2011, a monthly periodic fee (the “Periodic Fee”) and an operation and maintenance fee until Echelon either (i) resumes construction of the project or (ii) it exercises its option to purchase LVE's assets pursuant to the terms of the Purchase Option Agreement. The amount of the Periodic Fee is fixed at $11.9 million annually through November 2013. Thereafter, the amount of the Periodic Fee will be approximately $10.8 million annually. The operation and maintenance fee cannot exceed $0.6 million per annum without Echelon's prior approval. We have posted a letter of credit in the amount of $6.0 million to secure Echelon's obligation to pay the Periodic Fee and the operation and maintenance fee.
Under the Purchase Option Agreement, Echelon has the right, upon written notice to LVE, to purchase the assets of LVE relating to the central energy center and energy distribution system for a price of $195.1 million, subject to certain possible adjustments. The ESA will be terminated concurrent with the purchase of the LVE assets.
As of December 31, 2010, we have incurred approximately $923 million in capitalized costs related to the Echelon project, including land, and not including approximately $196.4 million associated with the construction costs of the central energy facility. As part of the delay of the project, we expect to additionally incur approximately $2 million of capitalized costs annually, principally related to the offsite fabrication of a skylight and curtain wall as well as offsite improvements. In addition, we expect annual recurring project costs, consisting primarily of monthly charges related to construction of the central energy center, site security, property taxes, rent and insurance, of approximately $17 million that will be charged to preopening or other expense as incurred during the project's suspension period.
In addition to the expansion projects mentioned above, we regularly evaluate opportunities for growth through the development of gaming operations in existing or new markets, along with opportunities associated with acquiring other gaming entertainment facilities.
 
Other Events
We and MGM each originally held a 50% interest in Marina District Development Holding Co., LLC (“Holding Company”). The Holding Company owns all the equity interests in Marina District Development Company, LLC ("MDDC"), d.b.a. Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa.
By letter of July 27, 2009 (the “Letter”), the New Jersey Department of Gaming Enforcement (the “NJDGE”) made a formal request to the NJCCC that the NJCCC reopen the gaming license held by Borgata, which had been renewed in June 2005 for a five-year term. The Letter indicated that the NJDGE's reopening request was for the exclusive purpose of examining the qualifications of MGM, in light of the issues raised by the “Special Report” of the NJDGE to the NJCCC on its investigation of MGM's joint venture in Macau, Special Administrative Region, People's Republic of China. The Letter noted that the NJDGE had found that neither we nor the Holding Company had any involvement with MGM's development activities in Macau and also expressed the NJDGE's confidence that the NJCCC could thoroughly examine the issues raised in the Special Report as to MGM's qualifications without negatively affecting the casino license, the operation of Borgata or us.
The NJCCC informed us that, pursuant to Section 88(a) of the New Jersey Casino Control Act (the “Casino Control Act”), the MDDC gaming license was reopened on July 27, 2009, the date of the Letter. This was a procedural step required by the Casino Control Act that does not represent a finding as to the issues raised by the NJDGE.
In February 2010, we entered into an agreement with MGM to amend the operating agreement to, among other things, facilitate the transfer of MGM's Interest to a divestiture trust (“Divestiture Trust”) established for the purpose of selling the MGM Interest to a third party. The proposed sale of the MGM Interest through the Divestiture Trust was a part of a then-proposed settlement agreement between MGM and the NJDGE. Pursuant to the terms of the amended operating agreement, in connection with the refinancing of the Borgata bank credit facility on August 6, 2010, the Holding Company made a $135.4 million one-time distribution to us, of which $30.8 million was a priority distribution equal to the excess prior capital contributions made by us.
On March 17, 2010, MGM announced that its settlement agreement with the NJDGE had been approved by the NJCCC. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, MGM agreed to transfer the MGM Interest into the Divestiture Trust and further agreed to

36

Table of Contents 

sell such interest within a 30-month period. During the first 18 months of such period, MGM has the power to direct the trustee to sell the MGM Interest, subject to the approval of the NJCCC. If the sale has not occurred by such time, the trustee will be solely responsible for the sale of the MGM Interest. The MGM Interest was transferred to the Divestiture Trust on March 24, 2010.
In connection with the amendments to the operating agreements MGM relinquished all of its specific participating rights under the operating agreement, and we retained all authority to manage the day-to-day operations of Borgata. MGM's relinquishment of its participating rights effectively provided us with direct control of Borgata. This resulting change in control required acquisition method accounting in accordance with the authoritative accounting guidance for business combinations.
The application of the acquisition method accounting guidance had the following effects on our consolidated financial statements: (i) our previously held equity interest was measured at a provisional fair value at the date control was obtained; (ii) we recognized and measured the identifiable assets and liabilities in accordance with promulgated valuation recognition and measurement provisions; and (iii) we recorded the noncontrolling interest held in trust for the economic benefit of MGM as a separate component of our stockholders' equity.
We provided a preliminary estimated fair value of the aforementioned assets and liabilities related to the effective change in control of Borgata at March 31, 2010. The provisional fair value measurements and estimates of these items approximated their historical carrying values as of the date we effectively obtained control. We have provisionally recorded these fair values using an earnings valuation multiple model, because, at the time of the preliminary estimate, we had not completed our procedures with respect to the independent valuation of the business enterprise and Borgata's tangible and intangible assets. Our subsequent valuation procedures will necessitate a revision of the valuation of the provisional assets and liabilities; however, we will continue to refine our valuation modeling as information regarding the tangible and intangible assets is obtained, which may result in a possible change to these provisional fair value measurements and estimates in future periods. These measurement adjustments, which impact all prior quarterly periods during 2010, will be retrospectively revised as these periods are presented in our future Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and our Annual Reports on Form 10-K as we report on subsequent interim condensed consolidated and annual consolidated financial statements.
 
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
 
Summary of Operating Results
Years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008
 
We believe that our key operating results for each of the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 have been adversely impacted, to some extent, by the weakened global economy. The increasingly high national unemployment rate, a weak housing market, and significant declines in housing prices and related home equity have resulted in reduced levels of consumer spending that have negatively impacted our financial results. We believe the length of the recovery from the severe economic recession has had, and may continue to have, a profound effect on consumer confidence, which has shifted spending away from discretionary items, such as leisure, hospitality, gaming and entertainment activities. Despite these negative impacts and the inherent difficulty in predicting consumer behavior, we have seen some stabilizing trends in our business. Las Vegas visitor counts have been increasing or stable over the past year, and Las Vegas convention attendance has also increased in recent sequential months. These and other positive trends reflect recoveries in our business.
 
