UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

x ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, ~~2013~~2014

o TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Commission file number 0-52042

OCM HOLDCO, LLC

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

Delaware		20-3673772
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(I.R.S Employer Identification No.)
333 South Grand Avenue, 28th Floor, Los Angeles, California		90071
(Address of principal executive offices)		(Zip Code)

333 South Grand Avenue, 28th Floor, Los Angeles, California		90071
(Address of principal executive offices)		(Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (213) 830-6300

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Class A Membership Units

Indicate by check mark whether 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 whether 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 Web site, 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 x 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 o

Non-accelerated filer o		Smaller reporting company x
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

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 March 2830, ~~2014~~2015, none of the registrant’s voting and non-voting common equity was held by non-affiliates.

Documents Incorporated by Reference: None

Table of Contents

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Certain information included in this annual report on Form 10-K and other filings of OCM HoldCo, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), as well as information communicated orally or in writing between the dates of such filings, ~~contains~~contain or may contain “forward-looking statements.” Such statements are subject to certain risks, trends and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from expected results. Among these risks, trends and uncertainties are economic conditions generally and in the industries in which the Company may participate; competition within the Company’s chosen industries, including competition from much larger competitors; technological advances; available capital; regulatory approvals; and failure by the Company to successfully develop or acquire products and form new business relationships.

When used in this report, the words “expects,” “intends,” “anticipates,” “should,” “believes,” “will,” “plans,” “estimates,” “may,” “seeks,” and similar expressions are generally intended to identify forward-looking statements. You should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which reflect our opinions only as of the date of this annual report on Form 10-K. We undertake no obligation to publicly release any revisions to the forward-looking statements after the date of this document. You should carefully review the information described in this annual report on Form 10-K. You should also carefully review the risk factors described in the previously filed Form 10-K, and those described from time to time in our future reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”).

Table of Contents

OCM HOLDCO, LLC

INDEX TO FORM 10-K

PART I		1
Item 1.	Business	1
Item 2.	Properties	1512
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	1512
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	1512
PART II		1512
Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	1512
Item 6.	Selected Financial Information	1613
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	1613
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	2117
Item 9.	Changes In and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	2117
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	2118
Item 9B.	Other Information	2218
PART III		2219
Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	2219
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	2420
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	2420
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	2622
Item 14.	Principal Accountant Fees and Services	2723
PART IV		2824
Item 15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	2824
SIGNATURES		3127
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS		F-1

Table of Contents

PART I

Item 1. Business.

THE COMPANY

Overview of the Company

OCM HoldCo, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”), was initially formed on July 22, 2005, at the direction of OCM Principal Opportunities Fund III, L.P. and OCM Principal Opportunities Fund IIIA, L.P. (the “Oaktree Funds”), each of which is a Delaware limited partnership and an affiliate of Oaktree Capital Management, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (formerly Oaktree Capital Management, LLC) (“Oaktree”). The Company was formed for the primary purpose of participating in various activities relating to the gaming industry.

The Company, through its subsidiary, OCM AcquisitionCo, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (“AcquisitionCo”), holds 92,690 Series A1 Preferred Units (together with the Series A2 Preferred Units, the “Series A Units”) of Cannery Casino Resorts, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (“CCR”), which represents a 31.71% interest in the aggregate Series A Units. The Company owns more than 99.99% of the capital interest in OCM Blocker, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Blocker”), and Blocker owns all of the issued and outstanding units of AcquisitionCo. GLCP Nevada LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a third-party entity unaffiliated with the Company (“GLCP”), owns less than 0.01% of the capital interest in Blocker.

The Company’s current business consists primarily of its indirect ownership of these ~~indirect~~ equity interests in CCR. CCR, through wholly-owned subsidiaries:

· owns and operates the Cannery Hotel and Casino (~~“The~~the “Cannery”) located in North Las Vegas, Nevada;

· owns and operates a casino at ~~The~~the Meadows (the “Meadows”), located in North Strabane Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania; and

· owns (subject to a ground lease) and operates the Eastside Cannery Casino and Hotel (the “Eastside Cannery”) located in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Until March 2012, CCR operated the Rampart Casino (the “Rampart Casino”) located in the Summerlin area of Northwest Las Vegas (see Business Developments).

Ownership of the Company

All of the Company’s issued and outstanding voting equity, the Class A Membership Units, are held by OCM VoteCo, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“VoteCo”), and all of the Company’s issued and outstanding non-voting equity, the Class B Membership Units, are held by OCM InvestCo, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (“InvestCo”). VoteCo is owned equally by seven individuals, six of whom are principals of Oaktree and one of whom is a managing director of Oaktree (collectively, the “VoteCo Equityholders”). The rights of the Class A Units and the Class B Units are substantially identical with the exception that the Class B Units are not entitled to any management or voting rights with respect to the Company, except as provided by applicable law. Neither class has dividend or liquidation preferences, atypical participation rights, or preferred convertible or redeemable features. In general, any sale, assignment or transfer of such units is subject to the prior approval of the gaming regulators of Nevada and Pennsylvania. VoteCo has a de minimus economic interest in the Company, less than 0.00015%, and its total equity contributions are limited to $100. InvestCo is owned principally by the Oaktree Funds, which hold all of InvestCo’s issued and outstanding voting securities. At present, the Company has no plans to issue any additional Class A Membership Units or Class B Membership Units.

The VoteCo Equityholders, through VoteCo, control all matters of the Company that are subject to the vote of members, including the appointment and removal of the Company’s managers (the “Managers”). The Class B Membership Units allow InvestCo and its investors, including the Oaktree Funds, to invest in the Company without having any voting power or power to control the operations or affairs of the Company (except as required by law). If InvestCo and its investors, including the Oaktree Funds, had any power to control the operations or affairs of the Company, they and their respective constituent equityholders would generally be required to be licensed or found suitable pursuant to the gaming laws and liquor codes of the jurisdictions in which CCR’s properties are located.

VoteCo, InvestCo, the Company and each of the Company’s subsidiaries are managed by Stephen Kaplan, a Principal of Oaktree, and Ronald Beck, a Managing Director of Oaktree. Oaktree is a leading global investment management firm focused on non-mainstream and alternative markets. As of December 31, 2014, Oaktree managed approximately $90.8 billion in assets across a wide range of investment strategies, including distressed debt, corporate debt (including high yield and senior loans), control investing, convertible securities, real estate and listed equities. Since its founding in 1995, Oaktree has emphasized an opportunistic, value-oriented and risk-controlled approach to investing. Headquartered in Los Angeles, the firm today has over 900 employees in 17 cities worldwide. Oaktree is registered with the Commission as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended.

Table of Contents

VoteCo, InvestCo, the Company and each of the Company’s subsidiaries are managed by Stephen Kaplan, a Principal of Oaktree, and Ronald Beck, a Managing Director of Oaktree. Oaktree is a leading global investment management firm focused on non-mainstream and alternative markets. As of December 31, 2013, Oaktree managed approximately $83.6 billion in assets across a wide range of investment strategies, including high yield and convertible bonds, distressed debt, specialized private equity (including power infrastructure), senior loans, real estate, emerging market and Japanese equities and mezzanine finance. Since its founding in 1995, Oaktree has emphasized an opportunistic, value-oriented and risk-controlled approach to investing. Headquartered in Los Angeles, the firm today has over 800 employees in 16 cities worldwide. Oaktree is registered with the Commission as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended.

Business Developments

~~Blocker~~On ~~Option~~May 13, 2014, CCR and its wholly-owned subsidiary, PA MezzCo, LLC, (“MezzCo” and collectively with CCR, the “Sellers”), entered into a Membership Interest Purchase Agreement ~~Expiration~~(the “MIPA”) with Gaming and Leisure Properties, Inc. (“GLPI”) and GLP Capital, L.P., a subsidiary of GLPI, (“GLP,” and together with GLPI, the “Buyers”) to sell PA Meadows for approximately $465 million. To close, the transaction requires approval from the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (the “Pennsylvania Board”) and the Pennsylvania Racing Commission (the “Pennsylvania Commission”) and, subject to a favorable outcome to Sellers in the litigation discussed in the next paragraph, is expected to close in 2015. In connection with entering into the MIPA, Sellers simultaneously also entered into a consulting agreement with the Buyers (“Consulting Agreement”) whereby Sellers have agreed to provide general advisory services to the Buyers relating to the transaction contemplated under the MIPA. The Consulting Agreement terminates upon the earliest of (i) the closing of the sale of PA Meadows, (ii) 33 months from execution of the Consulting Agreement, or (iii) the failure of the Buyers and Sellers to deliver certain required representations to extend the Consulting Agreement upon the 13-month and 25-month anniversary of executing the Consulting Agreement. Upon executing the Consulting Agreement, Sellers received a non-refundable consulting fee of $10 million, and if extended, would earn a $5 million extension fee at each of the 13-month and 25-month anniversaries of executing the Consulting Agreement, assuming the delivery of certain representations and subject to a favorable outcome to Sellers in the litigation discussed in the next paragraph.

On ~~January~~October 527, ~~2006~~2014, ~~the~~GLPI ~~Company~~filed ~~entered~~a ~~into~~lawsuit anin ~~option~~the ~~agreement~~United ~~with~~States ~~its~~District ~~subsidiary~~Court ~~Blocker~~for (the ~~“Blocker~~Southern ~~Option~~District ~~Agreement”),~~of toNew ~~purchase~~York ~~all~~against ofCCR. The ~~Blocker’s~~lawsuit ~~outstanding~~was ~~Class A~~voluntarily ~~Units~~dismissed ~~and~~by ~~Class B~~GLPI ~~Units~~for injurisdictional ~~AcquisitionCo,~~reasons ~~along~~on ~~with~~December 29, ~~any~~2014. On ~~other~~January 7, ~~equity~~2015, ~~interests~~GLPI inand ~~AcquisitionCo~~GLP ~~that~~filed ~~Blocker~~a ~~may~~lawsuit ~~have~~against ~~owned~~Sellers atin the ~~time~~Supreme Court of ~~exercise. The~~the ~~Company~~State ~~paid~~of ~~approximately~~New ~~$15.2~~York ~~million~~County asof ~~consideration~~New ~~for~~York. Buyers ~~the~~allege ~~execution~~breach of contract and ~~delivery~~other ofmisconduct on the ~~Blocker~~part ~~Option~~of ~~Agreement. The~~CCR ~~Blocker~~with ~~Option~~respect ~~Agreement~~to ~~expired~~the onMIPA ~~January 5,~~and ~~2012~~Consulting ~~unexercised~~Agreement. AsBuyers aseek ~~result~~declaratory ofrelief regarding the ~~expiration,~~breach ~~the~~of ~~Company~~contract ~~recognized~~claims, anunspecified ~~expense~~damages ~~for~~and ~~the~~a ~~$15.2~~declaration ~~million,~~that ~~and~~a ~~Blocker~~material ~~recognized~~adverse aeffect ~~gain~~has ~~for~~occurred ~~the~~that ~~same~~would ~~amount~~excuse asGLPI offrom ~~January 5,~~closing ~~2012. The~~the transaction ~~was~~to ~~eliminated~~purchase inPA ~~consolidation~~Meadows.

~~Rampart~~CCR’s ~~Casino~~management believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the suit vigorously to ensure that GLPI complies with its contractual obligations under both agreements, but the ultimate outcome of this litigation cannot be predicted at this time.

~~From~~On ~~2002~~July 14, ~~to 2012~~2014, aAcquisitionCo ~~subsidiary~~distributed of$0.5 ~~CCR~~million ~~operated~~as ~~The~~a ~~Rampart~~return ~~Casino~~of ~~located~~capital into ~~the~~Blocker. Blocker ~~Summerlin~~in ~~area~~turn ofpaid ~~Las~~the ~~Vegas~~Company ~~under~~ a ~~sublease~~total ~~agreement~~of ~~with~~$0.5 ~~Hotspur~~million ~~Casinos~~as ~~Nevada, Inc.,~~payment aof ~~Nevada~~accrued ~~corporation~~interest ~~(“Hotspur”). This~~on ~~sublease~~intercompany ~~expired~~loans onto ~~March 31,~~the ~~2012~~Company. ~~Accordingly,~~The ~~CCR~~Company ~~ceased~~then ~~its~~distributed ~~operations~~$1.1 ~~related~~million to ~~the~~InvestCo ~~Rampart~~as ~~Casino~~a ~~upon~~return ~~the expiration~~ of ~~the sublease (see The Rampart Casino below)~~capital.

2007 First Lien Amendment No. 2

On February 7, 2012, CCR entered into a second amendment (the “2007 First Lien Amendment No. 2”) to that certain First Lien Credit Agreement, dated as of May 18, 2007, by and among CCR, Bank of America, as Administrative Agent, Collateral Agent, Swing Line Lender and L/C Issuer, the lenders from time to time party thereto, and the other parties thereto (the “2007 First Lien Credit Agreement”). Among other matters, the 2007 First Lien Amendment No. 2 extended the maturity date for the revolving loans under the 2007 First Lien Credit Agreement from May 18, 2012 to February 18, 2013. On October 2, 2012, these facilities were replaced.

2012 Credit Facilities

On October 2, 2012 (the “Closing Date”), CCR and Washington Trotting Association, Inc. (a subsidiary of CCR and together, the “Borrowers”) entered into two syndicated credit facilities with Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as administrative agent and collateral agent, swing line lender and letter of credit issuer, Bank of America, N.A., Goldman Sachs Bank USA (“GS”) and Wells Fargo Gaming Capital, LLC, as co-syndication agents, Credit Suisse AG, Cayman Islands Branch and Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc. (“MC”), as co-documentation agents and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (“DBSI”), Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, GS, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and MC, as Joint Lead Arrangers and Book Running Managers. Provisions of the new credit facilities included: a $425 million first lien facility consisting of a six-year $385 million term loan and a five-year $40 million revolving loan (collectively referred to herein as the “2012 First Lien Credit Facility”), and a seven-year $165 million second lien term loan facility (the “2012 Second Lien Credit Facility”). Portions of the proceeds were used to pay off then-existing $443.5 million debt that was outstanding under the 2007 First Lien Credit Agreement, as amended, and $86.9 million of the proceeds were distributed to certain owners of the Series C Preferred Units of CCR.

The term loans under the 2012 First Lien Credit Facility (the “2012 First Lien Term Loans”) and the revolving loans under the 2012 First Lien Credit Facility bear interest at a LIBOR index plus 4.75%, and the term loans under the 2012 Second Lien Credit Facility (the “2012 Second Lien Term Loans”) bear interest at a LIBOR index plus 8.75%, with a LIBOR floor of 1.25% for each of the 2012 First Lien Term Loans and 2012 Second Lien Term Loans. The interest rate on the 2012 First Lien Credit Facility is subject to one-step down based upon compliance with a consolidated total leverage ratio below a certain threshold. Interest payments are payable quarterly for both the 2012 First Lien Term Loans and 2012 Second Lien Term Loans. The 2012 First Lien Term Loans also require quarterly principal payments in an amount equal to 0.25% of the aggregate principal amount of the 2012 First Lien Term Loans commencing on December 31, 2012, with the remaining outstanding principal due on the maturity date. Unlike the 2012 First Lien Credit Facility, the 2012 Second Lien Credit Facility does not amortize and requires the outstanding principal balance to be repaid on its maturity date.

Table of Contents

Additional details related to the 2012 First Lien Credit Facility and 2012 Second Lien Credit Facility are as follows:

· The terms of the 2012 First Lien Credit Facility are set forth in an agreement (the “2012 First Lien Credit Agreement”), and the terms of the 2012 Second Lien Credit Facility are set forth in a separate agreement (the “2012 Second Lien Credit Agreement”). Under the 2012 First Lien Credit Agreement, the $385 million term facility was borrowed in a single installment on the Closing Date, and the $40 million revolving facility was not funded on the Closing Date, but is available thereafter until the fifth anniversary of the Closing Date. Interest rates under the 2012 First Lien Credit Facility and the 2012 Second Lien Credit Facility float with LIBOR rate indexes, as explained above.

· Both the 2012 First Lien Credit Facility and the 2012 Second Lien Credit Facility require CCR to maintain a consolidated total leverage ratio below certain thresholds. In addition, the 2012 First Lien Credit Facility also requires CCR to maintain a consolidated interest coverage ratio above certain thresholds.

· Both credit facilities are subject to various other affirmative and negative covenants and reporting obligations in favor of the lenders, including, among other restrictions, restrictions on other indebtedness, capital expenditures, liens, investments, fundamental changes, asset dispositions, affiliate transactions, and restricted payments.

· The Borrowers’ obligations under each of the credit facilities are guaranteed by certain of their subsidiaries on a senior secured basis and are secured by substantially all of the real and personal property, including certain accounts of CCR and its subsidiaries. The liens securing the Borrowers’ obligations under the 2012 Second Lien Credit Facility are subordinated to the liens securing the Borrowers’ obligations under the 2012 First Lien Credit Facility.

On October 2, 2012, in connection with CCR entering into the 2012 First Lien Credit Facility and 2012 Second Lien Credit Facility, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Waiver and Amendment to Third Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of CCR (the “Waiver and Amendment”), by and among Crown CCR Group Investments One, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Crown One”) and Crown CCR Group Investments Two, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Crown Two” and together with Crown One, the “Crown Parties”), Millennium Gaming, Inc., a Nevada corporation (“Millennium”), and AcquisitionCo, CCR (i) redeemed 39,384, 6,391, and 6,390 Series C Preferred Units held by AcquisitionCo, Crown One, and Crown Two, respectively (collectively, the “Series C Redemption”), and (ii) accepted contributions of 10,000, 7,241, 2,797 and 2,797 Series C Preferred Units from Millennium Gaming, AcquisitionCo, Crown One, and Crown Two, respectively (collectively, the “Series C Capital Contribution”). AcquisitionCo received $65.6 million from CCR in connection with the Series C Redemption. Following the Series C Redemption and the Series C Capital Contribution, the Company continued to indirectly hold a 31.71% interest in the aggregate of Series A Units of CCR.

The foregoing summaries of the 2007 First Lien Amendment No. 2, the 2012 First Lien Credit Agreement, the 2012 Second Lien Credit Agreement and the Waiver and Amendment do not purport to be complete and are qualified in their entirety by reference to the respective documents, copies of which have been filed as Exhibit 10.37 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Commission on March 30, 2012 and Exhibit 10.38, Exhibit 10.39 and Exhibit 10.40 to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on November 9, 2012.

Return of Capital

On November 27, 2012, AcquisitionCo distributed $63.0 million as a return of capital to Blocker. Blocker in turn paid the Company a total of $63.0 million, which consisted of a $10.5 million partial repayment of principal and a $10.0 million payment of accrued interest on intercompany loans to the Company, and $42.5 million as a return of capital. The Company then distributed the $63.0 million to InvestCo as a return of capital (see Financial Statements and Supplementary Data below).

On October 30, 2013, AcquisitionCo distributed $1.9 million as a return of capital to Blocker. Blocker in turn paid the Company a total of $1.9 million as payment of accrued interest on intercompany loans to the Company. The Company then repaid $0.9 million in principal and interest for related party loans (see Note 5 to the consolidated financial statements) and distributed $0.1 million to InvestCo as a return of capital.

Historical Developments

CCR’s Las Vegas property, The Eastside Cannery, is located on land leased from NP Land pursuant to a 35-year lease (see The Eastside Cannery/Nevada Palace below). Until May 2011, the Company indirectly owned a 33-1/3% equity interest in NP Land, with Nevada Palace, Inc., an entity affiliated with William Wortman, holding the remaining 66-2/3% equity interest in NP Land. On May 17, 2011, the Company entered into a Unit Purchase Agreement for the sale of its 33-1/3% equity interest in NP Land to Nevada Palace, Inc. for $8.0 million in cash. The transaction closed on May 19, 2011.

Table of Contents

On March 3, 2010, CCR entered into Amendment No. 1 to the 2007 First Lien Credit Agreement (the “2007 First Lien Amendment No. 1”). Pursuant to the 2007 First Lien Amendment No. 1, among other matters, (i) the interest rate margins applicable to term loans and revolving loans under the 2007 First Lien Credit Agreement were fixed at 4.25% for Eurodollar rate loans and 3.25% for base rate loans, in lieu of a range dependent upon the borrowers’ consolidated leverage ratio; (ii) the maximum amount of revolving loans was reduced from $110 million to $70 million; (iii) the consolidated leverage ratio that the borrowers were required to maintain as of each quarter end date through the remaining term of the 2007 First Lien Credit Agreement was adjusted; and (iv) the borrowers were permitted to transfer a portion of Pennsylvania real property where The Meadows Racetrack and Casino is located, which is mortgaged under the 2007 First Lien Credit Agreement, for construction of a hotel. In addition to these matters, other covenants and provisions of the 2007 First Lien Credit Agreement affected by the 2007 First Lien Amendment No. 1 include covenants requiring maintenance of minimum consolidated EBITDA, compliance with cash management procedures and application of the proceeds of certain transactions, including the issuance of securities, to repay the outstanding indebtedness under the 2007 First Lien Credit Agreement.