The following provides a summary of certain key operating results: 
 
Year Ended December 31,
 
2010
 
2009
 
2008
 
(In thousands)
Net revenues
$
2,140,899
 
 
$
1,640,986
 
 
$
1,780,967
 
Operating income (loss)
183,938
 
 
156,193
 
 
(153,429
)
Net income (loss) attributable to Boyd Gaming Corporation
10,310
 
 
4,241
 
 
(223,005
)
 
Years Ended December 31, 2010 and 2009
Net revenues: Excluding the consolidation of Borgata, net revenues were $1.56 billion for the year ended December 31, 2010, a 4.9% decline as compared to the prior year. The decline was primarily due to lower levels of consumer spending, room rate pressures experienced in our Las Vegas Locals region and lower visitor volumes in our Downtown region. In addition, net revenues at our Louisiana properties stabilized in the latter half of 2010 but continued to decline throughout the year as market conditions normalize in that region from the strong and, in some cases, record levels in the prior year. Borgata contributed $580.1 million in net revenues, which reflects a decline from their prior year primarily due to the impact of declines in table games hold, adverse

37

Table of Contents 

impact of severe weather and reduced visitation to Atlantic City during the year.
Operating income: On a comparable level, operating income declined by 9.0% to $142.2 million during the year ended December 31, 2010 compared to the prior year primarily due to the residual effect of the items identified above. Operating income from Borgata, reflected on a comparable equity method basis in both periods, declined $22.3 million, or 30.9%, due to the lower net revenue base as a result of the items discussed above.
Net income attributable to Boyd Gaming Corporation: Net income attributable to Boyd Gaming increased by $6.1 million due primarily to the recognition of a $10 million payment associated with the amendment to our operating agreement with MGM earlier this year. The overall increase in net income was offset by increased interest expense, due primarily to the consolidation of Borgata, and by a change in the fair value of our derivative instruments due to the de-designation of such as hedged during the year ended December 31, 2010.
 
Years Ended December 31, 2009 and 2008
Net revenues: Net revenues were $1.64 billion for the year ended December 31, 2009, a 7.9% decline as compared to $1.78 billion in the prior year. The decline was primarily due to reduced visitation during much of the period, resulting in lower levels of consumer spending.
 
Operating income (loss): Operating income increased to $156.2 million during the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to an operating loss of $153.4 in the year ended December 31, 2008, due to significant write-downs and other items totaling $385.5 million during 2008, principally consisting of non-cash impairment charges to write-down certain portions of our goodwill, intangible assets and other long-lived assets to their fair value, which were offset by an increase in operating income from Borgata, primarily due to our share of a non-recurring gain on an insurance settlement of $28.7 million resulting from property damage at The Water Club at Borgata.
 
Net income (loss): The overall increase in net income during the year ended December 31, 2009 was due primarily to the non-recurrence of the significant write-downs and other items during the year ended December 31, 2008, as discussed above.
 
Operating Revenues
We derive the majority of our gross revenues from our gaming operations, which generated approximately 73%, 75% and 74% of gross revenues for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. Food and beverage gross revenues contributed approximately 14%, 13% and 13% of gross revenues for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively, and represent the next most significant revenue source, followed by room and other, which separately resulted in less than 10% of gross revenues during all of these respective years. 

38

Table of Contents 

 
Year Ended December 31,
 
2010
 
2009
 
2008
 
(In thousands)
REVENUES
 
 
 
 
 
Gaming
$
1,812,487
 
 
$
1,372,091
 
 
$
1,477,476
 
Food and beverage
347,588
 
 
229,374
 
 
251,854
 
Room
211,046
 
 
122,305
 
 
140,651
 
Other
123,603
 
 
100,396
 
 
117,574
 
 
$
2,494,724
 
 
$
1,824,166
 
 
$
1,987,555
 
COSTS AND EXPENSES
 
 
 
 
 
Gaming
$
859,818
 
 
$
664,739
 
 
$
690,847
 
Food and beverage
180,840
 
 
125,830
 
 
144,092
 
Room
49,323
 
 
39,655
 
 
43,851
 
Other
99,458
 
 
77,840
 
 
89,222
 
 
$
1,189,439
 
 
$
908,064
 
 
$
968,012
 
MARGINS
 
 
 
 
 
Gaming
52.56
%
 
51.55
%
 
53.24
%
Food and beverage
47.97
%
 
45.14
%
 
42.79
%
Room
76.63
%
 
67.58
%
 
68.82
%
Other
19.53
%
 
22.47
%
 
24.11
%
 
The results for the year ended December 31, 2010, as reported above, reflect the consolidation of Borgata for the period from March 24 through December 31, 2010, which is not comparable to the amounts as reported in the prior year. As such, the following table reflects the operating results of the Company, excluding such consolidated results of Borgata, for comparability to the prior period. The results of Borgata, on a comparable basis, are separately addressed below as well.
 
Operating Revenues - Comparative Results (Without Giving Effect to the Consolidation of Borgata)
 
Year Ended December 31,
 
2010
 
2009
 
2008
 
(In thousands)
REVENUES
 
 
 
 
 
Gaming
$
1,306,414
 
 
$
1,372,091
 
 
$
1,477,476
 
Food and beverage
231,054
 
 
229,374
 
 
251,854
 
Room
120,000
 
 
122,305
 
 
140,651
 
Other
89,851
 
 
100,396
 
 
117,574
 
 
$
1,747,319
 
 
$
1,824,166
 
 
$
1,987,555
 
COSTS AND EXPENSES
 
 
 
 
 
Gaming
$
655,856
 
 
$
664,739
 
 
$
690,847
 
Food and beverage
124,851
 
 
125,830
 
 
144,092
 
Room
37,517
 
 
39,655
 
 
43,851
 
Other
72,249
 
 
77,840
 
 
89,222
 
 
$
890,473
 
 
$
908,064
 
 
$
968,012
 
MARGINS
 
 
 
 
 
Gaming
49.80
%
 
51.55
%
 
53.24
%
Food and beverage
45.96
%
 
45.14
%
 
42.79
%
Room
68.74
%
 
67.58
%
 
68.82
%
Other
19.59
%
 
22.47
%
 
24.11
%
 

39

Table of Contents 

Years Ended December 31, 2010 and 2009
Gaming: Gaming revenues are significantly comprised of the net win from our slot machine operations and to a lesser extent from table games win. Overall, the $65.7 million, or 4.8%, decrease in gaming revenues during the year ended December 31, 2010 as compared to the prior year was due to a 5.1% decrease in slot handle, coupled with a decrease of 3.3% in slot win percentage; and a 1.5% decrease in our table games drop and a decrease of 4.2% in our table games win percentage. As noted earlier, we believe the decrease in gaming volumes reflect the ongoing constraints in consumer spending resulting from the weakened economy.
 