On March 3, 2010, in accordance with the terms and conditions of that certain Series C Preferred Purchase Agreement (the “Series C Purchase Agreement”), by and among the Crown Parties, Millennium, AcquisitionCo, and CCR, CCR sold (i) 18,375 Series C Preferred Units to Crown One and Crown Two, collectively; (ii) 10,000 Series C Preferred Units to Millennium; and (iii) 46,625 Series C Preferred Units to AcquisitionCo. The rights, preferences and privileges of the Series C Preferred Units are set forth in the Revised Operating Agreement.

In connection with the 2007 First Lien Amendment No. 1 and the issuance of the Series C Preferred Units described below, the members of CCR entered into CCR’s Third Amended and Restated Operating Agreement (the “Revised Operating Agreement”). Among other matters, the Revised Operating Agreement creates a series of preferred securities of CCR designated as the “Series C Preferred Units.” The Series C Preferred Units (i) are non-voting subject to certain limited consent rights, (ii) are required to be redeemed by CCR in certain circumstances, including, without limitation, the repayment of CCR’s credit facilities and/or certain sale transactions, and (iii) may be redeemed at CCR’s option at any time subject to compliance with CCR’s credit facilities.

The foregoing summaries of the 2007 First Lien Amendment No. 1, the Revised Operating Agreement and the Series C Purchase Agreement do not purport to be complete and are qualified in their entirety by reference to the respective documents, copies of which have been filed as Exhibit 10.34, Exhibit 10.35, and Exhibit 10.36 to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on March 9, 2010.

Employees

The Company has no employees, other than its two managers, Messrs. Kaplan and Beck, who receive no compensation from the Company for their services.

Environmental Issues

The Company has no physical assets.

CANNERY CASINO RESORTS, LLC

CCR ~~was~~owns ~~organized~~and onoperates ~~May 22,~~hotels ~~2001. In~~and ~~December 2002,~~casinos ~~CCR commenced casino operations~~ at the ~~Rampart~~Cannery ~~Casino.~~and In(subject ~~January 2003,~~to ~~CCR~~a ~~completed~~ground ~~construction~~lease) ofthe ~~The~~Eastside Cannery and ~~commenced its operations. In July 2006, CCR acquired The Meadows, where it currently~~ owns and operates a casino and ~~the~~ on-and-off track racing operations~~. On~~ ~~February 29, 2008, the Company commenced operations~~ at the ~~Eastside Cannery after the completing construction of the property~~Meadows. The Cannery and the Eastside Cannery are currently, ~~and the Rampart Casino was,~~ managed by Millennium Management Group II, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (“MMG II”). MMG II is 95% owned by William Paulos and William Wortman. Messrs. Paulos and Wortman, through Millennium, own ~~the remaining 58~~43.8% of the aggregate Series A1A Units of CCR and Mr. Wortman also, indirectly, owns 100% of the equity interests in NP Land, LLC (“NP Land”), the entity that owns the primary site upon which the Eastside Cannery ishas ~~located. CCR~~a ~~ceased~~35-year ~~its~~ground ~~operations at the Rampart Casino at the end of its~~ lease ~~term~~that incommenced ~~March~~on September ~~2012~~22, ~~(see The Rampart Casino below)~~2006.

The Cannery

The Cannery, located in North Las Vegas, Nevada, ~~commenced~~currently ~~operations in January 2003. Currently, The Cannery~~ features approximately 80,400 square feet of casino space, including 1,~~753~~675 slot/video poker machines, 2425 table games (including poker), poker room, bingo room and a race and sports book. The attached three-story hotel is designed to be compatible with ~~The~~the Cannery’s World War II industrial theme and includes 200 hotel rooms. In addition, ~~The~~the Cannery’s facilities include a sports-themed restaurant and bar, a buffet restaurant, a Mexican-themed restaurant, an Italian restaurant and a steakhouse; a 14 screen movie theatre; an indoor/outdoor multi-purpose entertainment venue used to host events such as boxing matches and community festivals; an entertainment lounge; a pool and jacuzzi; and parking for approximately 3,600 vehicles (including a 1,900-space parking garage), with valet options and additional off-site parking for large events, along with shuttle bus service to and from the casino.

Table of Contents

The Eastside Cannery/Nevada Palace

OnThe ~~September 22~~Eastside Cannery, ~~2006~~located on the Boulder Strip in east Las Vegas and approximately eight miles from McCarran International Airport, ~~CCR~~is similar in theme and amenities to the Cannery, ~~through~~with 307 guest rooms and suites, a ~~subsidiary~~resort spa, ~~acquired~~jacuzzi and a half-acre pool with cabanas on the ~~gaming~~property. The ~~assets~~Eastside Cannery’s casino has approximately 62,500 square feet of ~~the~~gaming ~~Nevada~~space, ~~Palace~~with ~~and~~1,500 ~~entered~~slot ~~into~~machines, 21 table games (including poker), a 35450-~~year~~seat ~~lease~~bingo ofhall, ~~the~~a ~~Nevada~~poker ~~Palace~~room ~~land~~and ~~with~~a NPrace ~~Land~~and sports book. ~~The~~In addition, the Eastside Cannery ~~replaced~~has five restaurants, five bars, a 250 seat entertainment lounge, the ~~Nevada~~One ~~Palace~~Six Sky Lounge and ~~opened~~an onapproximately ~~August 28~~20,000 ~~2008~~square foot ballroom and meeting place.

The Eastside Cannery, located on the Boulder Strip in east Las Vegas and approximately eight miles from McCarran International Airport, is similar in theme and amenities to The Cannery, with 307 guest rooms and suites, a resort spa, jacuzzi and a half-acre pool with cabanas on the property. The Eastside Cannery’s casino has approximately 62,500 square feet of gaming space, with 1,631 slot machines, 24 table games (including poker), a 450-seat bingo hall, a poker room and a race and sports book. In addition, the Eastside Cannery has five restaurants, five bars, a 250 seat entertainment lounge, the One Six Sky Lounge and an approximately 20,000 square foot ballroom and meeting place.

The Meadows

~~Since 2006,~~ CCR ~~has~~owns ~~owned~~ and ~~operated~~operates The Meadows harness racetrack through ~~its wholly-owned subsidiary,~~ PA Meadows~~, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“PA Meadows”)~~. ~~Since 2009,~~ PA Meadows ~~has~~also ~~operated~~operates an approximately 350,000 square-foot permanent casino through its wholly-owned subsidiary, the Washington Trotting Association (“WTA”). The facility includes 87 restaurants and a boutique style bowling alley and nightclub. At December 31, ~~2013~~2014, the casino houses 3,~~317~~204 slot machines, 6167 table games, and 14 poker tables and integrates the long-standing tradition of harness racing at ~~The~~the Meadows with state-of-art gaming facilities.

The Rampart Casino

On March 31, 2012, CCR ceased its operations through a subsidiary related to the Rampart Casino upon the expiration of a 10-year sublease agreement with Hotspur (see Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations below).

Gaming Markets

Las Vegas Locals Gaming Market

Las Vegas and North Las Vegas, which are part of Clark County, Nevada, have experienced considerable population growth over the past decade. With an estimated population of 2 million, Clark County is Nevada’s largest county and the 13th largest county in the United States. The Cannery and the Eastside Cannery are located in Clark County. CCR’s management believes that the Clark County’s population growth over the past decade has been driven, in part, by Clark County’s favorable business climate, tax structure and great weather.

CCR competes primarily in the Las Vegas locals gaming market, which is defined as the Clark County gaming market excluding the Las Vegas Strip, Downtown Las Vegas and Laughlin. The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority estimates that two-thirds of the local Las Vegas adult population participates in casino gaming on a regular basis. In ~~2013~~2014, total win from nonrestricted gaming operations in the Las Vegas locals gaming market was approximately $2.21 billion, ~~representing~~which awas ~~year-over-year~~relatively ~~decrease~~the ofsame ~~approximately 0.4%~~ as ~~compared to 2012~~2013, according to the Nevada Gaming Control Board (the “Nevada Board”).

The specific submarkets for ~~The~~the Cannery and the Eastside Cannery are North Las Vegas and the Boulder Strip, respectively.

North Las Vegas

The Cannery is located in North Las Vegas, off of I-15 and a few miles from I-95, and targets local residents and visitors to the nearby Nellis Air Force Base and Las Vegas Motor Speedway. According to the Nevada ~~Gaming Control~~ Board, total win from nonrestricted gaming operations in North Las Vegas was approximately $~~259~~264 million in ~~2013~~2014, aan ~~decrease~~increase of 51.39% from $~~273~~259 million in ~~2012~~2013.

Table of Contents

The Boulder Strip Area

The Eastside Cannery is located along a section of the Boulder Highway, known as the “Boulder Strip.” The Boulder Strip is known as a popular “off the Las Vegas Strip” gaming destination for visitors to Las Vegas who are looking for a less costly gaming experience than that offered on the Las Vegas Strip. Many of the casinos along the Boulder Strip offer entertainment amenities beyond gambling, including movie theaters, bowling alleys and dining establishments. According to the Nevada ~~Gaming Control~~ Board, total win from nonrestricted gaming operations in the Boulder Strip Area, which includes casinos within the city limits of Henderson, Nevada, was approximately $~~787~~773 million in ~~2013~~2014, a decrease of approximately 1.29% from $~~797~~787 million in ~~2012~~2013. CCR management believes that the Boulder Strip has become, and is likely to remain, popular with Las Vegas locals.

Pennsylvania Gaming Market

The Meadows is located in North Strabane Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania. North Strabane Township is part of the greater Pittsburgh metropolitan area and is located approximately twenty-five miles from the city of Pittsburgh. The Meadows competes in a large market that includes western Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio and northern West Virginia, although its primary market is the greater Pittsburgh metropolitan area. Pennsylvania has approved 1213 slot machine gaming facilities for licensure throughout the state: 6 racetrack-based casino facilities, 45 stand-alone slot machine gaming facilities and 2 resort-based slot machine facilities. ~~The Pennsylvania Board is currently evaluating six proposals for the fifth stand-alone gaming facility in Philadelphia.~~ Of the 1213 facilities approved for licensure, 6the ~~racetrack~~following ~~facilities~~ are open,: 6 racetrack facilities; 4 stand-alone slot machine gaming facilities, Mt. Airy Casino Resort, The Rivers Casino, Sands Bethlehem and SugarHouse were open throughout 2012 and 1 resort based slot machine facility, Valley Forge Casino Resort, opened in March 2012. On May 20, 2011, the Pennsylvania Board granted the second resort-based slot machine facility license to Nemacolin Woodlands Resort in Farmington, Pennsylvania, which is approximately 60 miles from The Meadows. The facility opened in late June 2013 and currently has 584 slot machines and 28 table games. In addition, the Commission issued a license to Valley View Downs in Lawrence County; however, the Pennsylvania Board has not approved a slot machine license as the Pennsylvania Board determined that Valley View Downs does not have adequate financing. In March 2010, Centaur LLC, the parent company of Valley View Downs, filed for bankruptcy. In January 2011, a bid for the Valley View Downs harness racing license was accepted by the Bankruptcy Court and the bankruptcy plan was approved. On June 3, 2013, the new owners, Endeka Entertainment, L.P. applied to the Pennsylvania Board for a gaming license. The application is currently in process.

The closest licensed in-state racetrack-based casino is Presque Isle Downs & Casino, in Erie, Pennsylvania, which is approximately 146 miles from The Meadows. The closest stand-alone facility is The Rivers Casino, which opened in August 2009 and is approximately 25 miles from The Meadows. The closest resort casino is Nemacolin Woodlands Resort, which is approximately 60 miles from The Meadows.3

Competition

The casino hotel industry is a highly fragmented and competitive industry. The gaming industry includes land-based casinos, dockside casinos, riverboat casinos, casinos located on Native American reservations and other forms of legalized gaming. CCR management believes that the primary competition to CCR’s casinos currently comes from other casinos that cater to the Las Vegas locals gaming market. In addition, to a lesser extent, CCR’s casinos face competition from casinos located on the Las Vegas Strip and in downtown Las Vegas. Competition with the Company’s casino at The Meadows currently comes from racetrack-based casinos in West Virginia, Ohio, The Rivers Casino, located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which opened in August 2009 and the Nemacolin Woodlands Resort, which opened in late June 2013. The competition among companies in the gaming industry is intense and many of CCR’s competitors have significantly greater resources than CCR.

Table of Contents

Airy Casino Resort, The Rivers Casino, Sands Bethlehem and SugarHouse; and 2 resort based slot machine facilities, Valley Forge Casino Resort and Nemacolin Woodlands Resort. The 5th stand-alone slot machine license was awarded by the Pennsylvania Board on November 18, 2014, to Stadium Casino, LLC for a facility in Philadelphia. In addition, the Commission issued a license to Valley View Downs in Lawrence County; however, the Pennsylvania Board has not approved a slot machine license as the Pennsylvania Board determined that Valley View Downs does not have adequate financing. In March 2010, Centaur LLC, the parent company of Valley View Downs, filed for bankruptcy. In January 2011, a bid for the Valley View Downs harness racing license was accepted by the Bankruptcy Court and the bankruptcy plan was approved. On June 3, 2013, the new owners, Endeka Entertainment, L.P. applied to the Pennsylvania Board for a gaming license. The application is currently in process and Endeka has not provided the Pennsylvania Board with all necessary information to move forward with the license application.

The closest licensed in-state racetrack-based casino is Presque Isle Downs & Casino, in Erie, Pennsylvania, which is approximately 146 miles from the Meadows. The closest stand-alone facility is The Rivers Casino, which opened in August 2009 and is approximately 25 miles from the Meadows. The closest resort casino is Nemacolin Woodlands Resort, which is approximately 60 miles from the Meadows. The facility opened in late June 2013 and currently has 595 slot machines and 29 table games.

Competition

The casino hotel industry is a highly fragmented and competitive industry. The gaming industry includes land-based casinos, dockside casinos, riverboat casinos, casinos located on Native American reservations and other forms of legalized gaming. CCR management believes that the primary competition to CCR’s casinos currently comes from other casinos that cater to the Las Vegas locals gaming market. In addition, to a lesser extent, CCR’s casinos face competition from casinos located on the Las Vegas Strip and in downtown Las Vegas. Competition with the Meadows currently comes from racetrack-based casinos in West Virginia, Ohio, The Rivers Casino, located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and the Nemacolin Woodlands Resort, located in Farmington, Pennsylvania. The competition among companies in the gaming industry is intense and many of CCR’s competitors have significantly greater resources than CCR.

Under the terms of CCR’s amended and restated operating agreement, subject to certain exceptions, Millennium and its affiliates, on the one hand, and AcquisitionCo and its affiliates (including the Company), on the other, must offer gaming opportunities first to CCR prior to pursuing any such opportunity outside CCR. Generally, no manager of CCR may serve as a manager, officer, director or employee of any casino operating or holding company, except that a manager may serve in such capacities with respect to CCR or its subsidiaries or entities that hold equity in the Company (other than Oaktree or investors in the Oaktree Funds). Nevertheless, a manager may serve as a manager, officer, director or employee of a casino operating or holding company formed to pursue a gaming opportunity offered to but not accepted by CCR and a casino operating or holding company formed to pursue certain opportunities in Mexico.

Las Vegas Locals Gaming Market

The Las Vegas locals gaming market is highly competitive. In addition to established casinos, CCR faces competition from smaller casinos, supermarkets, bars and convenience stores that offer gaming.

The closest casino competitors to ~~The~~the Cannery are Aliante Station and Santa Fe Station, which are approximately five and six miles, respectively, from the site of the casino, although outside of ~~The~~the Cannery’s primary market area. Other competitors (each more than six miles from ~~The~~the Cannery) include Texas Station Gambling Hall and Fiesta Rancho. Each of these four competitors is owned by Station Casinos, Inc. Together, they account for over 6,500 slot machines, over 100 table games and over 500 hotel rooms and suites. The Boulder Strip is home to many competitors. Prominent casinos along the Boulder Strip include Sam’s Town Hall & Gambling Hall, operated by Boyd Gaming Corporation; and Sunset Station, Boulder Station, Green Valley Ranch and Fiesta Henderson, each owned by Station Casinos, Inc. These competitors generally have from 1,500 to over 3,100 slot machines, 25 to 70 table games (including poker) and 200 to over 600 hotel rooms and suites. The Eastside Cannery and a few other smaller casinos along the Boulder Strip may lack the necessary facilities and other amenities to effectively compete in this prominent sub-market.

Las Vegas Strip and Downtown Las Vegas Gaming Market

The Las Vegas Strip is the location of dozens of casinos, including the largest and newest “mega-casinos” in Las Vegas. In addition, the downtown Las Vegas area includes approximately a dozen casinos on or near Fremont Street in old Las Vegas. Casinos located on the Las Vegas Strip or in downtown Las Vegas are typically tourist destinations and generally do not target the locals gaming market.

The Neighborhood Casino Act

~~In 1997, the~~ Nevada’s ~~Legislature passed~~ Senate Bill No. 208 (the “Neighborhood Casino Act”), ~~enacting~~as amended, enacted laws which possibly create significant barriers to new competition in CCR’s local gaming markets by limiting future casino development in certain areas of Clark County, Nevada. ~~Those laws were amended in 2001.~~ With certain specified exemptions, the Neighborhood Casino Act restricts non-restricted gaming to certain designated gaming enterprise districts, and imposes potentially burdensome requirements on applicants proposing to have new locations designated as gaming enterprise districts by the applicable county, city or town body with jurisdiction.

~~Pennsylvania Gaming Market~~4

The primary established competition for the casino at The Meadows are The Rivers Casino in Pittsburgh, two racetrack-based casinos located in West Virginia: the Wheeling Island Racetrack and Gaming Center in Wheeling, West Virginia, and the Mountaineer Racetrack and Gaming Resort in Chester, West Virginia. The Rivers Casino is located approximately 25 miles from The Meadows and opened in August 2009 with approximately 3,000 slot machines. The Wheeling Island Racetrack and Gaming Center is approximately 34 miles from The Meadows and is an established racetrack and slot machine gaming center with approximately 2,400 slot machines. The Mountaineer Casino is approximately 50 miles from The Meadows and is an established racetrack and slot machine gaming center with approximately 3,200 slot machines. Both West Virginia facilities added table games in late 2007. The Meadows and The Rivers Casino commenced table game operations in July 2010. Pennsylvania has approved for licensure 12 slot machine gaming facilities throughout the state, 6 racetrack-based casino facilities, 4 stand-alone slot machine gaming facilities and 2 resort-based slot machine facilities. The Pennsylvania Board is currently evaluating six proposals for the fifth stand-alone gaming facility in Philadelphia. Of the 12 facilities approved for licensure, 6 racetrack facilities are open, 4 stand-alone slot machine gaming facilities, Mt. Airy Casino Resort, The Rivers Casino, Sands Bethlehem and SugarHouse were open throughout 2012 and 1 resort based slot machine facility, Valley Forge Casino Resort, opened in March 2012. On May 20, 2011, the Pennsylvania Board granted the second resort-based slot machine facility license to Nemacolin Woodlands Resort in Farmington, Pennsylvania, which is approximately 60 miles from The Meadows. The facility opened in late June 2013 and currently has 584 slot machines and 28 table games. In addition, the Commission issued a license to Valley View Downs in Lawrence County; however, the Pennsylvania Board has not approved a slot machine license as the Pennsylvania Board determined that Valley View Downs does not have adequate financing. In March 2010, Centaur LLC, the parent company of Valley View Downs, filed for bankruptcy. In January 2011 a bid for the Valley View Downs harness racing license was accepted by the Bankruptcy Court and the bankruptcy plan was approved. On June 3, 2013, the new owners, Endeka Entertainment, L.P. applied to the Pennsylvania Board for a gaming license. The application is currently in process.