Food and Beverage: Food and beverage revenues increased slightly during the year ended December 31, 2010 as compared to the prior year, due to a slight increase in banquet sales and a shift in consumer spending patterns.
 
Room: Room revenues have remained relatively consistent during the year ended December 31, 2010 as compared to the prior year, due to static occupancy and room rates.
 
Other: Other revenues have declined during the year ended December 31, 2010 as compared to the prior year, primarily due to a reduction in the number of shows held at our entertainment venues.
 
Years Ended December 31, 2009 and 2008
Gaming: Gaming revenues are significantly comprised of the net win from our slot machine operations and to a lesser extent from table games win. Overall, the $105.4 million, or 7.1% decrease in gaming revenues during the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to 2008 is due to an 8.6% decrease in slot handle and 9.6% decrease in our table games drop, both of which more than offset a slight increase in slot win percentage during the year. Correspondingly, the number of slot machines and table games at our properties were down approximately 3.7% and 3.6%, respectively, at December 31, 2009 compared to December 31, 2008. Margins were slightly less negatively impacted by the corresponding declines in slot machine and table games volumes due to cost containment efforts. As noted earlier, we believe the decrease in gaming volumes reflect the ongoing constraints in consumer spending resulting from the weakened economy.
 
Food and Beverage: Food and beverage revenues declined $22.5 million, or 8.9% during the year ended December 31, 2009 as compared to 2008, as sales were adversely impacted by lower visitation, declining customer discretionary spending and decreased occupancy at our properties, trending from 2007 through 2009. Margins slightly improved during these respective periods due to cost variability and lower consumption and inventory levels.
 
Room: Room rates and margins declined year-over-year due to decreased occupancy and lower average room rates, resulting in a decrease of $18.3 million, or 13.0% during the year ended December 31, 2009 as compared to 2008, due to increased competition, the additional supply of available rooms, decreased occupancy and lower average room rates.
 
Other: Other revenues have declined during the year ended December 31, 2010 as compared to the prior year, primarily due to a reduction in the number of shows held at our entertainment venues as well as a reduction in ticket prices.
 
Revenues and Adjusted EBITDA by Reportable Segment
We determine each of our properties' profitability based upon Adjusted EBITDA, which represents each property's earnings before interest expense, income taxes, depreciation and amortization, deferred rent, preopening expenses, share-based compensation expense, and write-downs and other items, as applicable. Reportable Segment Adjusted EBITDA is the aggregate sum of the Adjusted EBITDA for each of the properties comprising our Las Vegas Locals, Downtown Las Vegas, Midwest and South and Atlantic City segments and also includes our share of Borgata's operating income, (during the period in which it was accounted for under the equity method of accounting), before net amortization, preopening and other items.
 
The following table presents our gross revenues and Adjusted EBITDA, by Reportable Segment, for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008.

40

Table of Contents 

 
Year Ended December 31,
 
2010
 
2009
 
2008
 
(In thousands)
Gross revenues
 
 
 
 
 
Las Vegas Locals
$
676,751
 
 
$
713,354
 
 
$
858,241
 
Downtown Las Vegas
241,618
 
 
251,000
 
 
263,005
 
Midwest and South
822,505
 
 
852,209
 
 
857,650
 
Atlantic City
747,405
 
 
 
 
 
Reportable Segment Gross Revenues
2,488,279
 
 
1,816,563
 
 
1,978,896
 
Other
6,445
 
 
7,603
 
 
8,659
 
Gross revenues
$
2,494,724
 
 
$
1,824,166
 
 
$
1,987,555
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Adjusted EBITDA
 
 
 
 
 
Las Vegas Locals
$
137,464
 
 
$
155,336
 
 
$
218,591
 
Downtown Las Vegas
34,227
 
 
46,102
 
 
40,657
 
Midwest and South
143,699
 
 
165,534
 
 
169,063
 
Atlantic City
136,278
 
 
 
 
 
Our share of Borgata's operating income before net amortization, preopening and other items
8,180
 
 
59,470
 
 
60,520
 
Adjusted EBITDA
$
459,848
 
 
$
426,442
 
 
$
488,831
 
 
Years Ended December 31, 2010 and 2009
Significant factors that affected our Reportable Segment Gross Revenues and Adjusted EBITDA for the year ended December 31, 2010, as compared to the prior year, are listed below:
 
Las Vegas Locals - Gross revenues and Adjusted EBITDA declined 5.1% and 11.5%, respectively, during the year ended December 31, 2010, as compared to the prior year, due primarily to cautious discretionary spending by our unrated and lower-tiered players. Both revenues and Adjusted EBITDA improved in each quarter of 2010, signaling signs of recovery in this region; however, the promotional environment continues to be highly competitive.
 
Downtown Las Vegas - Gross revenues decreased 3.7% and Adjusted EBITDA decreased 25.8% during the year ended December 31, 2010, as compared to the prior year, due primarily to higher fuel costs and lower ticket prices on our Hawaiian charter operation. We have retained market share but have seen noticeable declines in the amount of spend per visit by our customers.
 
Midwest and South - Gross revenues and Adjusted EBITDA declined by 3.5% and 13.2%, respectively during the year ended December 31, 2010, as compared to the prior year, due primarily to lower levels of consumer spending; however, our business continues to stabilize across this region. We returned to growth in both gross revenue and Adjusted EBITDA during the latter half of 2010.
 
Atlantic City - Results were not consolidated in the year ended December 31, 2009, therefore comparability is not meaningful. See further discussion of Borgata's separate operating results below.
 
Years Ended December 31, 2009 and 2008
Significant factors that affected our Reportable Segment Gross Revenues and Adjusted EBITDA for the year ended December 31, 2009, as compared to the prior year, are listed below:
 
Las Vegas Locals - Gross revenues declined 16.9% and Adjusted EBITDA declined 28.9% during the year ended December 31, 2009, as compared to the prior year, due primarily to lower consumer spending and increased competitive pressures throughout the entire market.
 
Downtown Las Vegas - Gross revenues decreased 4.6% and Adjusted EBITDA increased 13.4%, respectively, during the year ended December 31, 2009, as compared to the prior year. The decline in gross revenues was due primarily to lower consumer spending, reduced visitor volumes and lower ticket prices on our Hawaiian charter operation and lower visitation from our Hawaiian customers, offset by a favorable impact on Adjusted EBITDA related to cost control and containment measures.