Table of Contents

~~The closest in-state licensed facility to The Meadows is The Rivers Casino located in Pittsburgh,~~ Pennsylvania ~~and~~Gaming is approximately 25 miles from The Meadows. The closest licensed in-state racetrack-based casino is Presque Isle Downs & Casino, located in Erie, Pennsylvania, which is approximately 146 miles from The Meadows. The closest resort casino is Nemacolin Woodlands Resort approximately 60 miles from The Meadows.Market

InThe ~~addition,~~primary ~~six~~established ~~gaming~~competition ~~facilities~~for ~~have~~the ~~opened~~casino orat ~~are~~the ~~near~~Meadows ~~opening~~is ~~in Ohio.~~ The ~~Horseshoe~~Rivers Casino in ~~Cleveland~~Pittsburgh, ~~opened~~and intwo ~~May 2012~~racetrack-based casinos, the Wheeling Island Racetrack and ~~Thistledowns~~Gaming Center in Wheeling, West Virginia, and the ~~suburbs~~Mountaineer ofRacetrack ~~Cleveland opened~~and Gaming Resort in ~~April 2013~~Chester, West Virginia. ~~Cleveland~~The Rivers Casino is located approximately ~~150~~25 miles from ~~The~~the Meadows and opened in August 2009 with approximately 3,000 slot machines. The ~~Hollywood~~Wheeling ~~Casino~~Island Racetrack and ~~Scioto~~Gaming ~~Downs~~Center inis approximately 34 miles from the ~~Columbus~~Meadows ~~area~~and ~~opened~~is ~~October 2012~~an established racetrack and ~~June 2012~~slot machine gaming center with approximately 2,400 ~~respectively~~slot machines. ~~Columbus~~The Mountaineer Casino is approximately ~~160~~50 miles from ~~The~~the Meadows and is an established racetrack and slot machine gaming center with approximately 3,200 slot machines. Both West Virginia facilities added table games in late 2007. The ~~Hard~~Meadows ~~Rock~~and ~~Rocksino~~The ~~opened~~Rivers Casino commenced table game operations in ~~December~~July 2010. Pennsylvania has approved for licensure 13 slot machine gaming facilities throughout the state, ~~2013~~6 inracetrack-based ~~Northfield~~casino ~~Park~~facilities, ~~Ohio~~5 ~~approximately~~stand-alone ~~130~~slot ~~miles~~machine ~~from~~gaming ~~The~~facilities ~~Meadows~~and 2 resort-based slot machine facilities. The ~~Horseshoe~~5th stand-alone ~~Casino~~slot inmachine ~~Cincinnati~~license ~~opened~~was ~~March~~awarded by the Pennsylvania Board on November ~~2013~~18, ~~and~~2014, isto ~~approximately~~Stadium ~~260~~Casino, ~~miles~~LLC ~~from~~for ~~The~~a ~~Meadows~~facility in Philadelphia. Of ~~The~~the ~~Miami~~13 ~~Valley~~facilities ~~Gaming~~approved infor licensure, the ~~Cincinnati~~following ~~area~~are ~~also~~open: ~~opened~~6 inracetrack ~~December~~facilities; ~~2013~~4 stand-alone slot machine gaming facilities, Mt. Airy Casino Resort, The ~~Hollywood~~Rivers Casino, inSands ~~Toledo~~Bethlehem ~~opened~~and ~~May 2012~~SugarHouse; and is2 ~~approximately~~resort ~~250~~based ~~miles~~slot ~~from~~machine ~~The~~facilities, ~~Meadows~~Valley Forge Casino Resort and Nemacolin Woodlands Resort. ItNemacolin isWoodlands ~~also~~Resort ~~anticipated~~currently ~~that~~has ~~the~~595 ~~Racetrack~~slot ~~facilities~~machines inand ~~Ohio~~29 ~~owned~~table bygames. In ~~Penn~~addition, ~~National~~the ~~will~~Commission beissued ~~relocated~~a license to ~~Dayton~~Valley View Downs in Lawrence County; however, ~~Ohio~~the ~~and~~Pennsylvania ~~Youngstown~~Board has not approved a slot machine license as the Pennsylvania Board determined that Valley View Downs does not have adequate financing. In March 2010, ~~Ohio~~Centaur LLC, ~~approximately~~the ~~230~~parent ~~miles~~company ~~and~~of 85Valley ~~miles,~~View ~~respectively~~Downs, ~~from~~filed ~~The~~for ~~Meadows~~bankruptcy. In January 2011 a bid for the Valley View Downs harness racing license was accepted by the Bankruptcy Court and ~~are~~the ~~expected~~bankruptcy toplan ~~open~~was ~~mid-2014~~approved. ~~Last~~ On June 3, 2013, the ~~Belterra~~new ~~Park~~owners, ~~Gaming~~Endeka ~~and~~ Entertainment, ~~Center~~L.P. isapplied ~~expected~~ to ~~open~~the inPennsylvania ~~May,~~Board ~~2014~~for a gaming license. The application is currently in ~~Hamilton~~process ~~County,~~and ~~Ohio~~Endeka ~~approximately~~has ~~240~~not ~~miles~~provided ~~from~~the ~~The~~Pennsylvania ~~Meadows~~Board with all necessary information to move forward with the license application.

The closest in-state licensed facility to the Meadows is The Rivers Casino located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and is approximately 25 miles from the Meadows. The closest licensed in-state racetrack-based casino is Presque Isle Downs & Casino, located in Erie, Pennsylvania, which is approximately 146 miles from the Meadows. The closest resort casino is Nemacolin Woodlands Resort approximately 60 miles from the Meadows.

In addition, six gaming facilities have opened or are near opening in Ohio. The Horseshoe Casino in Cleveland opened in May 2012 and Thistledowns in the suburbs of Cleveland opened in April 2013. Cleveland is approximately 150 miles from the Meadows. The Hollywood Casino and Scioto Downs in the Columbus area opened in October 2012 and June 2012, respectively. Columbus is approximately 160 miles from the Meadows. The Hard Rock Rocksino opened in December, 2013 in Northfield Park, Ohio approximately 130 miles from the Meadows. The Horseshoe Casino in Cincinnati opened March 2013 and is approximately 260 miles from the Meadows. The Miami Valley Gaming in the Cincinnati area also opened in December 2013. The Hollywood Casino in Toledo opened in May 2012 and is approximately 250 miles from the Meadows. The Belterra Park Gaming and Entertainment Center opened in May 2014 in Hamilton County, Ohio approximately 240 miles from The Meadows. Penn National relocated a racing facility from Toledo to Dayton, Ohio approximately 230 miles from the Meadows and opened a racino in August 2014. Penn National also relocated a racing facility to just outside of Youngstown, Ohio approximately 85 miles from the Meadows and opened its racino in September 2014.

Business and Marketing Strategy

CCR aims to target the locals gaming market and capitalize on strong demographic trends. In addition, CCR seeks to position its gaming assets to cater to the propensity of the local residents to participate in casino-style gaming in proximity to where they live. CCR management believes that CCR’s Las Vegas casinos also benefit from Nevada regulatory restrictions that have the effect of limiting competition in the gaming industry, including the Neighborhood Casino Act. ~~For more information on the Neighborhood Casino Act, see “Item 1. Cannery Casino Resorts—Competition—The Neighborhood Casino Act” above.~~

Strong Management Team.

The day-to-day operations of CCR are managed by Messrs. Paulos and Wortman, each of whom has had significant gaming industry experience. Mr. Paulos previously served as President of Primadonna Resorts, Inc., which through subsidiaries owned and operated various casino-hotel properties, including Buffalo Bill’s, Whiskey Pete’s, the Primm Valley Inn and Resort, and New York-New York Casino Resort, where he also served on the board of directors. Mr. Paulos has served as Chief Operating Officer of Crown Casino Limited, where he was responsible for the construction and opening of its casino in Melbourne, Australia, and as Senior Vice President of Circus Circus Enterprises, Inc., where he had primary responsibility for the development of the Excalibur and Luxor casinos. Mr. Wortman previously served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Palace Casinos, Inc. In addition to Nevada Palace, he previously owned and operated the Fallon Nugget and Bonanza Inn in Fallon, Nevada and Renata’s/Sunset Lanes in Henderson, Nevada. Mr. Wortman held various senior positions at Caesars Palace Las Vegas, including Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, Vice President of Administration and Vice President of Hotel Operations, and served as President and Chief Operating Officer of Caesars Tahoe.

Table of Contents

Targeted Customer Base.

CCR’s operating strategy aims to attract and retain customers primarily from the locals market through innovative, frequent and high-profile promotional programs, focused marketing efforts and convenient locations. CCR’s primary customers are located within a five-mile radius of its casinos, and CCR focuses its marketing efforts on those patrons.

High-Value Customer Experience.

In order to provide a high-value gaming experience, CCR focuses on slot and video poker machine play with higher-than-average payout. CCR management believes that by offering a wide variety of high quality slot and video poker games, its casinos attract locals and repeat visitors. CCR management is committed to providing a high-value entertainment experience through restaurant, hotel and other non-gaming amenities at reasonable prices to attract patrons.

Table of Contents

Creative Marketing and Promotional Programs.

CCR management believes that promotions and promotional events are one of the primary factors to success in the locals gaming market. CCR employs a marketing strategy that utilizes innovative, frequent and high-profile promotional programs in order to attract and retain customers and establish a high level of name recognition for CCR’s casinos. In addition to aggressive marketing through television, radio, ~~and~~ newspaper advertising, and social media, CCR creates and sponsors promotional events and has established and promotes an exclusive players club.

Operating Efficiencies.

By operating its Nevada casinos with a similar marketing focus and target customer, CCR realizes certain operating efficiencies. For example, ~~The Cannery,~~ the ~~Eastside~~ Cannery and ~~formerly~~ the ~~Rampart~~Eastside ~~Casino~~Cannery participate in the same players’ club, which provides casino patrons with the opportunity to ~~win~~earn points at ~~any~~both CCR ~~location~~locations and enables management to run larger joint promotions. CCR also benefits from joint purchasing programs for food and other supplies and available quantity discounts. In addition, CCR realizes equipment cost savings from, among other things, identical player-tracking systems in its casinos. These player-tracking systems provide CCR with access to a larger database of customers for purposes of cross-marketing and promotions. Finally, the accounting, personnel and other administrative functions of CCR’s casinos are centralized to reduce costs.

Employees

As of December 31, ~~2013~~2014, CCR and its subsidiaries had approximately 32,~~035~~920 active employees and approximately 2,~~660~~138 full-time equivalent employees. Of these employees, ~~598~~568 are unionized. CCR recognizes that its employees are critical to its success and has sought to foster a productive work culture. Employees are offered competitive salaries and benefit packages.

Environmental Matters

The operations and properties of ~~The~~the Cannery, and the Eastside Cannery (and ~~the~~its ~~former operations of the Nevada Palace~~predecessor) ~~and the Rampart Casino~~ are and will continue to be subject to a wide variety of complex and stringent environmental laws. CCR management believes that their respective operations and properties are in compliance in all material respects with all applicable environmental laws. Based upon their experience to date, CCR management believes that the future cost of compliance with and liability under existing environmental laws will not have a material adverse effect on their respective future financial conditions, cash flows or results of operations.

The operations and properties of ~~The~~the Meadows are, and will continue to be, subject to a wide variety of complex and stringent environmental laws. CCR management believes that these operations and properties are in compliance in all material respects with all environmental laws. As a result, CCR management believes that the future cost of compliance with and liability under existing environmental laws applicable to ~~The~~the Meadows will not have a material adverse effect on PA Meadows’ future financial conditions, cash flows or results of operations.

REGULATORY MATTERS

CCR and its equity holders, including the Company, are subject to gaming regulation in Nevada and gaming and harness racing regulation in Pennsylvania. The ownership and operation of casino gaming facilities in Nevada are subject to the gaming laws and regulations of the State of Nevada, including the Nevada Gaming Control Act (such laws and regulations, the “Nevada Act”), and the licensing and regulatory control of the Nevada Gaming Control Board (the “Nevada Board”), the Nevada Gaming Commission (the “Nevada Commission”), the Clark County Liquor and Gaming Licensing Board, the City of Las Vegas and the City of North Las Vegas (collectively, the “Nevada Gaming Authorities”). The ownership and operation of slot machine facilities in Pennsylvania are subject to the Pennsylvania Race Horse Development and Gaming Act (such laws and regulations, the “Pennsylvania Act”) and the licensing and regulatory control of the Pennsylvania Board. The ownership and operation of harness racing tracks in Pennsylvania are subject to the harness racing laws and regulations of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including the Race Horse Industry Reform Act (such laws and regulations, the “RHIRA”), and the licensing and regulatory control of the Pennsylvania State Harness Racing Commission (“Pennsylvania Commission”).

Table of Contents

licensing and regulatory control of the Nevada Board, the Nevada Gaming Commission (the “Nevada Commission”), the Clark County Liquor and Gaming Licensing Board, the City of Las Vegas and the City of North Las Vegas (collectively, the “Nevada Gaming Authorities”). The ownership and operation of slot machine facilities in Pennsylvania are subject to the Pennsylvania Race Horse Development and Gaming Act (such laws and regulations, the “Pennsylvania Act”) and the licensing and regulatory control of the Pennsylvania Board. The ownership and operation of harness racing tracks in Pennsylvania are subject to the harness racing laws and regulations of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including the Race Horse Industry Reform Act (such laws and regulations, the “RHIRA”), and the licensing and regulatory control of the Pennsylvania Commission.

Nevada Gaming Laws and Regulations

The Nevada Act and the regulations and supervisory procedures of the Nevada Gaming Authorities are based upon declarations of public policy that are concerned with, among other things, the prevention of unsavory or unsuitable persons from having a direct or indirect involvement with gaming at any time or in any capacity and the strict regulation of all persons, locations, practices, associations and activities related to the operation of licensed gaming establishments. Changes in such laws, regulations and procedures could have an adverse effect on CCR’s gaming operations and the Company’s indirect investment in CCR.

Table of Contents

Licensing Requirements and Approvals

In 2006, certain required approvals were obtained from the Nevada Gaming Authorities in connection with the Company’s acquisition of its equity interests in CCR and NP Land. Such approvals included (i) the Company was registered as a “publicly traded corporation” as that term is defined by the Nevada Act (a “Registered Company”); (ii) the Company, VoteCo, and AcquisitionCo were registered as holding or intermediary companies and found suitable; and (iii) the VoteCo Equityholders received various approvals including licensure as members and managers, as applicable, of VoteCo and findings of suitability as controlling members and managers, as applicable, of the Company.

While the direct and indirect holders of Class B Membership Units of the Company were not required to be found suitable in connection with the Company’s acquisition of equity interests in CCR and NP Land, they remain subject to the discretionary authority of the Nevada Gaming Authorities and can be required to file an application and have their suitability determined, or to dispose of their investment in the Company.

The Nevada Gaming Authorities may require additional licensing or suitability applications. A finding of suitability is comparable to licensing, and both require submission of detailed personal and financial information followed by a thorough investigation. An applicant for licensing or an applicant for a finding of suitability must pay or must cause to be paid all the costs of the investigation. Changes in licensed positions must be reported to the Nevada Gaming Authorities and, in addition to their authority to deny an application for a finding of suitability or licensing, the Nevada Gaming Authorities have the jurisdiction to disapprove a change in a corporate position.

Consequences of Being Found Unsuitable or Violating Gaming Laws

If the Nevada Gaming Authorities were to find an officer, manager or key employee of CCR, the Company, VoteCo or AcquisitionCo unsuitable to continue having a relationship with these entities, the companies involved would have to sever all relationships with such person. The Nevada Gaming Authorities may deny an application for any cause which they deem reasonable. Determinations of suitability or of questions pertaining to licensing are not subject to judicial review in Nevada.

If it were determined that the Nevada Act was violated by CCR, the Company, VoteCo or AcquisitionCo, the gaming licenses held by CCR’s subsidiaries and affiliates could be limited, conditioned, suspended or revoked, subject to compliance with certain statutory and regulatory procedures. In addition, any such violator and the persons involved could be subject to substantial fines for each separate violation of the Nevada Act, or of the regulations of the Nevada Commission, at the discretion of the Nevada Commission. Furthermore, the Nevada Commission could appoint a supervisor to operate ~~The~~the Cannery, the Eastside Cannery and, under specified circumstances, earnings generated during the supervisor’s appointment (except for the reasonable rental value of the premises) could be forfeited to the State of Nevada. Limitation, conditioning or suspension of any gaming license or the appointment of a supervisor could (and revocation of any gaming license would) impact casino revenues and cause the Company to suffer financial loss.

Ongoing Obligations of Gaming Licensees and Beneficial Securities Holders

On September 21, 2006, the Nevada Commission issued an order of registration of the Company, which was immediately effective and which has since been amended twice (the “Final Order”). The Final Order prohibits (1) VoteCo, InvestCo or their respective affiliates from selling, assigning, transferring, pledging or otherwise disposing of the Company’s Class A Membership Units or Class B Membership Units or any other security convertible into or exchangeable for Class A Membership Units or Class B Membership Units, without the prior approval of the Nevada Commission, and (2) the Company from declaring cash dividends or distributions on any class of membership unit of the Company beneficially owned in whole or in part by InvestCo, VoteCo, or their respective affiliates, without the prior approval of the Nevada Commission.

Table of Contents

The Company, VoteCo and AcquisitionCo are subject to detailed ongoing financial and operating reporting requirements to the Nevada Gaming Authorities. Substantially all material loans, leases, sales of securities and similar financing transactions by the Company, VoteCo and AcquisitionCo must be reported to, or approved by, the Nevada Commission.

Regardless of the number of shares held, any beneficial holder of a Registered Company’s voting or non-voting securities may be required to file an application, be investigated and have that person’s suitability as a beneficial holder of voting or non-voting securities determined if the Nevada Commission has reason to believe that the ownership would otherwise be inconsistent with the declared policies of the State of Nevada. If the beneficial holder of such securities who must be found suitable is a corporation, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company or trust, it must submit detailed business and financial information, including a list of its beneficial owners. The applicant must pay all costs of the investigation incurred by the Nevada Gaming Authorities in conducting any investigation.

Table of Contents

The Nevada Act requires any person who individually or in association with others acquires, directly or indirectly, beneficial ownership of more than 5% of a Registered Company’s voting securities to report the acquisition to the Nevada Commission, and such person may be required to be found suitable. The Nevada Act requires that each person who, individually or in association with others, acquires, directly or indirectly, beneficial ownership of more than 10% of a Registered Company’s voting securities to apply to the Nevada Commission for a finding of suitability within 30 days after the Chairman of the Nevada Board mails the written notice requiring such filing. However, an “institutional investor,” as defined in the Nevada Act, which beneficially owns more than 10% but not more than 11% of a Registered Company’s voting securities as a result of a stock repurchase by the Registered Company may not be required to file such an application. Further, an institutional investor which acquires more than 10%, but not more than 25%, of a Registered Company’s voting securities may apply to the Nevada Commission for a waiver of a finding of suitability if the institutional investor holds the voting securities for investment purposes only. An institutional investor that has obtained a waiver may hold more than 25% but not more than 29% of a Registered Company’s voting securities for a limited period of time and maintain the waiver where the additional ownership results from a stock repurchase by the Registered Company. An institutional investor will not be deemed to hold voting securities for investment purposes unless the voting securities were acquired and are held in the ordinary course of business as an institutional investor and not for the purpose of causing, directly or indirectly, the election of a majority of the members of the board of directors of a Registered Company, a change in the corporate charter, bylaws, management, policies or operations of a Registered Company, or any of its gaming affiliates, or any other action which the Nevada Commission finds to be inconsistent with holding a Registered Company’s voting securities for investment purposes only. Activities which are not deemed to be inconsistent with holding voting securities for investment purposes only include:

· voting on all matters voted on by stockholders or interest holders;

· making financial and other inquiries of management of the type normally made by securities analysts for informational purposes and not to cause a change in management, policies or operations; and

· other activities that the Nevada Commission may determine to be consistent with such investment intent.

Any person who fails or refuses to apply for a finding of suitability or a license within 30 days after being ordered to do so by the Nevada Commission or the Chairman of the Nevada Board may be found unsuitable. The same restrictions apply to a record owner of equity securities if the record owner, after request, fails to identify the beneficial owner. Any member found unsuitable and who holds, directly or indirectly, any beneficial ownership of the equity securities of a Registered Company beyond such period of time as may be prescribed by the Nevada Commission may be guilty of a criminal offense. A Registered Company is subject to disciplinary action if, after it receives notice that a person is unsuitable to be a member or hold a voting security or other equity security issued by the Registered Company or to have any other relationship with the Registered Company, the Registered Company:

· pays that person any dividend or interest with respect to voting securities of the Registered Company;

· allows that person to exercise, directly or indirectly, any voting right conferred through securities held by that person;

· pays remuneration in any form to that person for services rendered or otherwise; or

· fails to pursue all lawful efforts to require such unsuitable person to relinquish his or her voting securities, including, if necessary, the immediate purchase of said voting securities for cash at fair market value.

Table of Contents

The Nevada Commission may, in its discretion, require the holder of any debt or non-voting security of a Registered Company to file applications, be investigated and be found suitable to own the debt or non-voting security of a Registered Company. If the Nevada Commission determines that a person is unsuitable to own such security, then pursuant to the Nevada Act, the Registered Company can be sanctioned, including by revocation of its approvals, if without the prior approval of the Nevada Commission, the Registered Company:

· pays to the unsuitable person any dividend, interest, or any distribution whatsoever;

· recognizes any voting right by such unsuitable person in connection with such securities;

· pays the unsuitable person remuneration in any form; or

· makes any payment to the unsuitable person by way of principal, redemption, conversion, exchange, liquidation or similar transaction.

Table of Contents

A Registered Company may not make a public offering of its securities without the prior approval of the Nevada Commission if the securities or the proceeds therefrom are intended to be used to construct, acquire or finance gaming facilities in Nevada, or to retire or extend obligations incurred for such purposes.

The Nevada Act provides that changes in control of a Registered Company through merger, consolidation, stock or asset acquisitions, management or consulting agreements, or any act or conduct by a person whereby the person obtains control, may not occur without the prior approval of the Nevada Commission. Entities and persons seeking to acquire control of a Registered Company must satisfy the Nevada Commission with respect to a variety of stringent standards prior to assuming control of such Registered Company. The Nevada Commission may also require controlling stockholders, members, partners, officers, directors and other persons having an ownership interest in or a material relationship or involvement with the entity proposing to acquire control to be investigated and licensed as part of the approval process relating to the transaction.