41

Table of Contents 

 
Midwest and South - Gross revenues decreased 0.6% while Adjusted EBITDA decreased 2.1% during the year ended December 31, 2009, as compared to the prior year, primarily due to declines in gross revenue at two of our Louisiana properties, offset somewhat by growth in gross revenues at Blue Chip and Delta Downs, and due to declines in consumer spending, offset by aggressive efforts to control costs throughout the region.
 
Other Costs and Expenses
The following costs and expenses, as presented in our consolidated statements of operations, are further discussed below:
 
Year Ended December 31,
 
2010
 
2009
 
2008
 
(In thousands)
Selling, general and administrative
$
369,217
 
 
$
284,937
 
 
$
299,662
 
Maintenance and utilities
146,143
 
 
92,296
 
 
95,963
 
Depreciation and amortization
199,275
 
 
164,427
 
 
168,997
 
Corporate expense
48,861
 
 
47,617
 
 
52,332
 
Preopening expenses
7,459
 
 
17,798
 
 
20,265
 
Write-downs and other items, net
4,713
 
 
41,780
 
 
385,521
 
 
The results for the year ended December 31, 2010, as reported above, reflect the consolidation of Borgata for the period from March 24 through December 31, 2010, which are not comparable to the amounts as reported in the prior years. As such, the following table reflects the operating results of the Company, excluding the consolidation of such results, for comparability to the prior period. The comparative results of Borgata are also addressed below under Results of Operations for Borgata.
 
The following costs and expenses are discussed below:
 
Year Ended December 31,
 
2010
 
2009
 
2008
 
(In thousands)
Selling, general and administrative
$
274,234
 
 
$
284,937
 
 
$
299,662
 
Maintenance and utilities
96,230
 
 
92,296
 
 
95,963
 
Depreciation and amortization
146,389
 
 
164,427
 
 
168,997
 
Corporate expense
48,861
 
 
47,617
 
 
52,332
 
Preopening expenses
7,459
 
 
17,798
 
 
20,265
 
Write-downs and other items, net
4,721
 
 
41,780
 
 
385,521
 
 
Years Ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008
Selling, general and administrative: Selling, general and administrative expenses, as a percentage of gross revenues, were fairly consistent at 15.7%, 15.6% and 15.1% during the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively, due to our ongoing cost containment efforts.
 
Maintenance and Utilities: Maintenance and utilities expenses were relatively consistent during the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively, as no major maintenance projects were undertaken in any year within that period. The incremental increase in maintenance and utilities, as a percentage of gross revenues of 5.5%, 5.1% and 4.8%, during the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively, reflects an overall increase in energy costs.
 
Depreciation and Amortization: Depreciation and amortization expense remained relatively consistent as a percentage of gross revenues during the year ended December 31, 2010, as compared to the years ended December 31, 2009, and 2008, representing 8.4%, 9.0% and 8.5%, respectively. There were no significant expansion capital expenditures that were placed into service during 2010. In 2009, the opening of the hotel tower at Blue Chip resulted in increased depreciation of this building and was offset by other fully depreciated assets. There were no significant expansion capital expenditures that were placed into service during 2008.
 
Corporate Expense: Corporate expense represents unallocated payroll, professional fees, and various other expenses that are not directly related to our casino and/or hotel operations, in addition to the corporate portion of share-based compensation expense. Corporate expense was relatively flat during the year ended December 31, 2010 as compared to 2009, representing 2.8% and 2.6%

42

Table of Contents 

of gross revenues, respectively. During the year ended December 31, 2008, we commenced design work on our consolidated players' club program in order to build and reward customer loyalty and drive cross-property visitation. The incrementally higher corporate expense in 2008 is due, in part, to the initial, up-front design related expenses incurred for the launch of our nationwide branding initiative and loyalty program.
 
Preopening Expenses: We expense certain costs of start-up activities as incurred. During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, we recorded preopening expenses related to our Echelon development project, our hotel and expansion project at Blue Chip, our efforts to develop gaming activities in other jurisdictions and other business development activities.
 
Write-downs and Other Items, Net: Write-downs and other items, net primarily represent asset impairment charges and other non-recurring charges. During the year ended December 31, 2010, write-downs and other items, net was primarily comprised of $4.0 million in expenses related to acquisition activities and a $0.5 million impairment charge on a fair value adjustment related to our investment in certain bonds.
 
During the year ended December 31, 2009, write-downs and other items, net primarily consisted of a non-cash impairment charge of $13.5 million related to the write-down of our former investment in the Morgans joint venture and a non-cash impairment charge of $28.4 million related to the write-off of Dania Jai-Alai's goodwill in connection with the January 2009 amendment to the Dania Jai-Alai purchase agreement to settle the contingent payment prior to the satisfaction of certain legal conditions.
 
During the year ended December 31, 2008, write-downs and other items, net primarily consisted of aggregate non-cash impairment charges of $290.2 million to write-down certain portions of our goodwill, intangible assets and other long-lived assets to their fair value. The impairment tests for these assets were principally due to the decline in our stock price that caused our book value to exceed our market capitalization, which was an indication that these assets may not have been recoverable. The primary reason for these impairment charges related to the ongoing recession, which caused us to reduce our estimates for projected cash flows, reduced overall industry valuations, and caused an increase in discount rates in the credit and equity markets. We also recorded a non-cash impairment charge of $84.0 million, principally related to the write-off of Dania Jai-Alai's intangible license right, following our decision to indefinitely postpone redevelopment plans to operate slot machines at the facility. Our decision to postpone the development was based on numerous factors, including the introduction of expanded gaming at a nearby Native American casino, the potential for additional casino gaming venues in Florida, and the existing Broward County pari-mutuel casinos performing below our expectations for the market.
 
Operating Income from Borgata
Years Ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008
The following table reconciles the presentation of our share of Borgata's operating income for the periods in which we reported Borgata's results under the equity method. 
 
Year Ended December 31,
 
2010
 
2009
 
2008
 
(In thousands)
Operating income from Borgata, as reported on our consolidated statements of operations
$
8,146
 
 
$
72,126
 
 
$
56,356
 
Add back:
 
 
 
 
 
Net amortization expense related to our investment in Borgata
 
 
1,298
 
 
1,298
 
Our share of Borgata's preopening expenses
 
 
349
 
 
2,785
 
Our share of Borgata's other items and write-downs, net
34
 
 
(14,303
)
 
81
 
Our share of Borgata's operating income before net amortization, preopening and other items
$
8,180
 
 
$
59,470
 
 
$
60,520
 
 
Our share of Borgata's operating income before net amortization, preopening and other items decreased 86.2% during the year ended December 31, 2010, as compared to the prior year. Overall, Borgata's operating income has decreased as compared to the prior year, which reflects the overall decline in consumer spending globally, the heightened competition in Atlantic City, as well as the early year effects of the severe winter storms making travel extremely difficult throughout the entire Northeast. The quantified effect of our consolidation of Borgata's operating results also reduced our share of Borgata's operating income before net amortization, preopening and other items by $41.7 million during the year ended December 31, 2010, respectively.
 