Any person who is licensed, required to be licensed, registered, required to be registered, or under common control with such persons, and who proposes to become involved or is involved in a gaming venture outside of Nevada (“Foreign Gaming”), is required to deposit certain funds with the Nevada Board in order to pay the expenses of investigation of the Nevada Board of their participation in such Foreign Gaming. Thereafter the licensees are required to comply with certain reporting requirements imposed by the Nevada Act. A licensee is also subject to disciplinary action by the Nevada Commission if it knowingly violates any laws of the foreign jurisdiction pertaining to the Foreign Gaming operation, fails to conduct the Foreign Gaming operation in accordance with the standards of honesty and integrity required of Nevada gaming operations, engages in activities or enters into associations that are harmful to the State of Nevada or its ability to collect gaming taxes and fees, or employs, contracts with, or associates with, a person in the Foreign Gaming operation who has been denied a license or finding of suitability in Nevada on the ground of personal unsuitability.

Pennsylvania Gaming Laws and Regulations

The ownership and operation of slot machine facilities in Pennsylvania are subject to extensive state regulation by the Pennsylvania Board under the Pennsylvania Act and the regulations of the Pennsylvania Board. The Pennsylvania Board has broad discretion regarding the issuance, renewal, revocation and suspension of slot machine licenses. The Pennsylvania Act, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, concern primarily the good character, honesty, integrity and financial stability of slot machine licensees, their intermediary and holding companies, their employees, their security holders and others financially interested in slot operations.

On December 20, 2006, the Pennsylvania Board approved WTA to receive a Category 1 Slot Machine License. The Category 1 Slot Machine License was approved upon completion of a background investigation and initial satisfaction of certain conditions set by the Pennsylvania Board. The holder of a Category 1 Slot Machine License may operate up to 3,000 slot machines and, with the approval of the Pennsylvania Board, up to an additional 2,000 slot machines after six months of operation. Prior to the commencement of slot machine operations, WTA obtained additional approvals from the Pennsylvania Board, such as approval of internal controls and equipment, licensing of employees and the successful completion of gaming test days.

As pre-conditions to receiving its license, WTA had to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence to the satisfaction of the Pennsylvania Board, that WTA and its affiliates are persons of good character, honesty, integrity and that their prior activities, reputation, habits and associations do not pose a threat to the public interest or the effective regulation and control of slot machine operations or create or enhance the danger of unsuitable, unfair or illegal practices, methods and activities in the conduct of slot machine operations or in the carrying on of the business and financial arrangements incidental thereto. WTA also had to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence the adequacy of its financial resources, the financial stability, integrity and responsibility of it and its affiliates, and the integrity of all financial backers, investors, mortgagees, bondholders and holders of indentures, notes or other evidences of indebtedness, either in effect or proposed, except that banking or licensed lending institutions and certain institutional investors may be waived from the qualification requirements. WTA had to show by clear and convincing evidence that it has sufficient business ability and experience to create and maintain a successful, efficient operation.

As a licensee, WTA is obligated to develop and implement a diversity plan to assure that all persons are accorded equality of opportunity in employment and contracting, which it has done. WTA is also required to maintain certain records, which it has done, which shall be made available to the Pennsylvania Board upon request. In addition, WTA is required to hold a license issued by the Pennsylvania Commission to conduct harness racing meetings. WTA holds a license from the Pennsylvania Commission to conduct harness racing meetings.9

As a licensee, WTA is obligated to fully cooperate with the Pennsylvania Board in the conduct of any inquiry or investigation and provide any supplementary information as may be requested. Currently, there are no known inquiries or investigations.

Table of Contents

No executive-level Pennsylvania state employee, public official or party officer, or any of their immediate family members, may knowingly or intentionally have a financial interest in a licensed gaming entity, be employed by any gaming entity or affiliate thereof or solicit or accept any service or discount not offered to the general public from a gaming entity or affiliate. No applicant, affiliate, intermediary, subsidiary or holding company may possess a greater than one-third ownership or financial interest in another slot machine licensee or person eligible to apply for a Category 1 Slot Machine License. A licensed entity or officer, director, principal employee or key employee of a licensee may not make any contribution to a candidate for nomination or election to any public office in Pennsylvania.

The Pennsylvania Board may deny an application or suspend or revoke a license of a person or applicant who has failed to prove to the satisfaction of the Pennsylvania Board that the person or applicant is qualified in accordance with the Pennsylvania Act, who has violated the Pennsylvania Act, who is disqualified under the criteria set forth in the Pennsylvania Act, who provided false or misleading information to the Pennsylvania Board, who has materially departed from a representation made in the application for a license or who has failed to comply with applicable Federal or state laws or regulations. If the Pennsylvania Board does not approve a slot machine license application based on a finding that an individual who is a principal or has an interest in the entity applying for licensure does not meet the character requirements or any other eligibility requirement or is in violation of the change in ownership and control provisions of the Pennsylvania Act, the Pennsylvania Board may permit the individual or entity the opportunity to divest completely his or her interest in the entity and related entities. The Pennsylvania Board must approve the terms and conditions of divestiture, but the Pennsylvania Act requires that the compensation for the divested interest not exceed the cost of the interest.

~~On February 27, 2007, WTA paid a one-time license fee in the amount of $50 million.~~ As a Category 1 Slot Machine licensee, WTA is subject to a daily tax of 34%, a local county share assessment of 2%, a local municipality share assessment of 2% but no less than $10 million, an additional daily assessment of 5% of its daily gross terminal revenue, and a 1.5% tax on gross terminal revenue. A licensee shall also pay a daily assessment to the Pennsylvania Race Horse Development Fund in a maximum amount of 12% of daily gross terminal revenue as determined by the Department of Revenue. WTA is also responsible for the costs of investigation and regulation.

A license or permit issued by the Pennsylvania Board is a privilege and, except as set forth below, may not be sold, transferred or assigned to any person, nor shall a licensee or permittee pledge or otherwise grant a security interest in a license. A licensee must notify the Pennsylvania Board prior to or immediately upon becoming aware of any proposed or contemplated change of ownership by a group or person which involves (i) more than 5% of the licensee’s ownership interests, (ii) more than 5% of the ownership interests of an entity that owns, directly or indirectly, at least 20% of the voting or other ownership interests of the licensee, (iii) a sale, other than in the ordinary course of business, of a licensee’s assets, or (iv) any other transaction or occurrence deemed to be relevant by the Pennsylvania Board. A purchaser of the assets of a licensee other than in the ordinary course of business or of more than 20% of the licensee’s ownership interests must independently qualify for a license and pay a new license issuance fee of $50 million. However, the fee is subject to reduction in the discretion of the Pennsylvania Board. WTA and Crown received approval from the Pennsylvania Board on February 24, 2011 with respect to the conversion of Crown’s Series B Units in CCR into Series A2 Units in CCR. The Pennsylvania Board imposed a one-time license fee of $2.5 million on Crown in connection therewith.

In July 2011, the Pennsylvania Board established a schedule for the repayment of approximately $63.8 million in loans the Pennsylvania Board borrowed from the Pennsylvania Property Tax Relief Fund to cover Pennsylvania Board operational costs in the current and prior years. The Pennsylvania Board has mandated that its loan must be repaid no less frequently than quarterly by the slot machine licensees currently operating in Pennsylvania over the next ten years. The repayment obligation is allocated based in proportion to each slot machine licensee’s gross terminal revenue to the total statewide slot machine terminal revenue. WTA elected to make quarterly payments to the Pennsylvania Board, with the first assessment due and paid in January 2012. The total estimated repayment obligation recorded in the financial statements was approximately $6.1 million, which was calculated based on quarterly payments of $187,500 over the next 10 years, discounted at WTA’s senior borrowing rate of 4.5%.

Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Race Horse Development and Gaming Act of 2004, the Pennsylvania Board borrowed $36.1 million from the State of Pennsylvania General Fund, which is required to be repaid by Pennsylvania gaming operators. However, the Pennsylvania Board will not assess the gaming operators until all 14 Pennsylvania gaming licenses are issued and gaming operations have commenced at each location. Currently there are 12 casinos operating in Pennsylvania, and the 13th license will be issued in mid—2014. It is not known when the one remaining license will be issued and the resultant casino will be operational. Furthermore, the Pennsylvania Board has yet to determine a loan repayment schedule whereby each licensee will be assessed its share of the obligation. Accordingly, no liability has been recorded in connection with this contingent obligation.10

Slot machine licenses must be renewed every three years, but are required to update the information in their applications annually. WTA’s license was renewed by the Pennsylvania Board on August 18, 2011 and expires on August 14, 2014. Further, the licensee has the affirmative duty to notify the Pennsylvania Board of any changes relating to the status of the license or to any other information contained in the application materials. If a completed renewal application is received in a timely manner, the license shall remain in effect unless and until the Pennsylvania Board denies or renews the license.

Table of Contents

InPursuant ~~January 2010,~~to the ~~Act~~Pennsylvania ~~was~~Race ~~amended~~Horse toDevelopment ~~permit~~and ~~table~~Gaming ~~games. In~~Act ~~order~~of ~~to obtain a certificate to operate table games from the Pennsylvania Board~~2004, the ~~licensee must petition the~~ Pennsylvania Board ~~for~~borrowed ~~approval~~$36.1 ~~and~~million ~~must~~from ~~prove by clear and convincing evidence that: (i)~~ the ~~slot~~State ~~machine license is in good standing; (ii) the conduct~~ of ~~table~~Pennsylvania ~~games~~General ~~will~~Fund, ~~have~~which ais ~~positive~~required ~~economic impact; (iii) that licensee has adequate funds~~ to ~~commence~~be ~~table~~repaid ~~games~~by ~~operations~~Pennsylvania ~~and~~gaming ~~pay~~operators. However, the ~~license~~Pennsylvania ~~fee;~~Board ~~(iv) that~~will ~~the~~not ~~licensee~~assess ~~has~~ the ~~necessary~~gaming ~~financial~~operators ~~stability,~~until ~~integrity,~~all ~~and~~14 ~~responsibility~~Pennsylvania togaming ~~conduct~~licenses ~~table~~are ~~games;~~issued ~~(v) that licensee has sufficient business ability~~ and ~~experience~~gaming tooperations ~~maintain~~have ~~table~~commenced ~~games~~at ~~operation;~~each ~~(vi) that~~location. Currently ~~internal~~there ~~and external security and proposed surveillance~~ are ~~adequate~~12 ~~for~~casinos ~~table~~operating ~~games; (vii) that the slot machines~~ in ~~operation~~Pennsylvania, asand ofthe ~~October~~13th 1,license ~~2009~~was ~~will~~approved ~~not be reduced~~ in ~~order to install table games; and (viii)~~November ~~petitioner has executed a waiver regarding fee reimbursement~~2014. InIt ~~February 2010,~~is ~~The~~not ~~Meadows~~known ~~submitted~~when ~~its petition for approval of table games to~~ the ~~Pennsylvania Board. In April~~13th ~~29,~~facility ~~2010,~~will ~~The~~become ~~Meadows~~operational ~~was~~or ~~approved~~the ~~for,~~one ~~and~~remaining onlicense ~~July 8,~~will ~~2010~~be ~~commenced,~~issued ~~table games~~ and ~~poker~~the ~~operations.~~resultant Ascasino ofwill ~~December 31,~~be ~~2013, table game operations at The Meadows consisted of 61 table games and 14 poker tables~~operational. InFurthermore, ~~connection with~~ the ~~commencement~~Pennsylvania ofBoard ~~these~~has ~~operations,~~yet ~~The Meadows was required~~ to ~~pay~~determine a ~~one~~loan ~~time~~repayment ~~non-refundable~~schedule ~~table~~whereby ~~game~~each ~~authorization~~licensee ~~fee~~will ofbe ~~$16.5~~assessed ~~million. WTA~~its ~~was~~share ~~subject to a tax on daily gross table games revenue~~ of ~~14%~~the ~~for a period of two years following commencement of table games operations at The Meadows~~obligation. ~~The~~Accordingly, ~~tax~~no onliability ~~daily~~has ~~gross~~been ~~table~~recorded ~~games~~in ~~revenue~~connection ~~then~~with ~~decreased~~this tocontingent ~~12%~~obligation. ~~The tax on automated table games is 34% of daily gross table games revenue.~~

Slot machine licenses must be renewed every three years, but are required to update the information in their applications annually. WTA’s license was renewed by the Pennsylvania Board on August 18, 2011 and expires on August 14, 2014. The application for renewal must be filed 60 days prior to the expiration of the license and once a completed renewal application is filed, the license remains in effect unless and until the Pennsylvania Board sends written notification to the holder that the Pennsylvania Board has denied the renewal. WTA filed a complete license renewal in a timely manner and its license remains in effect while the license renewal investigation is being conducted. Further, the licensee has the affirmative duty to notify the Pennsylvania Board of any changes relating to the status of the license or to any other information contained in the application materials.

In January 2010, the Act was amended to permit table games. In order to obtain a certificate to operate table games from the Pennsylvania Board, the licensee must petition the Pennsylvania Board for approval and must prove by clear and convincing evidence that: (i) the slot machine license is in good standing; (ii) the conduct of table games will have a positive economic impact; (iii) licensee has adequate funds to commence table games operations and pay the license fee; (iv) the licensee has the necessary financial stability, integrity, and responsibility to conduct table games; (v) licensee has sufficient business ability and experience to maintain table games operation; (vi) internal and external security and proposed surveillance are adequate for table games; (vii) the slot machines in operation as of October 1, 2009 will not be reduced in order to install table games; and (viii) petitioner has executed a waiver regarding fee reimbursement. In April 29, 2010, the Meadows was approved for, and on July 8, 2010 commenced, table games and poker operations. As of February 28, 2015, table game operations at the Meadows consisted of 61 table games and 14 poker tables. In connection with the commencement of these operations, the Meadows was required to pay a one time non-refundable table game authorization fee of $16.5 million. WTA was subject to a tax on daily gross table games revenue of 14% for a period of two years following commencement of table games operations at the Meadows. The tax on daily gross table games revenue then decreased to 12%. The tax on automated table games is 34% of daily gross table games revenue.

Pennsylvania Harness Racing Laws and Regulations

The ownership and operation of pari-mutuel harness racing facilities in Pennsylvania is subject to extensive state regulation by the Pennsylvania Commission under the RHIRA and the regulations of the Pennsylvania Commission. Pursuant to the RHIRA, the Pennsylvania Commission is empowered to issue no more than five licenses for the conduct of pari-mutuel harness racing (each, a “Harness Racing License”). Two subsidiaries of PA Meadows, WTA and Mountain Laurel Racing, Inc. (“MLR”), each holds one of the five Harness Racing Licenses. In June 2007, the Pennsylvania Commission granted the sole remaining Harness Racing License to Valley View Downs, LP. However, the Valley View Downs project has not been completed as a result of the bankruptcy of Centaur LLC, the parent company of Valley View Downs. The new owners have requested numerous extensions from the Pennsylvania Commission to preserve the property’s potential for a casino. ~~The most recent extension expired in June 2013.~~

Once a Harness Racing License has been issued, the RHIRA provides that such license shall remain in effect so long as the licensee complies with all conditions, rules, regulations and provisions of the RHIRA. Harness Racing Licenses are not transferable. The RHIRA requires that each holder of a Harness Racing License shall, within ten days after any transfer of stock comprising an interest of 5% or more of such licensee, notify the Pennsylvania Commission of such transfer. Such licensee must also file with the Pennsylvania Commission affidavits from the proposed transferees setting forth certain required information regarding the proposed transfer and the proposed transferee. ~~On January 20, 2011, the Pennsylvania Commission approved the conversion of Crown’s Series B Units in CCR into Series A2 Units in CCR.~~

On September 1, 2009, WTA assumed the on-and-off track racing operations previously operated by the MEC Operator. WTA holds the proper licenses from the Pennsylvania Commission to perform such operations. If the Pennsylvania Commission determines that it is inconsistent with the public interest, convenience or necessity, or with the best interest of racing generally, for any person to continue as the holder of an equity interest in a licensee or any parent or affiliate of a licensee, the Pennsylvania Commission may order such person to dispose of such interest in a licensee within a period of time specified by the Pennsylvania Commission.

Table of Contents

The Pennsylvania Commission may refuse to grant a Harness Racing License or may suspend or revoke a Harness Racing License without a prior hearing if it determines by a preponderance of the evidence that (i) a licensee, its officers, employees or agents have not complied with the conditions, rules, regulations and provisions of the RHIRA and (ii) it would be in the public interest, convenience or necessity to revoke or suspend the subject license. Such refusal, suspension or revocation may be premised upon, among other things, a determination by the Pennsylvania Commission that (a) any officer, director, member or stockholder of the licensee or any parent or affiliate of the licensee (1) has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, (2) has engaged in bookmaking or other forms of illegal gambling, (3) has been found guilty of any fraud or misrepresentation in connection with racing or breeding, (4) has been found guilty of any violation or attempt to violate any law, rule or regulation of any racing jurisdiction for which suspension from racing might be imposed in such jurisdiction or (5) has violated any rule, regulation or order of the Pennsylvania Commission, or (b) the experience, character or fitness of any officer, director, member or stockholder of the licensee or any parent or affiliate of the licensee is such that the participation of the person in horse racing or related activities would be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience or necessity or with the best interest of racing. Upon receiving notice of any such determination by the Pennsylvania Commission, a licensee may, within ten days after such notice, demand a hearing before the Pennsylvania Commission. However, the action of the Pennsylvania Commission in refusing to grant or in suspending or revoking a Harness Racing License shall remain in full force pending such hearing and final determination.

In addition to its power to suspend or revoke Harness Racing Licenses, the Pennsylvania Commission is authorized and empowered to impose fines upon persons and entities that participate in any way in any horse race meet at which pari-mutuel wagering is conducted and violate the RHIRA or the rules and regulations promulgated by the Pennsylvania Commission, in an amount not to exceed $5,000 for each violation.

Table of Contents

Each entity participating in the management of a licensee and each licensee must provide the Pennsylvania Commission on an annual basis with a complete list of all holders of an ownership interest in such entity or licensee, indicating the interest of each such owner.

Reports to Security Holders

The Company isfiles ~~required to file~~ annual, quarterly and other current reports and information with the Commission. You may read and copy any materials filed by the Company with the Commission at its Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Room 1580, Washington, D.C. 20549. You may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the Commission at 1-800-SEC-0330. The Company’s filings are also available to the public from commercial document retrieval services and at the World Wide Web site maintained by the Commission at http://www.sec.gov.

Item 2. Properties.

Neither the registrant nor any of its consolidated subsidiaries owns real property.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

As of March 2830, ~~2014~~2015, neither the Company nor any of its consolidated subsidiaries is a party to any pending legal proceeding, and to their knowledge, no action, suit or proceeding against it or any of its consolidated subsidiaries has been threatened by any person.

As of March 2830, ~~2014~~2015, no director, officer, affiliate or security holder of the Company, ~~and~~ no owner of record or beneficially of more than five percent of the Company’s Class A Membership Units, isand ~~adverse~~no toassociate of the ~~Company~~foregoing orare ~~has~~ a ~~material~~party ~~interest adverse~~ to ~~the Company, in~~ any material proceeding toin which such person is adverse to the Company or has a ~~party~~material interest adverse to the Company.

As disclosed in Item 1 (Business) of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, CCR and MezzCo are involved in litigation with GLPI and GLP relating to the PA Meadows transaction.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

PART II

On September 23, 2005, the Company issued all of its Class A Membership Units to VoteCo without registration pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Securities Act in exchange for an aggregate capital contribution of $100. On that same date, the Company issued all of its Class B Membership Units to InvestCo without registration pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Securities Act in exchange for subsequent contributions by InvestCo of (1) all the membership units in OCM LandCo, LLC (“LandCo”), which at the time of such contribution held a one-third equity interest in NP Land, and (2) $64 million. Except as described immediately above, the Company has not issued any other securities.

No established public trading market exists for the Company’s membership units. There are no plans, proposals, arrangements or understandings with any person with regard to the development of a trading market in any of the Company’s membership units. In addition, the Final Order prohibits VoteCo, InvestCo and their respective affiliates from selling, assigning, transferring, pledging or otherwise disposing of the Company’s Class A Membership Units or Class B Membership Units or any other security convertible into or exchangeable for Class A Membership Units or Class B Membership Units, without the prior approval of the Nevada Commission.12

~~There~~Table are no outstanding options or warrants to purchase, or securities convertible into, the Company’s membership units. The Company’s currently outstanding Class A Membership Units are “restricted,” which means that they were originally sold in offerings that were not subject to a registration statement filed with the Commission. Accordingly, the Company’s membership units are subject to sale in the public market pursuant to Rule 144 under the Securities Act, including the limitations set forth therein. Effective February 15, 2008, Rule 144 generally permits a person or persons whose membership units are aggregated and who has beneficially owned restricted membership units for at least six months to sell in the public market within any three-month period a number of ~~membership units that does not exceed the greater of:~~Contents

No established public trading market exists for the Company’s membership units. There are no plans, proposals, arrangements or understandings with any person with regard to the development of a public trading market in any of the Company’s membership units. In addition, the Final Order prohibits VoteCo, InvestCo and their respective affiliates from selling, assigning, transferring, pledging or otherwise disposing of the Company’s Class A Membership Units or Class B Membership Units or any other security convertible into or exchangeable for Class A Membership Units or Class B Membership Units, without the prior approval of the Nevada Commission.

There are no outstanding options or warrants to purchase, or securities convertible into, the Company’s membership units. The Company’s currently outstanding Class A Membership Units are “restricted,” which means that they were originally sold in offerings that were not subject to a registration statement filed with the Commission. Accordingly, the Company’s membership units are subject to sale in the public market pursuant to Rule 144 under the Securities Act, including the limitations set forth therein. Rule 144 generally permits a person or persons whose membership units are aggregated and who has beneficially owned restricted membership units for at least six months to sell in the public market within any three-month period a number of membership units that does not exceed the greater of:

· 1% of the then outstanding membership units of the class of membership units to be sold; or

· if applicable, the average weekly trading volume of the class of membership units to be sold on all national securities exchanges and/or reported through the automated quotation system of a registered securities association during the four calendar weeks preceding the date on which notice of sale is filed with the Commission.

Table of Contents

Sales pursuant to Rule 144 under the Securities Act are subject to restrictions relating to the manner of sale, notice and availability of current public information about the Company. The Company has not agreed with any security holder to register any of its membership units for sale by any security holder. The Company does not currently propose to publicly offer any membership interests of its common equity.

As of March 2830, ~~2014~~2015, VoteCo was the only holder of record of the Company’s Class A Membership Units and InvestCo was the only holder of record of the Company’s Class B Membership Units.

As previously discussed, on ~~October~~July 3014, ~~2013~~2014 and ~~November~~October 2730, ~~2012~~2013, the Company distributed $01.1 million and $~~63.~~0.1, ~~million~~respectively, to InvestCo as a return of capital. The Company does not regularly pay, and does not expect to pay in the foreseeable future, any other dividends or other distributions with respect to its membership units.

The Company does not have any equity compensation plans and does not expect to authorize securities for issuance pursuant to any equity compensation plans in the foreseeable future.

Item 6. Selected Financial Information.

Not applicable.

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

Overview

The following management’s discussion and analysis of the Company’s financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with the audited financial statements and the notes thereto included in Part II, Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The Company’s ~~current~~and ~~business consists primarily of~~ its ~~indirect~~consolidated ~~ownership~~subsidiaries ofwere aformed ~~31.71%~~on ~~interest in CCR’s Series~~July ~~A Units. Until October 2~~22, ~~2012~~2005, ~~the~~at ~~Company indirectly owned a 62-1/6% interest in CCR’s Series C Preferred Units. CCR operates three Las Vegas casinos, The Cannery,~~ the ~~Eastside~~direction ~~Cannery,~~of ~~and~~affiliates ~~the~~of ~~Rampart Casino~~Oaktree, ~~and~~for ~~The Meadows, a harness racetrack and casino in Pennsylvania. NP Land owns~~ the ~~land~~purpose of ~~the~~participating ~~current~~in ~~site~~various ofactivities ~~the~~relating ~~Eastside Cannery, which it leases~~ to ~~a subsidiary of CCR. CCR ceased operations at~~ the ~~Rampart~~gaming ~~Casino when the lease term expired in March 2012~~industry.

OnAll ~~March 3,~~of ~~2010, CCR entered into~~ the ~~2007~~Company’s ~~First~~issued ~~Lien~~and ~~Amendment~~outstanding ~~No.~~Class ~~1. Pursuant~~A toUnits ~~the~~are ~~2007~~held ~~First~~by ~~Lien Amendment No. 1~~VoteCo, ~~among other matters, (i) the interest rate margins applicable to term loans~~ and ~~revolving~~all ~~loans under the 2007 First Lien Credit Agreement was fixed at 4.25% for Eurodollar rate loans and 3.25% for base rate loans, in lieu~~ of ~~a range dependent upon~~ the ~~borrowers~~Company’s ~~consolidated~~issued ~~leverage~~and ~~ratio;~~outstanding ~~(ii) the~~non-voting ~~maximum amount of revolving loans was permanently reduced from $110 million to $70 million; (iii)~~Class ~~the~~B ~~consolidated~~Units ~~leverage~~are ~~ratio~~held ~~that~~by ~~the~~InvestCo. VoteCo ~~borrowers were required to maintain as of each quarter end date through the remaining term of the 2007 First Lien Credit Agreement was adjusted;~~ and ~~(iv) the~~InvestCo ~~borrowers~~are ~~were~~affiliates ~~permitted to transfer a portion~~ of ~~Pennsylvania~~Oaktree. VoteCo ~~real property where The Meadows Racetrack and Casino~~ is ~~located,~~responsible ~~which was mortgaged under the 2007 First Lien Credit Agreement,~~ for ~~construction of a hotel. In addition to these matters, other covenants and provisions of~~ the ~~2007~~operations ~~First Lien Credit Agreement affected by the 2007 First Lien Amendment No. 1 include covenants requiring maintenance~~ of ~~minimum consolidated EBITDA, compliance with cash management procedures and application of~~ the ~~proceeds of certain transactions~~Company, including the ~~issuance~~appointment ofand ~~securities,~~removal toof ~~repay the outstanding indebtedness under the 2007 First Lien Credit Agreement~~managers. ~~The~~VoteCo ~~2007~~has ~~First~~a ~~Lien~~de ~~Credit~~minimus ~~Agreement~~economic ~~was~~interest ~~further~~in ~~amended by~~ the ~~2007~~Company ~~First~~of ~~Lien~~less ~~Amendment~~than No0. ~~2 on February 7~~00015%, ~~2012. Among~~and ~~other~~its ~~matters,~~total ~~the~~equity ~~2007~~contributions ~~First~~are ~~Lien~~limited ~~Amendment No. 2 extended the maturity date for revolving loans under the 2007 First Lien Credit Agreement from May 18, 2012~~ to ~~February 18, 2013~~$100.

OnThrough ~~January 5,~~its ~~2006,~~subsidiaries ~~the~~AcquisitionCo ~~Company~~and ~~entered~~Blocker, ~~into~~ the ~~Blocker~~Company ~~Option~~currently ~~Agreement~~owns ~~with~~a ~~its~~31.71% ~~subsidiary~~interest ~~Blocker,~~in tothe ~~purchase~~aggregate ~~all of Blocker’s outstanding Class~~Series A Units ~~and~~of ~~Class B~~CCR. The ~~Units~~Company’s incurrent ~~AcquisitionCo,~~business ~~along~~consists ~~with~~primarily ~~any~~of ~~other~~its ~~equity~~ownership ~~interests~~of inthis ~~AcquisitionCo~~equity ~~that Blocker may have owned at the time of exercise~~interest. ~~The~~CCR, ~~Company~~through ~~paid~~wholly ~~approximately~~owned ~~$15.2~~subsidiaries, ~~million~~owns asand ~~consideration~~operates ~~for~~hotels ~~the execution~~ and ~~delivery~~casinos ofat the ~~Blocker~~Cannery, ~~Option~~and ~~Agreement. The~~also ~~Blocker~~owns ~~Option~~and ~~Agreement~~operates ~~expired~~a onracetrack ~~January 5,~~and ~~2012 unexercised. As~~ a ~~result~~casino ofat the ~~expiration,~~Meadows. A ~~the~~more ~~Company~~detailed ~~recognized~~description anof ~~expense~~CCR’s ~~for~~operations ~~the~~is ~~$15.2~~described ~~million,~~in ~~and~~Item ~~Blocker~~1 ~~recognized~~(Business) aunder ~~gain for~~ the ~~same~~caption ~~amount~~Cannery asCasino ~~of January 5, 2012~~Resorts. ~~The transaction was eliminated during consolidation.~~

1613

Table of Contents

On October 230, ~~2012 (the “Closing Date”)~~2013, ~~Cannery~~AcquisitionCo ~~Casino~~distributed ~~Resorts, LLC (“CCR”), an unconsolidated investee of the Company and Washington Trotting Association, Inc~~$1.9 (amillion ~~subsidiary of CCR and together, the “Borrowers”) entered into two syndicated credit facilities with Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas,~~ as ~~administrative~~a ~~agent~~return ~~and collateral agent, swing line lender and letter~~ of ~~credit~~capital ~~issuer,~~to ~~Bank of America, N~~Blocker.~~A.,~~ Blocker ~~Goldman~~in ~~Sachs~~turn ~~Bank~~paid USA (“GS”) and Wells Fargo Gaming Capital, LLC, as co-syndication agents, Credit Suisse AG, Cayman Islands Branch and Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc. (“MC”), as co-documentation agents and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (“DBSI”), Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, GS, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and MC, as Joint Lead Arrangers and Book Running Managers. Provisions of the ~~new~~Company ~~credit facilities included:~~ a ~~$425~~total ~~million first lien facility consisting~~ of ~~a six-year~~ $~~385~~1.9 million ~~term~~as ~~loan~~payment ~~and~~of aaccrued ~~five-year~~interest ~~$40~~on ~~million~~intercompany ~~revolving~~loans ~~loan (collectively referred~~ to ~~herein as~~ the ~~“2012 First Lien Credit Facility”), and a seven-year $165 million second lien term loan facility (the “2012 Second Lien Credit Facility”)~~Company. ~~Portions~~The ofCompany ~~the proceeds were used to pay off~~ then~~-existing~~ repaid $~~443~~0.59 million ~~debt~~in ~~that~~principal ~~was~~and ~~outstanding~~interest ~~from~~for ~~the~~a ~~May 18,~~related ~~2007~~party ~~refinancing~~loan and distributed $860.91 million ~~of the proceeds were distributed~~ to ~~certain~~InvestCo ~~owners~~as ofa ~~the~~return ~~Series C Preferred Units~~ of ~~CCR~~capital.

Additional details related to the 2012 First Lien Credit Facility and 2012 Second Lien Credit Facility are as follows:

· The terms of the credit facilities are set forth in two agreements. Under the 2012 First Lien Credit Facility agreement, the $385 million term facility was borrowed in a single installment on the Closing Date, and the $40 million revolving facility was not funded on the Closing Date, but is available thereafter until the fifth anniversary of the Closing Date. Interest rates under the 2012 First Lien Credit Facility and the 2012 Second Lien Credit Facility float with LIBOR rate indexes, as explained above.

On October 2, 2012, in connection with CCR entering into the 2012 First Lien Credit Facility and 2012 Second Lien Credit Facility, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Waiver and Amendment, by and among the Crown Parties, Millennium and AcquisitionCo, CCR (i) redeemed 39,384, 6,391 and 6,390 Series C Preferred Units held by AcquisitionCo, Crown One and Crown Two, respectively (collectively, the “Series C Redemption”), and (ii) accepted contributions of 10,000, 7,241, 2,797 and 2,797 Series C Preferred Units from Millennium, AcquisitionCo, Crown One and Crown Two, respectively (collectively, the “Series C Capital Contribution”). AcquisitionCo received $65.6 million from CCR in connection with the Series C Redemption and recognized a gain on the sale of approximately $26.3 million and a non-cash equity contribution back to CCR of $7.2 million. Following the Series C Redemption and the Series C Capital Contribution, the Company continued to indirectly hold a 31.71% interest in the aggregate Series A Units of CCR.

Table of Contents

Recent Developments

OnAs ~~October 30,~~described ~~2013,~~in ~~AcquisitionCo~~Item ~~distributed $~~1.9 ~~million~~(Business), asCCR aand ~~return~~its ofwholly-owned ~~capital~~subsidiary toMezzCo ~~Blocker. Blocker~~entered ininto ~~turn~~an ~~paid~~agreement ~~the~~with ~~Company~~GLPI aand ~~total~~one of ~~$1.9~~its ~~million~~subsidiaries asto ~~payment~~sell ofPA ~~accrued~~Meadows ~~interest~~for onapproximately ~~intercompany~~$465 ~~loans to the Company~~million. ~~The~~A ~~Company~~description ~~then~~of ~~repaid~~the ~~$0.9~~transaction, ~~million~~the inConsulting ~~principal~~Agreement ~~and~~related ~~interest~~thereto, ~~for~~and ~~related~~the ~~party~~litigation ~~loans~~in ~~(see~~connection ~~Note~~therewith 5is todescribed ~~the~~in ~~consolidated~~more ~~financial~~detail ~~statements)~~in ~~and~~Item ~~distributed $0.~~1 ~~million~~(Business) tounder ~~InvestCo~~the ascaption aBusiness ~~return of capital~~Developments.

InOn ~~December~~July ~~2013~~14, 2014, AcquisitionCo distributed $0.5 million as a return of capital to Blocker. Blocker in turn paid the Company’s ~~subsidiaries,~~a ~~OCM~~total ~~Land~~of ~~Co,~~$0.5 ~~LLC~~million ~~(“LandCo”)~~as ~~and~~payment ~~OCM~~of ~~AcquisitionCo~~accrued ~~II,~~interest ~~LLC~~on ~~were~~intercompany ~~dissolved~~loans to the Company. The Company then distributed $1.1 million to InvestCo as a return of capital.

Results of Operations

Material variables and factors affecting the Company’s income before income taxes for the year ended December 31, ~~2013~~2014 compared to the year ended December 31, ~~2012~~2013 follows:

· CCR’s net loss ~~increased~~decreased approximately $514.01 million for the year ended December 31, ~~2013~~2014, compared to the prior year, due to the operational highlights for CCR discussed below. The ~~increase~~decrease resulted in a $14.65 million ~~increase~~decrease in equity in loss of unconsolidated investees.

· The Company’s ~~income~~loss before ~~taxes decreased $27.8 million from a gain before~~ income ~~taxes~~tax of(provision) ~~$20.1~~benefit ~~million~~decreased ~~to a loss before income taxes of~~ $74.85 million for the ~~years~~year ended December 31, ~~2012 and December 31,~~ 2013, ~~respectively. This~~compared ~~decrease~~to ~~is primarily~~ the ~~result~~prior ~~of the Series C Redemption, which resulted in a non-recurring gain of approximately $26.3 million during the~~ year ~~ended December 31, 2012~~. ~~Additionally,~~The ~~the~~ year -over -year change in ~~income~~loss before ~~taxes~~income tax (provision) benefit is also attributed to ana ~~increase~~decrease in CCR’s net loss and resulting impact to the Company’s equity in loss of unconsolidated investees as described above.

Material tax attributes of the Company’s unconsolidated investees, primarily CCR, flow to the Company through OCM Blocker, LLC, an entity in which the Company owns 99.99% of the equity interest, and are either nonrecurring or vary significantly. Further, significant income of CCR is taxable to corporate subsidiaries of CCR. Management believes that the undistributed earnings from CCR’s tax-paying subsidiaries will be realized as a gain through an eventual sale of the Company’s investment in CCR. (See Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements for additional details.)

During ~~2013~~2014 and ~~2012~~2013, the Company’s operations are related to its investments in CCR. The United States recently experienced a recession accompanied by, among other things, weakness in the commercial and investment banking systems resulting in reduced credit and capital financing availability, and highly curtailed gaming, other recreational, construction and real estate market activities and general discretionary consumer spending. Although capital market activity and liquidity have improved of late, the recovery from this recession period is fragile and there can be no assurance that our business, which has been severely affected by the downturn, will fully recover to pre-recession levels.

Operational highlights for CCR for the years ended December 31, ~~2013~~2014 and ~~2012~~2013 are as follows:

Consolidated revenues (net) decreased $4321.53 million for the year ended December 31, ~~2013~~2014, as compared to the ~~same corresponding period in the~~ prior year. The ~~decline~~declines in consolidated revenues (net) ~~was~~were primarily due to the following:

· Casino ~~revenue~~revenues

Casino revenues decreased $4124.48 million as compared to the prior year. Casino ~~revenue~~revenues at ~~The~~the Meadows decreased $2018.9 million primarily due to lower ~~slot~~table ~~revenues~~games ~~from~~and ~~competition~~slot inrevenues. Table ~~Ohio,~~game ~~adverse weather conditions in the Northeast,~~ and ~~the~~slot ~~opening~~revenues ofdeclined ~~the Nemacolin Woodlands Resort in late June 2013~~$6.4 ~~This~~million ~~resulted in a decline related to middle~~ and ~~lower tiered customers~~$12. ~~Casino~~4 ~~revenues~~million, atrespectively, ~~the~~primarily ~~Rampart~~due ~~Casino~~to: ~~declined~~(i) adverse ~~$13.6~~weather ~~million~~conditions induring ~~connection with~~ the ~~expiration~~first part of the ~~10-~~year; (ii) lower casino ~~sub~~volume ~~lease~~and ~~agreement~~hold ~~with~~percentage ~~Hotspur.~~for ~~CCR’s~~table ~~operations~~games at the ~~Rampart~~Meadows; ~~Casino came to an end on March~~(iii) ~~31,~~the ~~2012~~opening ~~and~~of ~~were~~the ~~assumed~~Nemacolin byWoodlands ~~Hotspur~~Resort onin ~~April~~late June 1,2013 ~~2012. Collectively casino revenues at the Cannery~~ and; ~~Eastside~~(iv) a ~~Casinos,~~decline ~~decreased~~in ~~$6.9~~patron ~~million,~~visits ~~primarily due~~ to ~~decreased~~the ~~casino~~Meadows ~~volume~~by middle and lower ~~discretionary~~tiered ~~spend by our~~ customers as compared to the prior year.

1814

Table of Contents

~~· Pari-mutuel~~Casino revenues at the Cannery declined $0.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2014 as compared to the prior year. The decline in casino revenue was primarily due to lower slot revenue of $1.4 million driven by lower spending at the Cannery. The decline in slot revenue at the Cannery was partially offset by an increase in table game revenue of $0.6 million in 2014. The increase in table game revenue was primarily due to increased volume and higher table game hold percentage as compared to the prior year.

~~Pari-mutuel~~Casino revenues ~~decreased~~at the Eastside Cannery declined $25.91 million for the year ended December 31, 2014 as compared to the prior year primarily due to ~~closure~~lower ofslot ~~two~~revenue. ~~off~~The ~~track~~decline ~~betting~~in ~~parlors~~slot ~~and~~revenue ~~lower~~was ~~handle~~driven asby ~~compared~~fewer tovisits ~~the~~and ~~prior~~lower ~~year~~spend.

· ~~Food~~ Pari-Mutuel ~~and beverage revenue~~wagering

~~Food~~Pari-mutuel ~~and~~wagering ~~beverage~~ revenues ~~declined~~decreased $21.63 million ~~primarily~~for ~~due~~the ~~to:~~year ~~(i)~~ended December ~~the~~31, ~~expiration~~2014 ofas ~~the~~compared ~~10-year~~to ~~casino~~prior ~~sub~~year. ~~lease~~The ~~agreement~~declines atin ~~the~~pari-mutuel ~~Rampart~~wagering ~~Casino~~revenues ~~(as~~were ~~previously~~primarily ~~discussed),~~due ~~and~~to ~~(ii) decreased~~the ~~patron~~closure ~~visits~~of ~~and~~one ~~spend~~off attrack ~~The~~betting ~~Meadows~~parlor ~~and~~in ~~Eastside~~the ~~Casino~~prior year.

· ~~Other~~ Food ~~revenue~~and Beverage Revenue

~~The~~Food ~~decrease~~and inbeverage ~~casino~~revenue ~~revenues,~~increased ~~as previously discussed, was partially offset by an increase in other revenues of~~ $30.37 million. ~~The~~for ~~increase~~the inyear ~~other~~ended ~~revenues~~December 31, ~~was~~2014 ~~primarily~~as ~~due~~compared to athe ~~property~~prior ~~tax~~year ~~settlement~~primarily at ~~The~~the Meadows ~~with~~and ~~certain~~the ~~governmental agencies on September 3, 2013~~Cannery. The ~~settlement~~increase ~~resulted~~ in afood ~~cash~~and ~~payment~~beverage ofrevenues ~~approximately~~at ~~$0.9~~the ~~million~~Meadows ~~and~~was ~~$2.2~~primarily ~~million~~due into ~~property~~capital ~~tax~~improvements ~~credits~~made to beseveral ~~applied~~food ~~over~~and ~~the~~beverage ~~next 5 fiscal years~~outlets. The ~~cash~~increase ~~payment~~in food and ~~property~~beverage ~~tax~~revenue ~~credit~~at the Cannery was ~~recorded~~primarily asdue ~~other~~to ~~operating~~menu ~~revenues~~changes ~~for~~and ~~the~~increased ~~year~~prices ~~ended~~as ~~December 31,~~compared ~~2013~~to the prior year.

~~Income~~· Commission ~~from operations decreased $5.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2013 as compared to the prior year. The decrease in revenues (net), as previously discussed, were offset by the following:~~Revenue

~~· Casino~~Commission ~~expense~~revenue increased $0.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2014 as compared to the prior year. During 2014, CCR entered into a new ATM processing service agreement with an unrelated vendor. The new agreement assigned CCR a greater share of the ATM transaction fees as compared to the prior year.