Other Expense (Income)
Interest Expense

43

Table of Contents 

  
Year Ended December 31,
 
2010
 
2009
 
2008
 
(In thousands)
Interest costs
$
146,019
 
 
$
123,628
 
 
$
142,645
 
Effects of interest rate swaps
22,680
 
 
23,580
 
 
5,168
 
Less:
 
 
 
 
 
Interest on non-recourse debt obligations of variable interest entity
4,245
 
 
 
 
 
Capitalized interest
 
 
378
 
 
37,667
 
Interest income
5
 
 
6
 
 
1,070
 
Interest expense, net
$
164,449
 
 
$
146,824
 
 
$
109,076
 
 
Years Ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008
Excluding the consolidation of Borgata, interest expense, net was $119.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2010, an 18.7% decline as compared to the prior year. The decline was due to lower average interest rates during the year ended December 31, 2010 compared to 2009, which were 4.7% versus 5.4%, respectively, and lower average note payable and outstanding debt balances, which declined to $2.5 billion from $2.7 billion during these respective periods. At December 31, 2010, 30% of our debt was based upon variable rates of interest, compared to 55% of our debt at December 31, 2009. See further discussion of Borgata's interest expense below.
Interest expense, net increased during the year ended December 31, 2009, as compared to 2008, due to a greater impact resulting from higher average note payable and outstanding debt balances, as well as an increase from the effects of our interest rate swaps. This increase was offset by lower average interest rates on our bank credit facility. There was a relatively minor amount of interest capitalized during the year ended December 31, 2009, as compared to 2008, as the Blue Chip addition was completed in January 2009, and our development efforts at Echelon had been suspended since August 2008. Additionally, interest expense, net, during the year ended December 31, 2009 was increased by the interest portion of $8.9 million related to the contingent payment for the January 2009 amendment to the purchase agreement resulting in the finalization of our purchase price for Dania Jai-Alai. Also, incremental interest expense, net, of approximately $2 million was recorded during the year ended December 31, 2009 to ratably reduce the amortization of deferred loan fees related to the reduction in borrowing capacity under our previous bank credit facility. At December 31, 2009, 55% of our debt was based upon variable interest compared to 43% of our debt at December 31, 2008.
 
At December 31, 2010, we were a party to certain floating-to-fixed interest rate swap agreements with an aggregate notional amount of $500 million, whereby we receive payments based upon the three-month LIBOR and make payments based upon a stipulated fixed rate. During the year ended December 31, 2010, the effect of our swaps increased our interest expense by $22.7 million, as market interest rates during the period were significantly lower than the 5.1% weighted-average fixed rate associated with these swaps.
 
As of December 31, 2009, we were also a party to certain floating-to-fixed interest rate swap agreements with an aggregate notional amount of $500 million. During the year ended December 31, 2009, the effects of our swaps increased our interest expense by $23.6 million, as market interest rates during the period were significantly lower than the 5.1% weighted-average fixed rate associated with these swaps as of December 31, 2009.
 
Fair Value Adjustment of Derivative Instruments
Year Ended December 31, 2010
During the year ended December 31, 2010, in anticipation of the execution of our Amended Credit Facility, we de-designated all of our interest rate swap agreements as cash flow hedges. Concurrent with the de-designation of the hedging relationship, hedge accounting was suspended and the amount remaining in accumulated other comprehensive loss associated with this cash flow hedging relationship was frozen. This amount is being amortized into interest expense over the respective remaining term of the associated debt. Prospectively, all changes in the fair value of these interest rate swaps will be recognized immediately in earnings. This mark-to-market adjustment resulted in a realized loss of $0.5 million during the year ended December 31, 2010.
 
Gain on Early Retirements of Debt
Years Ended December 31, 2010 and 2009
During the year ended December 31, 2010, aside from the tender offer and redemption of our former 7.75% senior subordinated notes discussed below, we purchased and retired $33.0 million principal amount of our senior subordinated notes. The total purchase price of the notes was $28.9 million, resulting in a gain of $3.9 million, net of associated deferred financing fees. Such gain was

44

Table of Contents 

partially offset by the loss we recorded in connection with our tender offer and redemption of our former 7.75% senior subordinated notes. In November 2010, we tendered for purchase all of our outstanding 7.75% senior subordinated notes due 2012. Approximately $92.1 million principal amount of the 7.75% senior subordinated notes due 2012 were tendered for purchase pursuant to our tender offer. We paid $95.3 million in connection with the tender offer, including accrued interest of $2.9 million, and recognized a loss on such tender of $0.8 million, based on the difference between the consideration fee, redemption price and the net carrying value of the notes in addition to unamortized debt financing costs written off in conjunction with the purchase of the notes. Additionally, in December 2010, we called the remaining 7.75% senior subordinated notes due 2012 at par, which had a principal balance of $66.8 million. We recognized a loss of $0.4 million upon calling such notes, which consisted of our write-off of the remaining unamortized debt financing costs associated with the notes.
  
During the year ended December 31, 2009, we purchased and retired $105.3 million principal amount of our senior subordinated notes. The total purchase price of the notes was $89.5 million, resulting in a gain of $15.3 million, net of associated deferred financing fees. During the year ended December 31, 2008, we purchased and retired $146.5 million principal amount of our senior subordinated notes. The total purchase price of the notes was $116.5 million, resulting in a gain of $28.6 million, net of associated deferred financing fees. All such transactions were funded by availability under our bank credit facility.
 
Gain on Equity Distribution
Year Ended December 31, 2010
During the year ended December 31, 2010, we received a $135.4 million distribution from Borgata, which is further discussed above. The distribution included a priority distribution of $30.8 million, which is equal to the excess prior capital contributions made by us. We recorded a $2.5 million gain upon receipt of this distribution, which gain was equal to the basis difference on our equity contribution during the period in which such was outstanding.
 
Other Income
Year Ended December 31, 2010
In connection with the amendment to our operating agreement with MGM, and upon the successful refinancing of Borgata's outstanding debt, we received a $10 million payment, made on MGM's behalf by the Divestiture Trust in connection with the amendment to the operating agreement, from MGM's respective portion of the distribution received from Borgata during the year ended December 31, 2010.
 