~~Casino~~· Other expense declined $20.8 million primarily due to: (i) reduced casino operating expense from the closure of the Rampart Casino in connection with the termination of the 10 year sub lease agreement (as previously discussed); (ii) lower casino tax expense related to the declines in revenues, and temporary suspension of the (1.5%) administrative tax for slots and tables at The Meadows; and (iii) to a lesser extent lower food and beverage comp cost at the Cannery and Eastside Casinos as compared to the prior year.

~~· Pari-mutuel~~Other ~~expense~~revenues increased $3.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2014 as compared to the prior year. The increase in other revenues was due to the following:

~~Pari~~On May 13, 2014, CCR and its wholly-~~mutuel~~owned ~~expense~~subsidiary, ~~decreased~~MezzCo, entered into an MIPA with GLPI and one of its subsidiaries to sell PA Meadows for approximately $~~2.1~~465 million. ~~primarily~~In ~~due~~connection with entering into the MIPA, CCR simultaneously entered into a Consulting Agreement with the Buyers whereby CCR agreed to ~~closure~~provide general advisory services to the Buyers relating to the transaction contemplated under the MIPA. Upon executing the Consulting Agreement, CCR received a non-refundable consulting fee of ~~two~~$10 ~~off~~million ~~track~~which ~~betting~~was ~~parlors~~reported as ~~compared~~other income for year ended December 31, 2014. As disclosed in Item 1 (Business) of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, CCR and MezzCo are involved in litigation with Buyers relating to the PA Meadows transaction. The increase in other revenues driven by the consulting fee received was partially offset by a litigation settlement of $6.0 million in the prior year related to the termination of a consulting fee agreement between CCR and the Jackson Rancheria of Mewuk Indians of California (“Tribe”) on May 31, 2013. The termination fee was reported as other revenues for the year ended December 31, 2013.

~~· Food~~At the Meadows, other revenues decreased $1.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2014 as compared to the prior year, primarily due to two non-recurring prior-year transactions stemming from: (i) a $0.6 million non-refundable fee received in the prior year at the Meadows. In 2013, the Meadows entered into an agreement with an unrelated limited liability company to lease approximately 174 acres of land for an oil and ~~beverage~~gas ~~expense~~drilling project. There was no exploration for oil and gas in 2014 and 2013 with respect to this agreement; and (ii) a property tax settlement at the Meadows with certain governmental agencies on September 3, 2013. The settlement resulted in a cash payment of approximately $0.9 million and $2.2 million in property tax credits to be applied over the next 5 fiscal years. Both the non-refundable fee and property tax settlement were reported as other revenue for the year ended December 31, 2013. The decrease in other revenues at the Meadows was partially offset by sale in 2014 of 15 acres of land to two unrelated third parties for the development of a retail center and restaurant. The sale of land resulted in a gain of $1.8 million. The gain on sale of land was reported as other revenues for the year ended December 31, 3014.

~~Food~~At ~~and~~the ~~beverage~~Cannery, ~~expense~~other ~~declined~~revenue increased $20.49 million primarily due to ~~the~~increased ~~closure~~theater oflease ~~the~~fees ~~Rampart~~received ~~Casino~~from ina ~~connection~~unrelated ~~with~~third ~~the~~party ~~termination~~due ofto ~~the~~capital 10improvements ~~year~~to ~~sublease~~the ~~agreement~~theater ~~(as~~that ~~previously~~were ~~discussed)~~completed ~~and~~in ~~cost saving measures at the Eastside Casino~~January 2014.

~~· Loss on lease termination~~15

In connection with the closure of the Rampart Casino on March 31, 2012, CCR incurred a one-time charge of $1.9 million related to certain assets and liabilities that were assumed by the Rampart Casino’s landlord.

· Selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”)

SG&A expense declined $10.3 million primarily due to: (i) closure of the Rampart Casino in connection with the termination of the 10 year sublease agreement (as previously discussed), (ii) lower casino entertainment cost, sales and property tax expense, and advertising expense at the Cannery Casino as compared to the prior year, (iii) lower corporate expenses primarily driven by reductions in incentive compensation expenses and legal fees, and (iv) to a lesser extent, cost saving measures across our Pennsylvania and Las Vegas operations.

Table of Contents

~~· Depreciation~~Income ~~expense~~from operations increased $6.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2014 as compared to the prior year. The increase in income from operations was primarily driven by decreases in expenses (as described below), which were partially offset by the decrease in consolidated revenues (as previously discussed).

~~Depreciation expense decreased $6.3 million primarily related to Eastside Cannery and the Meadows and to a lesser extent the Rampart~~ · Casino. ~~Rampart Casino ceased operations on March 31, 2012 in connection with the termination of the 10 year sublease agreement (as previously discussed).~~expenses

~~· Impairment~~Casino ~~charge~~expenses declined $7.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2014 as compared to the prior year primarily due to: (i) a $6.7 million decrease at the Meadows due to lower gaming taxes of ~~lease~~$7.5 ~~rights~~million which were partially offset by increased promotional allowances of $1.1 million; (ii) a $1.1 million decrease at the Eastside Cannery due to lower wages and casino taxes of $0.7 million and $0.3 million, respectively; and (iii) a $0.5 million increase at the Cannery due to higher slot participation fees and promotional expenses.

~~The~~· Pari-mutuel ~~decreases~~wagering in operating expenses (as previously discussed) were offset by a $6.2 million impairment charge. The impairment charge is related to the write down of the lease rights at the Eastside Casino. During the fourth quarter of 2013, as part of the CCR’s annual impairment evaluation, an undiscounted cash flow analysis was prepared for Eastside Cannery which indicated that the carrying value of the lease right was not recoverable. The impairment charges were recorded as part of operating expenses for the year ended December 31, 2013.expense

~~Net~~Pari-mutuel ~~loss~~wagering ~~increased~~expense declined $51.0 million for the year ended December 31, ~~2013~~2014 as compared to the prior year. ~~The increase in net loss was~~ primarily due to ~~increased~~the ~~interest~~closure ~~expense~~ of ~~$13.1~~one ~~million~~off ~~related~~track tobetting ~~our~~parlor ~~debt refinancing on October 2, 2012. The increase~~ in ~~net~~the ~~loss~~prior ~~was~~year ~~partially~~(as ~~offset~~previously ~~by lower income tax expense of $10~~discussed).~~5 million and loss of debt extinguishment for $3.1 million in the prior year.~~

· Management fees

Management fees decreased $2.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2014 as compared to the prior year primarily due to the termination of the consulting agreement with the Tribe (as previously discussed).

· Market research and project promotion

Market research and project promotion decreased $1.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2014 as compared to the prior year primarily due to lower corporate development costs.

· Impairment Charge

Impairment charges decreased $6.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2014 as compared to the prior year. During the fourth quarter of 2013, as part of CCR’s annual impairment evaluation, an undiscounted cash flow analysis was prepared for the Eastside Cannery which indicated that the carrying value of the lease right was not recoverable. The lease rights at the Eastside Cannery were fully written down and an impairment charge of $6.2 million was recorded as part of operating expenses for the year ended December 31, 2013. There were no impairment charges for the year ended December 31, 2014.

· Other selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”)

SG&A expenses declined $2.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2014 as compared to the prior year. The decrease in SG&A expenses was due to the following:

Corporate SG&A expenses decreased approximately $1.2 million primarily due lower decreased payroll costs.

At the Eastside Cannery, SG&A expenses decreased $1.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2014 as compared to the prior year primarily due to: (i) lower promotional expenses of $0.5 million; (ii) reduced salary and wage costs of $0.5 million; (iii) reduced advertising costs of $0.3 million and; (iv) lower special events costs of $0.4 million. The declines in SG&A expenses at the Eastside were partially offset by an increase in contract entertainment costs of $0.3 million as compared to the prior year.

At the Meadows SG&A expenses increased $0.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2014 as compared to the prior year primarily due to increased legal fees of $1.1 million related to the litigation with GLPI (as previously discussed) and by increased advertising and equipment rental expenses of $0.3 million, collectively. The increase in SG&A expenses at the Meadows was partially offset by: (i) lower promotional expenses of $0.5 million; and (ii) reduced property taxes of $0.7 million as compared to the prior year.

· Depreciation and Amortization

Depreciation and amortization expense at the Eastside Cannery and the Meadows declined $7.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2014 as compared to the prior year.

Net loss decreased $14.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2014 as compared to the prior year. The decrease in net loss was primarily driven by: (i) a decrease in operating expenses (as previously discussed) (ii) a decrease in interest expense of $1.3 million related to lower outstanding debt as compared to the corresponding period in the prior year; and (iii) a decrease in income tax expense of $6.7 million as compared to the corresponding period in the prior year.

Table of Contents

Inflation

The Company does not believe that inflation has had a material effect on its results of operations in recent years. However, there is no assurance that inflation will not adversely affect its business in the future.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

The United States recently experienced a recession accompanied by, among other things, weakness in the commercial and investment banking systems resulting in reduced credit and capital financing availability, and highly curtailed gaming, other recreational, construction and real estate market activities and general discretionary consumer spending. Although capital market activity and liquidity have improved of late, the recovery from this recession period is fragile and, consequently, the Company’s liquidity and capital resources, cannot be estimated at this time but may likely be significant.

AsThe ~~disclosed~~Company ~~above,~~has ~~the~~made ~~Company,~~ from time to time, ~~has made~~ equity contributions to CCR in connection with CCR maintaining compliance with its debt covenants, including approximately $10.8 million in 2009, and approximately $46.6 million in 2010, in connection with AcquisitionCo’s purchase of the Series C Preferred Units of CCR (“Series C Units”). The Company has no current investment or other financing plans, and the Company’s recurring prospective need for liquidity and capital resources is principally associated with being a reporting company. On July 15, 2010, the Company borrowed $750,000 from certain affiliates of the Company in order to cover expenses of the Company. Interest accrued at the prime rate plus 2% on the outstanding principal amount, and unpaid interest was compounded monthly. The notes evidencing this loan were due and payable on demand. On October 30, 2013, the Company fully repaid these borrowings, including accrued interest. To the extent the Company needs additional liquidity and capital resources to satisfy those needs, the Company’s members are the expected source of funding.

Off Balance Sheet Arrangements

Credit Agreements

On ~~May~~October 182, ~~2007~~2012, CCR entered into two syndicated credit facilities totaling $~~860~~590 million: a $~~745~~425 million first lien facility ~~and~~consisting aof; (i) $~~115~~385 million term loan borrowed at the closing date; (ii) $40 million revolving loan unfunded at the closing date, but available until the fifth anniversary of the closing date and; (iii) $165 million second lien term loan facility (collectively, the “2012 Credit Agreements”) (see Overview above). Portions of the proceeds were used to retire ~~the~~$443.5 ~~then~~million ~~existing~~of outstanding debt, ~~including~~and $~~250~~86.9 ~~million~~of ~~credit~~the ~~facility,~~proceeds ~~and~~was distributed to ~~partially~~certain ~~fund~~owners of the ~~completion~~Series C Units. The remaining value of the ~~Eastside~~Series C ~~Cannery~~Units was contributed to CCR, and ~~the~~there ~~permanent~~are ~~casino~~no ~~facility~~remaining atSeries C ~~The~~shares ~~Meadows~~outstanding.

On March 3, 2010, CCR entered into the 2007 First Lien Amendment No. 1 which changed certain covenants and provisions of the Credit Agreements as previously described. The Credit Agreements were further amended by the 2007 First Lien Amendment No. 2 on February 7, 2012. Among other matters, the 2007 First Lien Amendment No. 2 extended the maturity date for revolving loans under the 2007 First Lien Credit Agreement from May 18, 2012 to February 18, 2013.

On October 2, 2012, CCR entered into two new syndicated credit facilities totaling $590 million: a $425 million first lien facility consisting of; (i) $385 million term loan borrowed at Closing Date; (ii) $40 million revolving loan unfunded at Closing Date, but available until the fifth anniversary of the Closing Date and; (iii) $165 million second lien term loan facility (collectively, the “2012 Credit Agreements”) (see Overview above). Portions of the proceeds were used to retire $443.5 million of debt that was outstanding from the May 18, 2007 refinancing and $86.9 of the proceeds was distributed to certain owners of the Series C shares. The remaining value of the Series C shares was contributed to CCR, and there are no remaining Series C shares outstanding.

Table of Contents

Critical Accounting Estimates and Policies

Although the Company’s consolidated financial statements necessarily make use of certain accounting estimates by management, at this time, we believe no matters are the subject of such estimates that are so highly uncertain or susceptible to change as to present a significant risk of a material impact on its financial condition or results of operations as more fully explained in the following paragraph. Moreover, except as discussed below, the Company does not now employ any critical accounting policies that are selected from among available alternatives or require the exercise of significant management judgment to select or apply except for carrying its investments in unconsolidated investees on the equity method of accounting rather than the available fair value option. Similarly, in the opinion of the Company’s management, except for the selection of depreciable lives and depreciation methods and assumptions used to estimate the fair value of rate swap agreements and investments, consisting of preferred auction rate securities, the accounting policies of the Company’s unconsolidated investees also do not require the exercise of significant management judgment to apply.

The realization of substantially all of the Company’s assets will likely be dependent upon an eventual sale of its investment in the unconsolidated investees following an economic recovery believed to be probable at a price sufficient to realize the carrying value of the Company’s assets. ~~Additionally,~~The ~~it is management’s present opinion that the probability of an eventual sale of the~~ Company’s ~~investment~~has inrecorded ~~unconsolidated investees at~~ a ~~sufficiently~~valuation ~~appreciated~~allowance ~~value~~to ~~makes~~reduce ~~realization~~the ofrelated adeferred ~~majority~~tax ofassets ~~its~~to ~~deferred~~the ~~tax~~amount ~~assets~~that is more likely than not to be realized. These estimates are subject to material variation over the next year.

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

The financial statements and supplementary data of the Company called for by this item are submitted under a separate section of this annual report. Reference is made to the Index of Financial Statements contained on page F-1 hereof.

Item 9. Changes In and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.

None.

Table of Contents

Item 9A. Internal Control over Financial Reporting.

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

As of the end of the period covered by this ~~annual~~Annual ~~report~~Report on Form 10-K, the Company carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of the Company’s management, including the Company’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures pursuant to Rule 13a-15(b) of the Exchange Act. Based upon that evaluation, the principal executive officer and principal financial officer concluded that the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures are effective.

Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Exchange Act. This rule defines internal control over financial reporting as a process designed by, or under the supervision of, the Company’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”). The Company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that:

· Pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the Company;

· Provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP, and that receipts and expenditures of the Company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management of the Company; and

· Provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of the Company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Table of Contents

The Company’s management, including its principal executive officer and principal financial officer, does not expect that its disclosure controls and procedures, or its internal controls will prevent all error and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. The effectiveness of any system of internal control over financial reporting is subject to inherent limitations, including the exercise of judgment in designing, implementing, operating and evaluating the controls and procedures. Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. In addition, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

Management has evaluated the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, ~~2013~~2014, based on the control criteria established in a report entitled Internal Control—Integrated Framework, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). That framework defines a material weakness as a control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected. Based upon that evaluation, our management concluded that the Company’s internal control over financial reporting is effective.

This annual report does not include an attestation report of the Company’s registered public accounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting, nor was ~~Management~~management’s report subject to attestation by the Company’s registered public accounting firm.

Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

We have made no ~~significant~~changes ~~change~~ in our internal control over financial reporting during the most recent fiscal quarter covered by this annual report on Form 10-K that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Item 9B. Other Information.

Not Applicable.

Table of Contents

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.

As of March 2830, ~~2014~~2015, the managers of the Company and of CCR are as follows:

Name	Age	Position
Stephen A. Kaplan	5556	Manager of the Company & CCR
Ronald N. Beck	5859	Manager of the Company & CCR
William Paulos	6667	Manager of CCR
William Wortman	6768	Manager of CCR

STEPHEN KAPLAN has served as a Manager of the Company since its inception and as manager of CCR and a member of its management committee since September 2006, and is expected to continue in these roles. Mr. Kaplan is a Principal at Oaktree and is the worldwide head of Oaktree’s Principal Group. In 1995, Mr. Kaplan founded Oaktree along with six other principals. Mr. Kaplan graduated with a B.S. degree in Political Science summa cum laude from the State University of New York at Stony Brook and a J.D. from the New York University School of Law.

RONALD BECK has served as a Manager of the Company since its inception and as manager of CCR and a member of its management committee since September 2006, and is expected to continue in these roles. Mr. Beck is a Managing Director of Oaktree and joined Oaktree in 2000. Mr. Beck is a co-portfolio manager of Oaktree’s Principal Group. Mr. Beck graduated with a B.A. degree in Economics from Stanford University, a J.D. from Stanford Law School and an M.B.A. from Stanford’s Graduate School of Business.

WILLIAM J. PAULOS has served as manager of CCR and a member of its management committee since May 2001. Mr. Paulos established Millennium Management Group, LLC in September 1996 with Mr. Wortman and has served as its Chief Executive Officer since its inception. Millennium Management Group, LLC is currently a consultant to the Greektown Casino in Detroit. From January 1995 to September 1996, Mr. Paulos was President of Primadonna Resorts, Inc. which, through subsidiaries, owned and operated various casino hotel properties including Buffalo Bill’s, Whiskey Pete’s, the Primm Valley Inn and Resort and New York-New York Casino Resort. From March 1994 to January 1995, Mr. Paulos was the Chief Operating Officer of Crown Casino Limited.

Table of Contents

WILLIAM C. WORTMAN has served as manager of CCR and a member of its management committee since May 2001. Mr. Wortman established Millennium Management Group, LLC in September 1996 with Mr. Paulos and has served as its President since its inception. In 1985, Mr. Wortman became an owner in the Nevada Palace, which he continues to own. Mr. Wortman has also served as President of Nevada First Bankcorp since 1999, and has served as Vice-Chairman of the Board of Nevada 1st Bank since 1997. From 1993 to 1994, Mr. Wortman served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Palace Casinos, Inc.

The Company’s named executive officers are Messrs. Kaplan and Beck, neither of whom receives compensation for their services as Managers. The Company has no directors.

The Company was founded by the VoteCo Equityholders for the primary purpose of participating in various activities relating to the gaming industry. Six of the VoteCo Equityholders are principals of Oaktree and one is a managing director of Oaktree. None would be considered independent under the NASDAQ Stock Market listing standards. The VoteCo Equityholders did not receive any direct consideration or other compensation in connection with their activities in founding the Company.

Corporate Governance

The Company

Pursuant to the Company’s limited liability company agreement, the Company is managed by two Managers, each of whom is appointed, and may be removed, by VoteCo as the holder of Class A Membership Units. The two current Managers of the Company are Messrs. Kaplan and Beck. The Company’s Managers cannot take and cannot cause the Company to take the following actions without the approval of VoteCo as the holder of Class A Membership Units:

· any material change in the business purpose of the Company or the nature of the business;

· any action that would render it impossible to carry on the ordinary business of the Company;

Table of Contents

· any removal or appointment of any Manager of the Company;

· any voluntary withdrawal of any member from the Company;

· any assignment for the benefit of creditors, any voluntary bankruptcy of the Company, or any transaction to dissolve, wind up or liquidate the Company; or

· any transaction between the Company and any member or Manager of the Company, or any affiliate or direct family member of any member or Manager of the Company, that is not made on an arm’s-length basis.

Generally, in all other respects, VoteCo has no power or authority to participate in the management of the Company or to bind or act on behalf of the Company in any way or to render it liable for any purpose. Except as otherwise expressly required by applicable law, InvestCo, as the sole holder of the Company’s Class B Membership Units, has neither any right to vote on any matters to be voted on by the members of the Company, nor any power or authority to participate in the management of the Company or bind or act on behalf of the Company in any way or render it liable for any purpose.

Because the Company has conducted no operations other than in connection with the ownership of equity interests in CCR and NP Land, the Company does not have, and is not required to have, a separately designated audit, nominating or compensation committee or committee performing similar functions, and the Company does not have an audit committee financial expert. Preparation of the Company’s financial statements is performed by an outside consultant, on a contractual basis, and supervised by the Company’s Managers.

Under the terms of the amended and restated operating agreement, CCR has a management committee composed of four managers, two designated by AcquisitionCo and two designated by Millennium. AcquisitionCo designated Messrs. Kaplan and Beck as its initial managers, and Millennium designated Messrs. Paulos and Wortman as its initial managers. Other than powers expressly delegated to MMG II in its management of CCR’s casino properties, all powers to control and manage the business and affairs of CCR are vested in the Management Committee. Managers are required to be licensed or found suitable by the relevant Nevada gaming authorities in order to engage in the management of CCR. For further information about licensing and suitability requirements, see “Item 1. Regulatory Matters—Nevada Gaming Laws and Regulations”. In addition, so long as the aggregate percentage interests of the holders of the Series A2 Units of CCR is greater than or equal to 20%, such holders are entitled to appoint a non-voting representative to CCR’s management committee.

23Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Table of Contents

Compliance with Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act

The Company voluntarily registered its Class A Membership Units pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by filing a registration statement on Form 10-SB on June 9, 2006. The registration became effective automatically 60 days later on August 8, 2006. Stephen Kaplan, Ronald Beck, John Frank, Bruce Karsh, David Kirchheimer, Howard Marks, and Sheldon Stone each filed an Initial Statement of Beneficial Ownership of Securities on Form 3 on August 16, 2006, which filing was not timely.

Code of Ethics.

We have adopted a code of ethics as described in Item 406 of Regulation S-K. We will provide to any person without charge, upon request, a copy of our code of ethics. Requests may be sent to OCM HoldCo, LLC, c/o Oaktree Capital Management, L.P., 333 South Grand Avenue, 28th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071.

Item 11. Executive Compensation.

Messrs. Kaplan and Beck, the Company’s named executive officers, are not entitled to compensation from the Company for any services rendered to or on behalf of the Company, or otherwise, in their capacities as Managers of the Company, and since the inception of the Company have received no such compensation. The Company’s Managers are entitled to reimbursement from the first available funds of the Company for direct out-of-pocket costs and expenses incurred on behalf of the Company that directly relate to the business and affairs of the Company.

The VoteCo Equity holders did not receive any direct consideration or other compensation in connection with their activities in founding the Company.

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.

The Company has no equity compensation plans.

The following table sets forth, as of March 28, 2014, information regarding the beneficial ownership of the Company’s voting securities by all persons known to be the beneficial owners of more than 5% of any voting class of Company securities.20

Title of Class of Securities	Name and Address of Beneficial Owner (1)	Amount and Nature of Beneficial Ownership		Percent of Class
Class A Units	OCM VoteCo, LLC	.100 Units	(3)	100	%(3)
Class A Units	Stephen Kaplan(4)	.100 Units	(5)	100	%(5)
Class A Units	Ronald Beck(4)	.100 Units	(5)	100	%(5)
Class A Units	John Frank	.100 Units	(5)	100	%(5)
Class A Units	Bruce Karsh	.100 Units	(5)	100	%(5)
Class A Units	David Kirchheimer	.100 Units	(5)	100	%(5)
Class A Units	Howard Marks	.100 Units	(5)	100	%(5)
Class A Units	Sheldon Stone	.100 Units	(5)	100	%(5)

Table of Contents

The following table sets forth, as of March 30, 2015, information regarding the beneficial ownership of the Company’s voting securities by all persons known to be the beneficial owners of more than 5% of any voting class of Company securities.

Title of Class of Securities	Name and Address of Beneficial Owner (1)	Amount and Nature of Beneficial Ownership (2)		Percent of Class
Class A Units	OCM VoteCo, LLC	.100 Units	(3)	100	%(3)
Class A Units	Stephen Kaplan(4)	.100 Units	(5)	100	%(5)
Class A Units	Ronald Beck(4)	.100 Units	(5)	100	%(5)
Class A Units	John Frank	.100 Units	(5)	100	%(5)
Class A Units	Bruce Karsh	.100 Units	(5)	100	%(5)
Class A Units	David Kirchheimer	.100 Units	(5)	100	%(5)
Class A Units	Howard Marks	.100 Units	(5)	100	%(5)
Class A Units	Sheldon Stone	.100 Units	(5)	100	%(5)

(1) The address for each beneficial owner is:

c/o Oaktree Capital Management, L.P.

333 South Grand Ave, 28th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071

(2) Beneficial ownership is determined in accordance with the Exchange Act, as amended, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.

(3) VoteCo directly owns 100% of the Company’s Class A Membership Units.

(4) Messrs. Kaplan and Beck are the managers of VoteCo and the Company.

(5) Stephen Kaplan, Ronald Beck, John Frank, Bruce Karsh, David Kirchheimer, Howard Marks and Sheldon Stone are each a voting member of VoteCo holding 12.5 VoteCo units. These individuals may be deemed to form a “group” holding all 87.5 VoteCo units and, as a result, each such individual may be deemed to be a beneficial owner of the .100 Class A Membership Units of the Company directly held by VoteCo.

Table of Contents

None of the Class A Membership Units beneficially owned by the persons listed in the table above have been pledged as security.

The following table sets forth, as of March 2830, ~~2014~~2015, information regarding the beneficial ownership by all Managers of the Company, named individually and as a group, of any class of equity securities of the Company, the Company’s parent or the Company’s subsidiaries.

Title of Class of Securities	Name of Beneficial Owner ~~(1)~~	Amount and Nature of Beneficial Ownership(21)		Percent of Class
VoteCo Units	Stephen Kaplan(32)	12.5 Units	(43)	14.286	%(43)
Company Class A Units		.100 Units	(54)	100	%(54)
Blocker Class A Units		126,896.317 Units	(65)	100	%(65)
AcquisitionCo Class A Units		1,000 Class A Units	(76)	100	%(76)
VoteCo Units	Ronald Beck(32)	12.5 Units	(87)	14.286	%(87)
Company Class A Units		.100 Units	(54)	100	%(54)
Blocker Units		126,896.317 Units	(6)	100	%(6)
Blocker Class A Units		126,896.317 Units	(5)	100	%(5)
AcquisitionCo Class A Units		1,000 Class A Units	(76)	100	%(76)
VoteCo Units	Executive Officers of the Company as a Group	25 Units	(98)	28.572	%(98)
Company Class A Units		.100 Units	(54)	100	%(54)
Blocker Units		126,896.317 Units	(6)	100	%(6)
Blocker Class A Units		126,896.317 Units	(5)	100	%(5)
AcquisitionCo Class A Units		1,000 Class A Units	(76)	100	%(76)

(1) ~~The~~Beneficial ~~address~~ownership ~~for~~is ~~each~~determined ~~beneficial~~in ~~owner~~accordance ~~is:~~with the Exchange Act, as amended, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.

~~c/o Oaktree Capital Management, L.P.~~21

333 South Grand Ave, 28th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071

(2) Beneficial ownership is determined in accordance with the Exchange Act, as amended, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.

(3) Messrs. Kaplan and Beck are the managers of VoteCo, the Company, Blocker and AcquisitionCo. Blocker is a direct subsidiary of the Company and owns nothing other than its interest in AcquisitionCo.

(4) Mr. Kaplan is the listed owner of the securities.

(5) VoteCo is the listed owner of all .100 Company Class A Membership Units. Messrs. Kaplan and Beck each may be deemed to be a member of a “group” holding all 87.5 VoteCo Units and, as a result, each of Messrs. Kaplan and Beck may be deemed to be a beneficial owner of all .100 Company Class A Membership Units directly held by VoteCo.

(6) The Company is the listed owner of all 126,896.317 Blocker Class A Units. Each of Messrs. Kaplan and Beck may be deemed to be a member of a “group” holding all 87.5 VoteCo Units and, as a result, each of Messrs. Kaplan and Beck may be deemed to be a beneficial owner of all 126,896.317 Blocker Class A Units directly held by the Company.

(7) Blocker is the listed owner of all 1,000 AcquisitionCo Class A Membership Units. Messrs. Kaplan and Beck each may be deemed to be a member of a “group” holding all 87.5 VoteCo Units and, as a result, each of Messrs. Kaplan and Beck may be deemed to be a beneficial owner of all 1,000 AcquisitionCo Class A Membership Units directly held by Blocker.

(8) Mr. Beck is the listed owner of the securities.

(9) Messrs. Kaplan and Beck are each a listed owner of 50% of these securities.

None of the securities listed in the table above as beneficially owned by the Company’s Managers has been pledged as security.

Table of Contents

(2) Messrs. Kaplan and Beck are the managers of VoteCo, the Company, Blocker and AcquisitionCo. Blocker is a direct subsidiary of the Company and owns nothing other than its interest in AcquisitionCo.

(3) Mr. Kaplan is the listed owner of the securities.

(4) VoteCo is the listed owner of all .100 Company Class A Membership Units. Messrs. Kaplan and Beck each may be deemed to be a member of a “group” holding all 87.5 VoteCo Units and, as a result, each of Messrs. Kaplan and Beck may be deemed to be a beneficial owner of all .100 Company Class A Membership Units directly held by VoteCo.

(5) The Company is the listed owner of all 126,896.317 Blocker Class A Units. Each of Messrs. Kaplan and Beck may be deemed to be a member of a “group” holding all 87.5 VoteCo Units and, as a result, each of Messrs. Kaplan and Beck may be deemed to be a beneficial owner of all 126,896.317 Blocker Class A Units directly held by the Company.

(6) Blocker is the listed owner of all 1,000 AcquisitionCo Class A Membership Units. Messrs. Kaplan and Beck each may be deemed to be a member of a “group” holding all 87.5 VoteCo Units and, as a result, each of Messrs. Kaplan and Beck may be deemed to be a beneficial owner of all 1,000 AcquisitionCo Class A Membership Units directly held by Blocker.

(7) Mr. Beck is the listed owner of the securities.

(8) Messrs. Kaplan and Beck are each a listed owner of 50% of these securities.

None of the securities listed in the table above as beneficially owned by the Company’s Managers has been pledged as security.

Limited Liability and Indemnification under the Company’s Limited Liability Company Agreement and CCR’s Operating Agreement

The Company’s limited liability company agreement provides that no member or Manager of the Company has any liability for the obligations of the Company, except to the extent required by law. To the maximum extent authorized by law, the Company indemnifies any person from any loss, damage, claim or liability incurred by him, her or it as a result of any act or failure to act (other than as a result of fraud, gross negligence or willful misconduct) performed or not performed by such person as a member, Manager, employee, agent or representative of the Company, including attorneys’ fees, judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred.

In addition, a Manager of the Company who performs his or her duties in good faith, in a manner he or she reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the Company and with such care as an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances, does not have any liability by reason of being or having been a Manager of the Company. Furthermore, a Manager of the Company is not liable, as Manager of the Company, under any judgment, decree or order of court, or in any other manner, for any debt, obligation or liability of the Company.

CCR’s operating agreement provides that under certain circumstances CCR will indemnify any person who is an affiliate of AcquisitionCo who was or is a party or is threatened to be made a party to any threatened, pending or completed action, suit or proceeding, by reason of the fact that he, she or it was serving at the request of CCR as a manager, officer, employee or agent of CCR.

CCR’s operating agreement also provides that CCR will reimburse AcquisitionCo and its affiliates in connection with the development of gaming opportunities for CCR, at a cap of $250,000 per fiscal year of CCR, and will reimburse the expenses of managers of CCR serving on CCR’s management committee, including those managers who are affiliates of AcquisitionCo, for certain out-of-pocket expenses reasonably attributable to CCR.

Other Transactions

In February 2007, the Oaktree Funds, beneficial owners of the Company’s non-voting equity interests, agreed to support, through member contributions to CCR, letters of credit issued in favor of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for an aggregate stated amount of approximately $18.3 million. Such support was transferred to PA Meadows during the second quarter of 2007. The Oaktree Funds received $382,000 from CCR as consideration for supporting the letters of credit.

CCR has a receivable of approximately $16.2 million from NH Downs Holdings, LLC, a subsidiary of InvestCo (“NH Downs”), in connection with the development of certain gaming opportunities in New Hampshire.22

InTable ~~March 2009 and May 2009, Millennium and the Company, through AcquisitionCo, made equity contributions to CCR for the purpose~~ of maintaining CCR’s compliance with its debt covenants. The equity contributions by AcquisitionCo were funded by equity contributions from Blocker, which, in turn, were funded by loans from the Company.Contents

In March 2010, Millennium, the Company, through AcquisitionCo, and Crown Limited, through two subsidiaries, made equity contributions to CCR for the purpose of maintaining CCR’s compliance with its debt covenants. The equity contribution by AcquisitionCo was funded by an equity contribution from Blocker, which, in turn, was funded by a loan from the Company.

On July 15, 2010, the Company borrowed $750,000 from certain affiliates of the Company in order to cover operating expenses of the Company. Interest accrued at the prime rate plus 2% on the outstanding principal amount, and unpaid interest was compounded monthly. The notes evidencing this loan were due and payable on demand. On October 30, 2013, the Company fully repaid these borrowings including accrued interest of $141,474.

Company’s Parent

The Company’s only parent is VoteCo, which holds 100% of the voting securities of the Company.

Transactions between CCR and its Promoters

Transactions relating to the Company’s Acquisition of its Equity Interests in CCR and NP Land

The Eastside Cannery is located on land leased from NP Land pursuant to a 35-year lease (see The Eastside Cannery/Nevada Palace below). Until May 2011, the Company indirectly owned a 33-1/3% equity interest in NP Land, with Nevada Palace, Inc., an entity affiliated with Mr. Wortman, holding the remaining 66-2/3% equity interest in NP Land. On May 17, 2011, the Company entered into a Unit Purchase Agreement for the sale of its 33-1/3% equity interest in NP Land to Nevada Palace, Inc. for $8.0 million in cash. The transaction closed on May 19, 2011. The NP Land lease is for a 35-year term at a fixed rental rate of $205,761 per month (as of December 31, 2010), subject to periodic inflationary adjustments, and required a $3 million security deposit.

Table of Contents

Other than the payments described above, there have been no payments by CCR or its affiliates to Messrs. Paulos or Wortman or their affiliates for fees, expenses or other amounts paid or payable in connection with the transactions relating to the CUP Agreement, except amounts paid for business expenses reimbursed in the ordinary course.

Other Transactions

Relatives of Messrs. Paulos and Wortman provide CCR with Automated Teller Machines (“ATM”) processing services. CCR received combined commissions of $3.2 million and $3.4 million in 2013 and 2012, respectively, pursuant to separate agreements with CCR’s casinos. Under these agreements, the providers receive the exclusive right to provide cash advance and ATM processing services at predetermined customer rates in return for providing, maintaining and keeping supplied ATMs at each location. Each agreement had an initial term expiring in 2011, followed by five one-year renewals that are automatic unless either party gives 90 days’ notice.

The Company has also contracted with an affiliate of a principal CCR member, and another company in which a relative of one of the Company’s beneficial owners has a financial interest, for the purchase of promotional merchandise utilized for casino marketing and as customer incentives. Additionally, the same affiliate has a financial interest in another company that provides website development and management services related to the Company’s websites. During 2013 and 2012, the Company incurred costs totaling $0.6 million and $0.8 million, respectively, related to these transactions.

CCR has contracted with MMG II, an affiliate of Millennium, to operate and manage its Nevada operations. In 2013 and 2012, the Company incurred fees to the affiliate of $6.2 million and $6.4 million, respectively, annually in connection with these arrangements.

During 2007, Mr. Wortman incurred certain obligations in connection with the development of certain gaming opportunities in New Hampshire. In connection with pursuing such opportunities, NH Downs has a receivable of approximately $9.1 million from Mr. Wortman.

On July 15, 2006, CCR executed with Millennium a 10-year lease of an executive office building and adjacent parking spaces. The lease is for a fixed rental rate of $34,681 per month, subject to periodic inflationary adjustments, and grants Millennium two 5-year renewals.

The management of CCR believes that the transactions relating to the ATM processing services, the provision of promotional merchandise, the executive office lease and the operation and management of its Nevada operations, are on terms that are substantially similar to terms that would be available to unaffiliated third parties and are expected to continue in the future.

An affiliate of one of the Company’s members provides the Company with certain administrative support services for an annual fee of $50,000, based on hourly rates of assigned personnel.

As set forth under “Historical Developments”, the Company completed a sale of its equity interest in NP Land to Nevada Palace, Inc., an entity affiliated with William Wortman on May 11, 2011.

Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services.

Audit Fees:

For ~~2013~~2014 and ~~2012~~2013, we incurred annual audit and quarterly financial statement review fees totaling approximately $~~102~~90,~~500~~000 and $~~110~~102,~~400~~500, respectively, to Piercy Bowler Taylor & Kern, our independent registered public accounting firm.

Audit-Related Fees:

We did not incur audit-related fees to Piercy Bowler Taylor & Kern, our independent registered public accounting firm in ~~2013~~2014 and ~~2012~~2013.

Tax Fees:

For ~~2013~~2014 and ~~2012~~2013, we incurred no tax preparation fees to Piercy Bowler Taylor & Kern, Certified Public Accountants.

All Other Fees:

For ~~2013~~2014 and ~~2012~~2013, we incurred no other fees to Piercy Bowler Taylor & Kern, Certified Public Accountants, for products and services other than the services reported above.

Audit Committee Policies and Procedures:

We do not currently have an audit committee. The foregoing services were pre-approved by our Managers.

2723

Table of Contents

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules.

Financial Statements

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm	F-2
Consolidated Balance Sheets	F-3
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss)	F-4
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Loss	F-4
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Members’ Equity	F-5
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows	F-6
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements	F-7

Financial Statement Schedules

All financial statement schedules are omitted because they are not applicable or the required information is shown in the financial statements or notes thereto.

Exhibits.

In reviewing the agreements included as exhibits to this Form 10-K, please remember they are included to provide you with information regarding their terms and are not intended to provide any other factual or disclosure information about the Company or the other parties to the agreements.

The agreements contain representations and warranties by each of the parties to the applicable agreement. These representations and warranties have been made solely for the benefit of the other parties to the applicable agreement and:

· should not in all instances be treated as categorical statements of fact, but rather as a way of allocating the risk to one of the parties if those statements prove to be inaccurate;

· have been qualified by disclosures that were made to the other party in connection with the negotiation of the applicable agreement, which disclosures are not necessarily reflected in the agreement;

· may apply standards of materiality in a way that is different from what may be viewed as material to you or other investors; and

· were made only as of the date of the applicable agreement or such other date or dates as may be specified in the agreement and are subject to more recent developments.

Accordingly, these representations and warranties may not describe the actual state of affairs as of the date they were made or at any other time. Additional information about the Company may be found elsewhere in this Form 10-K and the Company’s other public filings, which are available without charge through the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

2824

Table of Contents

The following exhibits are filed as part of, or incorporated by reference into, this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

EXHIBIT NUMBER		INDEX OF EXHIBITS
2.1		First Amendment and Restatement of Contribution and Unit Purchase Agreement, dated as of December 23, 2005 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to the Company’s Form 10-SB, filed with the SEC on June 9, 2006)
3.1		Amended and Restated Certificate of Formation, dated as of December 1, 2005 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Company’s Form 10-SB, filed with the SEC on June 9, 2006)
3.2		Limited Liability Company Agreement, dated as of September 23, 2005 (1incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2 to the Company’s Form 10-SB, filed with the SEC on June 9, 2006)
10.1		Rampart Casino Sublease Agreement, dated April 1, 2002 (2)
3.3		First Amendment to Limited Liability Company Agreement, dated as of December 1, 2005 (filed concurrently herewith)
10.2		Rampart Management Agreement, dated April 1, 2002 (3)
10.1		Cannery Management Agreement, dated May 2002 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.20 to the Company’s Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-SB, filed with the SEC on September 8, 2006)
10.3		Cannery Management Agreement, dated May 2002 (3)
10.2		Lease Agreement, dated July 15, 2006, between Millennium Gaming, Inc. and Cannery Casino Resorts, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.21 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on September 27, 2006)
10.4		LandCo Loan Agreement, dated as of September 30, 2005 (1)
10.3		Racing Services Agreement, dated July 26, 2006 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.14 to the Company’s Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-SB, filed with the SEC on July 26, 2006)
10.5		InvestCo/Esquire Loan Agreement, dated as of September 30, 2005 (2)
10.4		Form of Ground Lease between Nevada Palace, LLC and NP Land, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.9 to the Company’s Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-SB, filed with the SEC on July 26, 2006)
10.6		InvestCo/Nevada Palace Loan Agreement, dated as of September 30, 2005 (2)
10.5		Form of Omnibus Management Agreement between Cannery Casino Resorts, LLC, and Millennium Management Group II, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.11 to the Company’s Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-SB, filed with the SEC on July 26, 2006)
10.7		Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of November 8, 2005, between Magna Entertainment Corp. and PA Meadows, LLC (1)
10.6		Third Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of Cannery Casino Resorts, LLC, dated March 3, 2010 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.35 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on March 9, 2010)
10.8		AcquisitionCo Loan Agreement, dated as of January 5, 2006 (1)
10.7		First Lien Credit Agreement by and among Cannery Casino Resorts, LLC, Washington Trotting Association, Inc., Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as administrative agent and collateral agent, swing line lender and letter of credit issuer, Bank of America, N.A., Goldman Sachs Bank USA and Wells Fargo Gaming Capital, LLC, as co-syndication agents, Credit Suisse AG, Cayman Islands Branch and Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc., as co-documentation agents and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, GS, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and MC, as Joint Lead Arrangers and Book Running Managers, dated October 2, 2012. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.38 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on November 9, 2012)
10.9		InvestCo/MGIM Loan Agreement, dated January 5, 2006 (2)
10.10		Limited Continuing Guarantee, dated January 5, 2006 (2)
10.11		Credit Agreement, dated as of January 5, 2006 (2)
10.12		Lease Agreement, dated July 15, 2006, between Millennium Gaming, Inc. and Cannery Casino Resorts, LLC (4)
10.13		Rampart Financial Services Agreement, dated June 18, 2006 (3)
10.14		Cannery Financial Services Agreement, dated June 18, 2006 (3)
10.15		First Amendment to Stock Purchase Agreement, dated July 26, 2006 (2)
10.16		Racing Services Agreement, dated July 26, 2006 (2)
10.17		Post-Closing and Note Issuance Agreement, dated July 26, 2006 (2)
10.18		Equity Commitment Letter Agreement, dated July 26, 2006 (2)
10.19		Form of Amended and Restated Operating Agreement for Cannery Casino Resorts, LLC (1)
10.20		Form of Ground Lease between Nevada Palace, LLC and NP Land, LLC (2)
10.21		Form of Omnibus Management Agreement between Cannery Casino Resorts, LLC, and Millennium Management Group II, LLC (2)
10.22		Amendment to Continuing Guaranty, dated as of September 22, 2006 (4)
10.23		First Lien Credit Agreement, dated as of November 14, 2006 (5)
10.24		Second Lien Credit Agreement, dated as of November 14, 2006 (5)
10.25		First Amendment to Post-Closing and Note Issuance Agreement, dated as of November 14, 2006 (5)
10.26		Pledge Agreement, dated June 5, 2006 (6)
10.27		Amendment to Pledge Agreement, dated April 2, 2007 (6)
10.28		First Lien Credit Agreement, dated as of May 18, 2007 (7)
10.29		Second Lien Credit Agreement, dated as of May 18, 2007 (7)
10.30		Amendment No. 1 to the First Lien Credit Agreement, dated March 3, 2010, by and among Cannery Casino Resorts, LLC, Washington Trotting Association, Inc., Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent, Collateral Agent, Swing Line Lender and L/C Issuer, and the lenders from time to time party thereto (10)
10.31		Third Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of Cannery Casino Resorts, LLC, dated March 3, 2010 (10)
10.32		Series C Preferred Purchase Agreement by and among Crown Limited, Crown CCR Group Investments One, LLC, Crown CCR Group Investments Two, LLC, Millennium Gaming, Inc., OCM AcquisitionCo, LLC and Cannery Casino Resorts, LLC, dated March 3, 2010 (10)