Income Taxes
Years Ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008
The effective tax rate during the year ended December 31, 2010 was 30.6%, as compared to 20.2% during the year ended December 31, 2009 and 10.6% during the year ended December 31, 2008. The 2010 tax provision was favorably impacted by net tax adjustments related to our consolidation of Borgata and LVE. We consolidate Borgata's and LVE's income for financial statement purposes; however, under income tax statutes, we are only subject to federal income tax on our fifty percent share of Borgata's income and exclude one-hundred percent of LVE's loss. Additionally, the state tax provision was favorably impacted by the release of valuation allowances resulting from the organizational restructuring of our Louisiana properties. The 2009 tax provision was favorably impacted by a permanent tax benefit realized in connection with an IRS audit and the reversal of interest accrued in connection with unrecognized tax benefits. The state tax provision was adversely impacted by changes in apportionment, exam settlements and the geographic mix of our income. The tax benefit for the year ended December 31, 2008 was adversely impacted by impairment charges to goodwill, for which no tax basis existed, as well as an unfavorable permanent tax adjustment related to state income tax valuation allowances.
 
Results of Operations for Borgata
Years Ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008
The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, certain operating data for Borgata. As discussed above, we effectively obtained control of Borgata on March 24, 2010 and its results of operations for the period from March 24, 2010 through December 31, 2010 are included in our consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2010. While the following table sets forth the results of Borgata on a stand-alone basis for the entire respective periods presented, subsequent tables reconcile the effect of their results on our consolidated statements of operations for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008.

45

Table of Contents 

 
Year Ended December 31,
 
2010
 
2009
 
2008
 
(In thousands)
Revenues:
 
 
 
 
 
Gaming
$
643,904
 
 
$
691,428
 
 
$
734,306
 
Food and beverage
147,751
 
 
143,410
 
 
147,334
 
Room
115,199
 
 
113,143
 
 
110,616
 
Other
42,931
 
 
42,620
 
 
52,207
 
Gross Revenues
949,785
 
 
990,601
 
 
1,044,463
 
Less promotional allowances
211,356
 
 
213,193
 
 
213,974
 
Net revenues
738,429
 
 
777,408
 
 
830,489
 
Operating costs and expenses:
 
 
 
 
 
Gaming
263,823
 
 
280,620
 
 
311,387
 
Food and beverage
69,489
 
 
64,217
 
 
66,494
 
Room
13,992
 
 
11,940
 
 
13,863
 
Other
34,334
 
 
34,908
 
 
39,784
 
Selling and administrative
123,963
 
 
128,164
 
 
130,503
 
Maintenance and utilities
63,435
 
 
59,900
 
 
71,322
 
Depreciation and amortization
69,640
 
 
78,719
 
 
76,096
 
Preopening expenses
 
 
699
 
 
5,570
 
Other items and write-downs, net
60
 
 
(28,606
)
 
162
 
Total operating costs and expenses
638,736
 
 
630,561
 
 
715,181
 
Operating income
$
99,693
 
 
$
146,847
 
 
$
115,308
 
 
Net Revenues
Years Ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008
Overall, net revenues during the year ended December 31, 2010 decreased by $39.0 million, or 5.0%, as compared to 2009. Overall, promotional spend increased to 32.8% of gross gaming revenue during the year ended December 31, 2010, from 30.8% for the year ended December 31, 2009, reflecting increased promotional slot credit and table game incentives in response to the increasingly competitive environment in the Atlantic City and Eastern Pennsylvania gaming markets. The decline in net revenues was primarily due to a decline in Borgata's table games hold percentage, adverse weather conditions, and the continuing weakness in economic conditions. Borgata's table games hold percentage was below average, which reduced gaming revenues and contribution margins. Borgata's table games hold percentage declined 100 basis points during the year ended December 31, 2010 from 2009. In addition, adverse weather conditions had a damaging effect on operations during January and February 2010. The 2010 winter season was the worst on record and travel throughout the entire Northeast was extremely difficult. The residual impact from these record winter storms resulted in day trip visitations to Atlantic City that were delayed as regional school calendars were extended in order to make up for prior school closures. Additionally, extreme heat and low precipitation levels in the second quarter, particularly in the month of June, had an adverse impact on visitation and spending at Borgata's property. Net revenues also declined due to the continuation of reduced consumer spending, resulting in lower than historical gaming volumes and room rates due to the continuing weakness in economic conditions.
 
Overall, net revenues during the year ended December 31, 2009 decreased by $53.1 million, or 6.4%, as compared to 2008. The decline was primarily due to adverse weather conditions in the later months of 2009, a decline in Borgata's table games hold percentage and continued weakness in economic conditions. Borgata's table games hold percentage was below average, which reduced gaming revenues and contribution margins. Borgata's hold percentage declined 60 basis points during the year ended December 31, 2009 from 2008. Net revenues also declined due to the continuation of reduced consumer spending, resulting in lower than historical gaming volumes and room rates.
 
Operating Income
Years Ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008
Operating income declined $47.2 million during the year ended December 31, 2010 as compared to 2009, due in part to the decline in contribution margins on other gaming revenues, as well as the recognition of a $28.7 million gain on an insurance settlement during the year ended December 31, 2009.

46

Table of Contents 

 
Operating income increased $31.5 million during the year ended December 31, 2009 as compared to 2008 primarily due to the recognition of the $28.7 million gain on an insurance settlement, and to a lesser extent, the result of substantial efficiencies in the business that helped Borgata maintain operating income near prior year levels, despite the decline in revenues, during the year ended December 31, 2009.
 
Other Non-Operating Expenses from Borgata
Borgata's other non-operating expenses consist of the following:
 
Year Ended December 31,
 
2010
 
2009
 
2008
 
(In thousands, except %)
Interest expense, net of amounts capitalized
$
50,199
 
 
$
27,668
 
 
$
29,049
 
Provision for state income taxes
5,273
 
 
10,938
 
 
2,970
 
Other non-operating expenses
55,472
 
 
38,606
 
 
32,019
 
 
50
%
 
50
%
 
50
%
Our share of other non-operating expenses before consolidation
27,736
 
 
19,303
 
 
16,009
 
Effects of consolidation effective March 24, 2010
(24,603
)
 
 
 
 
Our share of other non-operating expenses, as reported
$
3,133
 
 
$
19,303
 
 
$
16,009
 
 
Interest Expense
Years Ended December 31, 2010 and 2009
Interest expense is currently incurred on borrowings under Borgata's bank credit facility and senior secured notes. The increase in interest expense during the year ended December 31, 2010, as compared to the prior year, is primarily due to higher average interest rates of 6.0% for the year ended December 31, 2010 from 3.5% for the year ended December 31, 2009, and an increase in average outstanding debt balances, due to Borgata's refinancing of its debt, to $757.5 million from $710.1 million during the year ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. In addition, as a result of the termination of Borgata's previous bank credit facility, it wrote-off approximately $2.0 million of unamortized debt financing costs associated with such bank credit facility during the year ended December 31, 2010.
 
Years Ended December 31, 2009 and 2008
The decrease in interest expense during the year ended December 31, 2009, as compared to the prior year, is primarily due to the combined impact of a reduction in average outstanding borrowings to $710.1 million from $731.6 million during the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively, coupled with a decline in the average interest rate throughout 2009.
 
Income Taxes
Years Ended December 31, 2010 and 2009
The decrease in state income taxes during the year ended December 31, 2010, as compared to the prior year, is primarily due to a reduction in pretax income. The effective tax rate for 2010, as compared to 2009, increased due to a favorable adjustment in the 2009 interest accrual on Borgata's other long-term tax liabilities. The 2009 interest accrual was reduced in connection with the expected state tax impact to Borgata's unrecognized tax benefits of certain federal income tax adjustments that have been settled with the Internal Revenue Service, for which the state and federal tax treatment should be consistent.
 
Years Ended December 31, 2009 and 2008
The increase in state income taxes during the year ended December 31, 2009, as compared to the prior year, is primarily due to an increase in pretax income and the effect of Borgata's ineligibility to qualify for the New Jobs Tax Credit in 2009. Due to a reduction in employee levels in the latter part of 2009, Borgata was ineligible for tax credit utilization in 2009. Based on New Jersey state income tax rules, Borgata is eligible for a refundable state tax credit under the new Jobs Investment Tax Credit because it made a qualified investment in a new business facility that created jobs. The realization of the credit is contingent upon maintaining certain employment levels for employees directly related to the qualified investment as well as maintaining overall employment levels. Fluctuations in employment levels for any given year during the credit period eliminate or reduce the credit.
 
LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
 
Financial Position
As a result of the amendment to our operating agreement with MGM, as discussed above, MGM relinquished all of its specific participating rights under the operating agreements, and we retained all authority to manage the day-to-day operations of Borgata.

47

Table of Contents 

MGM's relinquishment of its participating rights effectively provided us with direct control of Borgata. This resulting change in control required acquisition method accounting in accordance with the authoritative accounting guidance for business combinations. The application of this accounting guidance had the following effects on our consolidated financial statements: (i) our previously held equity interest was measured at a provisional fair value at the date control was obtained; (ii) we recognized and measured the identifiable assets and liabilities in accordance with promulgated valuation recognition and measurement provisions; and (iii) we recorded the noncontrolling interest held in trust for the benefit of MGM as a separate component of our stockholders' equity.
 
We provided a preliminary estimated fair value of the aforementioned assets and liabilities related to the effective change in control of Borgata at March 31, 2010. The provisional fair value measurements and estimates of these items approximated their historical carrying values as of the date we effectively obtained control. We have provisionally recorded these fair values using an earnings valuation multiple model, because, at the time of the preliminary estimate, we had not completed our procedures with respect to the independent valuation of the business enterprise and Borgata's tangible and intangible assets. Our subsequent valuation procedures will necessitate a revision of the valuation of the provisional assets and liabilities; however, we will continue to refine our valuation modeling as information regarding the tangible and intangible assets is obtained, which may result in a possible change to these provisional fair value measurements and estimates in future periods. These measurement adjustments, which impact all prior quarterly periods during 2010, will be retrospectively revised as these periods are presented in our future Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and our Annual Reports on Form 10-K as we report on subsequent interim condensed consolidated and annual consolidated financial statements.
As a result of the consolidation of Borgata, in our consolidated balance sheet, we reported Borgata's total assets and total liabilities of $1.45 billion and $985.0 million, respectively, at December 31, 2010.
 
In addition, and as discussed below under Other Items Affecting Liquidity - Echelon, LVE is a joint venture between Marina Energy LLC and DCO ECH Energy, LLC. We have entered into an Energy Sales Agreement with LVE, to design, build, own (other than the underlying real property which is leased from Echelon) and operate a district energy system and central energy center for our planned Echelon resort development. Pursuant to the ESA, LVE will provide electricity, emergency electricity generation, and chilled and hot water to Echelon and potentially other joint venture entities associated with the Echelon development project or other third parties. However, since we are obligated to purchase substantially all of the output of the central energy center, we are the primary beneficiary under the terms of the ESA.
 
Given that we are the primary beneficiary and as a result of our adoption of the authoritative accounting guidance regarding the consolidation of variable interest entities, we were required to consolidate the financial position and results of operations of LVE for the year ended December 31, 2010. As a result of the consolidation of LVE, at December 31, 2010, we reported LVE's total assets and total liabilities of $249.7 million and $263.5 million, respectively in our consolidated balance sheet. However, LVE's financial position, including its working capital and indebtedness, are not discussed herein as such indebtedness is non-recourse to us and will not require our working capital or free cash flows in order to service such.
 
Excluding our consolidation of Borgata's financial position, as discussed above, our entry into the Amended Credit Facility and our issuance of $500 million aggregate principal amount of 9.125% senior notes, as discussed below, there were no other significant changes to our financial position since December 31, 2009.
 
Working Capital
Historically, we have operated with minimal or negative levels of working capital in order to minimize borrowings and related interest costs under our Amended Credit Facility. As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, we had balances of cash and cash equivalents of $145.6 million and $93.2 million, respectively. Excluding the consolidation of LVE, we had balances of cash and cash equivalents of $145.3 million as of December 31, 2010. In addition, we had working capital deficits of $332.3 million and $102.6 million as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Excluding the consolidation of LVE, we had a working capital deficit of $88.6 million, which is relatively consistent with the prior year.
 
Our bank credit facilities generally provide any necessary funds for our day-to-day operations, interest and tax payments, as well as capital expenditures. On a daily basis, we evaluate our cash position and adjust the balance under our bank credit facilities as necessary, by either borrowing or paying it down with excess cash. We also plan the timing and the amounts of our capital expenditures. We believe that our borrowing capacity under our bank credit facilities, subject to our restrictive covenants, and cash flows from operating activities will be sufficient to meet our projected operating and maintenance capital expenditures for at least the next twelve months. The source of funds for the repayment of our debt or our development projects is derived primarily from cash flows from operations and availability under our bank credit facilities, to the extent availability exists after we meet our working capital needs, and subject to our restrictive covenants.
 

48

Table of Contents 

We could also seek to secure additional working capital, repay our current debt maturities, or fund our development projects, in whole or in part, through incremental bank financing and additional debt or equity offerings. If availability does not exist under our bank credit facilities, or we are not otherwise able to draw funds on our bank credit facilities, additional financing may not be available to us or, if available, may not be on terms favorable to us.
 
Indebtedness
Our indebtedness primarily consists of amounts outstanding under our $1.5 billion Amended Credit Facility (excluding the non-extending amounts) and $956.4 million aggregate principal amount of our senior and senior subordinated notes, which are the obligations of Boyd, and a $150 million bank credit facility and $800 million aggregate principal amount of senior secured notes, all of which are the obligations of Borgata.
 
Bank Credit Facility
On December 3, 2010, we entered into an Amendment and Restatement Agreement with certain financial institutions (each a “Lender”), including Bank of America, N.A., as administrative agent and letter of credit issuer, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as swing line lender (the “Amendment and Restatement Agreement”). Pursuant to the terms of the Amendment and Restatement Agreement, our First Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of May 24, 2007, as amended by the First Amendment and Consent to First Amended Credit Agreement, dated as of December 21, 2009 (as amended, the “Amended Credit Facility”), was amended and restated to, among other things, (i) reduce the aggregate commitments under the Credit Facility and (ii) permit consenting Lenders to extend the maturity date of their commitments, new Lenders to issue revolving commitments and term loans and existing Lenders to increase their commitments (each, an “Extending Lender”) in each case with a maturity date five years from the Restatement Effective Date.
Each of the Extending Lenders permanently reduced their commitments under the Amended Credit Facility by up to 50% of the amount thereof. As a result, the aggregate commitments under the Amended Credit Facility were reduced from $3 billion to approximately $1.5 billion (excluding the non-extending amounts), which commitments may be increased from time to time by up to $500 million (instead of $1 billion commitment increases provided for under the Amended Credit Facility) through additional revolving credit or term loans under the Amended Credit Facility.
Pursuant to the terms of the Amended Credit Facility, the term loans amortize in an annual amount equal to 5% of the original principal amount thereof, commencing March 31, 2011, payable on a quarterly basis. The interest rate per annum applicable to revolving loans under the Amended Credit Facility are based upon, at our option, LIBOR or the “base rate,” plus an applicable margin in either case.
The applicable margin under the Amended Credit Facility is a percentage per annum determined in accordance with a specified pricing grid based on the total leverage ratio. The applicable margin on the outstanding balance on the Extended Revolving Facility ranges from 2.50% to 3.50% (if using LIBOR), and from 1.50% to 2.50% (if using the base rate). The applicable margin on the outstanding balance of the loans and commitments of the non-extending lenders continues to range from 0.625% to 1.625% (if using LIBOR), and from 0.0% to 0.375% (if using the base rate). A fee of a percentage per annum (which ranges from 0.250% to 0.500%) determined by the level of the total leverage ratio is payable on the unused portions of the Amended Credit Facility.
The “base rate” under the Amended Credit Facility is the highest of (x) Bank of America's publicly-announced prime rate, (y) the federal funds rate plus 0.50%, or (z) the Eurodollar rate for a one month period plus 1.00%.
The letter of credit fees under the Amended Credit Facility remain the same as those under the Credit Facility; however, the margins payable to Extending Lenders are based on the margins applicable to the Extended Revolving Facility.
Subject to certain conditions, amounts outstanding under the Amended Credit Facility may be prepaid without premium or penalty, and the unutilized portion of any of the commitments may be terminated without penalty.
Our obligations under the Amended Credit Facility, subject to certain exceptions, are guaranteed by certain of our subsidiaries and are secured by the capital stock of certain subsidiaries. In addition, subject to certain exceptions, we and each of the guarantors granted the administrative agent first priority liens and security interests on substantially all of our real and personal property (other than gaming licenses and subject to certain other exceptions) as additional security for the performance of the secured obligations under the Amended Credit Facility.
In conjunction with the Amendment and Restatement Agreement, we incurred approximately $20.6 million in incremental debt financing costs, which have been deferred and are being amortized over the remaining term of the Amended Credit Facility. The blended interest rates for outstanding borrowings under our bank credit facility at December 31, 2010 and 2009 were 3.3% and 1.9%, respectively. At December 31, 2010, approximately $1.4 billion was outstanding under our Amended Credit Facility, with $17.0 million allocated to support various letters of credit, leaving remaining contractual availability of approximately $566.8 million.

49

Table of Contents 

The Amended Credit Facility contains certain financial and other covenants, including, without limitation, various covenants (i) requiring the maintenance of a minimum consolidated interest coverage ratio of 2.00 to 1.00, (ii) establishing a maximum permitted consolidated total leverage ratio (discussed below), (iii) establishing a maximum permitted secured leverage ratio (discussed below), (iv) imposing limitations on the incurrence of indebtedness, (v) imposing limitations on transfers, sales and other dispositions and (vi) imposing restrictions on investments, dividends and certain other payments. Subject to certain exceptions, we may be required to repay the amounts outstanding under the Amended Credit Facility in connection with certain asset sales and issuances of certain additional secured indebtedness.
The minimum consolidated Interest Coverage Ratio (as defined in our Amended Credit Facility) is calculated as (a) twelve-month trailing Consolidated EBITDA (as defined in our Amended Credit Facility) to (b) consolidated interest expense (as also defined in our Amended Credit Facility).
The maximum permitted consolidated Total Leverage Ratio (as defined in our Amended Credit Facility) is calculated as Consolidated Funded Indebtedness to twelve-month trailing Consolidated EBITDA (all capitalized terms are defined in the Amended Credit Facility). The following table provides our maximum Total Leverage Ratio during the remaining term of the Amended Credit Facility.
 
Maximum Total
For the Trailing Four Quarters Ending
Leverage Ratio
December 31, 2010 through and including December 31, 2011
7.75 to 1.00
March 31, 2012 through and including September 30, 2012
7.50 to 1.00
December 31, 2012 and March 31, 2013
7.25 to 1.00
June 30, 2013
7.00 to 1.00
September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2013
6.75 to 1.00
March 31, 2014
6.50 to 1.00
June 30, 2014
6.25 to 1.00
September 30, 2014
6.00 to 1.00
December 31, 2014
5.75 to 1.00
March 31, 2015 and thereafter
5.50 to 1.00
The maximum permitted Secured Leverage Ratio (as defined in our Amended Credit Facility) is calculated as Secured Indebtedness to twelve-month trailing Consolidated EBITDA (all capitalized terms are defined in the Amended Credit Facility). The following table provides our maximum Secured Leverage Ratio during the remaining term of the Amended Credit Facility.
 
Maximum Secured
For the Trailing Four Quarters Ending