2925

Table of Contents

10.33		Amendment No. 2 to First Lien Credit Agreement, dated February 7, 2012, by and among Cannery Casino Resorts, LLC, Washington Trotting Association, Inc., Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent, Collateral Agent, Swing Line Lender and L/C Issuer, and the lenders from time to time party thereto. (11)
EXHIBIT NUMBER		INDEX OF EXHIBITS
10.34		First Lien Credit Agreement by and among Cannery Casino Resorts, LLC, Washington Trotting Association, Inc., Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as administrative agent and collateral agent, swing line lender and letter of credit issuer, Bank of America, N.A., Goldman Sachs Bank USA and Wells Fargo Gaming Capital, LLC, as co-syndication agents, Credit Suisse AG, Cayman Islands Branch and Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc., as co-documentation agents and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, GS, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and MC, as Joint Lead Arrangers and Book Running Managers, dated October 2, 2012. (12)
10.8		Second Lien Credit Agreement by and among Cannery Casino Resorts, LLC, Washington Trotting Association, Inc., Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as administrative agent and collateral agent, Bank of America, N.A., Goldman Sachs Bank USA and Wells Fargo Gaming Capital, LLC, as co-syndication agents, Credit Suisse AG, Cayman Islands Branch and Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc. , as co-documentation agents and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, GS, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and MC, as Joint Lead Arrangers and Book Running Managers, dated October 2, 2012. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.39 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on November 9, 2012)
10.35		Second Lien Credit Agreement by and among Cannery Casino Resorts, LLC, Washington Trotting Association, Inc., Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as administrative agent and collateral agent, Bank of America, N.A., Goldman Sachs Bank USA and Wells Fargo Gaming Capital, LLC, as co-syndication agents, Credit Suisse AG, Cayman Islands Branch and Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc. , as co-documentation agents and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, GS, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and MC, as Joint Lead Arrangers and Book Running Managers, dated October 2, 2012. (12)
10.9		Waiver and Amendment to Third Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of Cannery Casino Resorts, LLC by and among Crown CCR Group Investments One, LLC, Crown CCR Group Investments Two, LLC, Millennium Gaming, Inc. and OCM AcquisitionCo, LLC, dated October 2, 2012. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.40 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on November 9, 2012)
10.36		Waiver and Amendment to Third Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of Cannery Casino Resorts, LLC by and among Crown CCR Group Investments One, LLC, Crown CCR Group Investments Two, LLC, Millennium Gaming, Inc. and OCM AcquisitionCo, LLC, dated October 2, 2012. (12)
10.10		Membership Interest Purchase Agreement, dated as of May 13, 2014, by and among Gaming and Leisure Properties, Inc., GLP Capital, L.P., Cannery Casino Resorts, LLC, PA MezzCo, LLC, and PA Meadows, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, filed with the SEC on August 13, 2014)
21.1		Subsidiaries of OCM HoldCo, LLC (13incorporated by reference to Exhibit 21.1 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed with the SEC on March 28, 2014)
31.1		Section 302 Certification of Principal Executive Officer (13filed concurrently herewith)
31.2		Section 302 Certification of Principal Financial Officer (13filed concurrently herewith)
32.1		Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (13filed concurrently herewith)
32.2		Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (13filed concurrently herewith)
101.INS		XBRL Instance Document**
101.SCH		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document**
101.CAL		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document**
101.DEF		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document**
101.LAB		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document**
101.PRE		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document**

** Pursuant to Rule 406T of Regulation S-T, the Interactive Date Files on Exhibit 101 hereto are deemed not filed or part of a registration statement or prospectus for purposes of Sections 11 or 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, are deemed not filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and otherwise are not subject to liability under those sections26

(1) Filed previously with the Company’s Form 10-SB on June 9, 2006

(2) Filed previously with the Company’s Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-SB on July 26, 2006

(3) Filed previously with the Company’s Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-SB on September 8, 2006

(4) Filed previously with the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K on September 27, 2006

(5) Filed previously with the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K on November 20, 2006

(6) Filed previously with the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K on April 8, 2007

(7) Filed previously with the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K on May 24, 2007

(8) Filed previously with the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB on March 31, 2008

(9) Filed previously with the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K on March 31, 2009

(10) Filed previously with the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K on March 9, 2010

(11) Filed previously with the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K on March 30, 2012

(12) Filed previously with the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K on November 9, 2012

(13) Filed concurrently herewith

Table of Contents

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

DATE:	OCM HoldCo, LLC
March 28, 2014	By:	/s/ Stephen A. Kaplan
March 30, 2015	By:	/s/ Stephen A. Kaplan
		Stephen A. Kaplan
		Manager (principal executive officer)
March 28, 2014	By:	/s/ Ronald N. Beck
March 30, 2015	By:	/s/ Ronald N. Beck
		Ronald N. Beck
		Manager (principal financial and chief accounting officer)

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

Signatures	Title	Date
/s/ Stephen A. Kaplan
Stephen A. Kaplan	Manager (principal executive officer)	March 2830, ~~2014~~2015
/s/ Ronald N. Beck	Manager (principal financial and chief accounting officer)	March 2830, ~~2014~~2015
Ronald N. Beck

3127

Table of Contents

OCM HoldCo, LLC and Subsidiaries

Consolidated Financial Statements

as of December 31, ~~2013~~2014

and December 31, ~~2012~~2013

and for the Years then Ended

Table of Contents

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm	F-2
Consolidated Balance Sheets	F-3
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss)	F-4
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Loss	F-4
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Members’ Equity	F-5
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows	F-6
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements	F-7

F-1

Table of Contents

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Managers of
OCM HoldCo, LLC

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of OCM HoldCo, LLC and its subsidiaries (collectively the Company) as of December 31, ~~2013~~2014 and ~~2012~~2013, and the related consolidated statements of comprehensive ~~income (~~loss), changes in members’ equity and cash flows for the years then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, audits of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of the Company as of December 31, ~~2013~~2014 and ~~2012~~2013, and its consolidated results of operations and cash flows for the years then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.

PIERCY BOWLER TAYLOR & KERN

/s/ Piercy Bowler Taylor & Kern Certified Public Accountants Las Vegas, Nevada March 2830, ~~2014~~2015

F-2

Table of Contents

OCM HoldCo, LLC and Subsidiaries

Consolidated Balance Sheets

December 31, ~~2013~~2014 and ~~2012~~2013

	2013		2012
	2014		2013
ASSETS
Current assets
Cash	$	98,~~363~~083,~~650~~625	$	109,~~638~~363,~~837~~650
Deferred tax asset, current	~~229,972~~—		46229,~~723~~972
	9,593,622		10,685,560
	8,083,625		9,593,622
Other assets
Investment in Cannery Casino Resorts, LLC	8279,~~762~~694,~~314~~060		9082,~~072~~762,~~780~~314
Gaming and related licenses	805,698		805,698
Deferred tax assets, net of valuation allowance of $2,793,392 and $0	7,563,796		7,387,410
Net deferred tax assets, net of valuation allowance of $12,011,132 and $2,793,392 as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively	28,043		7,563,796
	$	~~100~~88,~~725~~611,~~430~~426	$	~~108~~100,~~951~~725,~~448~~430
LIABILITIES AND MEMBERS’ EQUITY
Current liabilities
Accounts payable and accrued expenses, including $167,394 and $235,020 to related parties	$	179,745	$	268,363
Accounts payable and accrued expenses, including $217,394 and $167,394 to related parties as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively	$	236,375	$	179,745
Taxes payable	—		3,931
Net deferred tax liabilities, current, net of valuation allowance of $339,276 and $0 as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively	28,043		—
Related party loans	—		750,000
	264,418		179,745
	179,745		1,022,294
Members’ equity	88,347,008		100,545,685
Members’ equity	100,545,685		107,929,154
	$	88,611,426	$	100,725,430
	$	100,725,430	$	108,951,448

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

F-3

Table of Contents

OCM HoldCo, LLC and Subsidiaries

Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive ~~Income (~~Loss)

For the Years Ended December 31, ~~2013~~2014 and ~~2012~~2013

	2013			2012
	2014			2013
Income (loss)
Interest income	$	108,~~116~~031		$	1710,~~574~~116
Equity in loss of unconsolidated investees	(72,~~434~~972,~~403~~256		)	(57,~~839~~434,~~077~~403		)
Gain on redemption of Series C shares of unconsolidated investee	—			26,254,956
	(2,964,225		)	(7,424,287		)
	(7,424,287		)	20,433,453
Costs and expenses
Professional fees	~~240~~239,~~673~~470			~~259~~240,~~471~~673
Administrative fees and other expenses	5354,~~991~~016			53,~~437~~991
Interest expense, related parties	~~37,937~~—			4337,~~678~~937
	332,601			356,586
	293,486			332,601
(Loss) gain before income tax benefit (provision)	(7,756,888		)	20,076,867
Loss before income tax (provision) benefit	(3,257,711		)	(7,756,888		)
Income tax benefit (provision)	406,944			(10,168,899		)
Income tax (provision) benefit	(7,827,367		)	406,944
Net (loss) income	(7,349,944		)	9,907,968
Net loss	(11,085,078		)	(7,349,944		)
Equity in other comprehensive income of unconsolidated investee, net of tax, unrealized gain (loss) on interest rate swap	80,558			(178,710		)
Equity in other comprehensive (loss) income of unconsolidated investee, net of tax, unrealized (loss) gain on interest rate swap and investments	(62,399		)	80,558
Comprehensive (loss) income	$	(7,269,386	)	$	9,729,258
Comprehensive loss	$	(11,147,477	)	$	(7,269,386	)

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

F-4

Table of Contents

OCM HoldCo, LLC and Subsidiaries

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Members’ Equity

For the Years Ended December 31, ~~2013~~2014 and ~~2012~~2013

	Total members’ equity			Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)			Invested capital and accumulated earnings
2014
Balances, beginning of period	$	100,545,685		$	(125,216	)	$	100,670,901
Net loss	(11,085,078		)	—			(11,085,078		)
Distribution to members	(1,051,200		)	—			(1,051,200		)
Equity in other comprehensive loss of unconsolidated investee, net of tax, unrealized loss on interest rate swap, and investments	(62,399		)	(62,399		)	—
Balances, end of period	$	88,347,008		$	(187,615	)	$	88,534,623
2013
Balances, beginning of period	$	107,929,154		$	(205,774	)	$	108,134,928
Net loss	(7,349,944		)	—			(7,349,944		)
Distribution to members	(114,083		)	—			(114,083		)
Equity in other comprehensive income of unconsolidated investee, net of tax:
Equity in other comprehensive income of unconsolidated investee, net of tax, unrealized gain on interest rate swap, and investments	80,558			80,558			—
Unrealized gain on investments	80,558			80,558			—
Balances, end of period	$	100,545,685		$	(125,216	)	$	100,670,901
2012
Balances, beginning of period	$	161,236,285		$	(27,064	)	$	161,263,349
Net income	9,907,968			—			9,907,968
Distribution to members	(63,036,389		)	—			(63,036,389		)
Equity in other comprehensive income of unconsolidated investee, net of tax:
Unrealized loss on investments	(178,710		)	(178,710		)	—
Balances, end of period	$	107,929,154		$	(205,774	)	$	108,134,928

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

F-5

Table of Contents

OCM HoldCo, LLC and Subsidiaries

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

For the Years Ended December 31, ~~2013~~2014 and ~~2012~~2013

	2013			2012
	2014			2013
Operating activities
Net (loss) income	$	(7,349,944	)	$	9,907,968
Net loss	$	(11,085,078	)	$	(7,349,944	)
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash used in operating activities:
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating activities:
Equity in loss of unconsolidated investees	72,~~434~~972,~~403~~256			57,~~839~~434,~~077~~403
Gain on redemption of Series C shares of unconsolidated investee	—			(26,254,956		)
Deferred income taxes	7,827,367			(403,014		)
Deferred income taxes	(403,014		)	10,164,968
Increase (decrease) in accounts payable and accrued expenses	56,630			(88,618		)
Decrease in accounts payable and accrued expenses	(88,618		)	104,635
Decrease in taxes payable	—			(3,931		)
Decrease in taxes payable	(3,931		)	3,931
Net cash used in operating activities	(228,825		)	(411,104		)
Net cash used in operating activities	(411,104		)	(234,377		)
Investing activities
Proceeds from the redemption of Series C shares of unconsolidated investee	—			65,638,956
Net cash provided by investing activities	—			—
Net cash provided by investing activities	—			65,638,956
Financing activities
Payments of notes payable to related parties	~~(750,000~~—		)	—(750,000		)
Distribution to members	(~~114~~1,~~083~~051,200		)	(63114,~~036,389~~083		)
Net cash used in financing activities	(~~864~~1,~~083~~051,200		)	(63864,~~036,389~~083		)
Net (decrease) increase in cash	(1,275,187		)	2,368,190
Net decrease in cash	(1,280,025		)	(1,275,187		)
Cash, beginning of year	109,~~638~~363,~~837~~650			810,~~270~~638,~~647~~837
Cash, end of year	$	98,~~363~~083,~~650~~625		$	109,~~638~~363,~~837~~650
Supplemental cash flow information
Noncash financing and investing activity
Equity in other comprehensive income of unconsolidated investees	$	80,558		$	(178,710	)
Equity in other comprehensive (loss) income of unconsolidated investees	$	(62,399	)	$	80,558
Contribution of Series C shares to unconsolidated investee	$	—		$	7,241,000

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

F-6

Table of Contents

OCM HoldCo, LLC and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, ~~2013~~2014 and ~~2012~~2013

NOTE 1 - Organization:

Business Activities

~~The~~OCM ~~Company~~HoldCo, LLC (“OCM”), a Delaware limited liability company, and its consolidated subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”) were formed on July 22, 2005, at the direction of OCM Principal Opportunities Fund III, L.P. and OCM Principal Opportunities Fund IIIA, L.P. (the “Oaktree Funds”) Oaktree Funds, each of which is a Delaware limited partnership and an affiliate of Oaktree, for the purpose of participating in various activities relating to the gaming industry.

All of ~~the Company~~OCM’s issued and outstanding Class A Units are held by OCM VoteCo, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“VoteCo”), and all of ~~the Company~~OCM’s issued and outstanding non-voting Class B Units are held by OCM InvestCo, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (“InvestCo”). The rights of the Class A Units and Class B Units are substantially identical with the exception that the Class B Units are not entitled to any management or voting rights with respect to the Company, except as provided by applicable law. Neither class has dividend or liquidation preferences, atypical participation rights, or preferred, convertible, or redeemable features. In general, any sale, assignment or transfer of such units is subject to the prior approval of the gaming regulators of Nevada and Pennsylvania. VoteCo is responsible for the operations of the Company, including the appointment and removal of managers. VoteCo has a de minimus economic interest in the Company, less than 0.00015%, and its total equity contributions are limited to $100.

~~The Company~~OCM, through its subsidiary, OCM AcquisitionCo, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“AcquisitionCo”), owns 92,690 Series A1 Preferred Units (together with the Series A2 Preferred Units, the “Series A Units”) of Cannery Casino Resorts, LLC (“CCR”), which represent a 31.71% interest in the aggregate Series A Units of CCR. The Company owns more than 99.99% of the capital interest in OCM Blocker, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Blocker”), and Blocker owns all of the issued and outstanding units of AcquisitionCo. The Company ~~indirectly owned a 62-1/6% interest in CCR~~’s ~~Series C Preferred Units until they were redeemed on October 2, 2012 (as described below). The Company’s~~ current business consists primarily of its ownership of these equity interests in CCR. CCR, through wholly-owned subsidiaries, owns and operates ~~The~~the Cannery Hotel and Casino (~~“The~~the “Cannery”), located in North Las Vegas, Nevada and the Eastside Cannery Casino and Hotel (the “Eastside Cannery”), located in southeast Las Vegas~~, which opened on August 28, 2008, and operated the Rampart Casino, located in the Summerlin area of northwest Las Vegas~~. ~~CCR ceased its operations at the Rampart Casino when its sublease term expired in March 2012.~~ In addition, CCR, through a wholly owned subsidiary, PA Meadows, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“PA Meadows”), owns The Meadows Racetrack and Casino (~~“The~~the “Meadows”), an operating harness racetrack and ~~350,000 square foot~~ casino located in North Strabane Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania.

On January 5, 2006, OCM entered into an Option to Purchase CCR Units of OCM AcquisitionCo, LLC (the “Blocker Option Agreement”) with its subsidiary OCM Blocker, LLC (Blocker”), to purchase all of Blocker’s outstanding Class A Units and Class B Units (collectively, the “CCR Units”) in OCM AcquisitionCo, LLC (“AcquisitionCo”), along with any other equity interests in AcquisitionCo that Blocker may have owned at the time of exercise. OCM paid approximately $15.2 million as consideration for the execution and delivery of the Blocker Option Agreement. The Blocker Option Agreement expired on January 5, 2012 unexercised. As a result of the expiration, OCM recognized an expense for the $15.2 million, and Blocker recognized a gain for the same amount as of January 5, 2012. The transaction was eliminated during consolidation.

On October 2, 2012, CCR and Washington Trotting Association, a subsidiary of CCR (“WTA”), entered into two syndicated credit facilities with Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as administrative agent and collateral agent, swing line lender and letter of credit issuer, Bank of America, N.A., Goldman Sachs Bank USA (“GS”) and Wells Fargo Gaming Capital, LLC, as co-syndication agents, Credit Suisse AG, Cayman Islands Branch and Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc. (“MC”), as co-documentation agents and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (“DBSI”), Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, GS, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and MC, as Joint Lead Arrangers and Book Running Managers. Provisions of the new credit facilities included: a $425 million first lien facility consisting of a six-year $385 million term loan and a five-year $40 million revolving loan (collectively referred to herein as the “2012 First Lien Credit Facility”), and a seven-year $165 million second lien term loan facility (the “2012 Second Lien Credit Facility”). Portions of the proceeds were used to pay off then-existing $443.5 million debt that was outstanding from the May 18, 2007 refinancing and $86.9 million of the proceeds were distributed to certain owners of the Series C Preferred Units of CCR.

F-7

Table of Contents

On October 2, 2012, in connection with CCR entering into the 2012 First Lien Credit Facility and 2012 Second Lien Credit Facility, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Waiver and Amendment to Third Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of CCR (the “Waiver and Amendment”), by and among Crown CCR Group Investments One, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Crown One”) and Crown CCR Group Investments Two, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Crown Two” and collectively, the “Crown Parties”), Millennium Gaming, Inc., a Nevada corporation (“Millennium”), and AcquisitionCo (i) redeemed 39,384, 6,391, and 6,390 Series C Preferred Units held by AcquisitionCo, Crown One, and Crown Two, respectively (collectively, the “Series C Redemption”), and (ii) accepted contributions of 10,000, 7,241, 2,797 and 2,797 Series C Preferred Units from Millennium Gaming, AcquisitionCo, Crown One, and Crown Two, respectively (collectively, the “Series C Capital Contribution”). AcquisitionCo received $65.6 million from CCR in connection with the Series C Redemption and recognized a gain on the redemption of approximately $26.3 million and a non-cash equity contribution back to CCR of $7.2 million. Following the Series C Redemption and the Series C Capital Contribution, the Company continued to indirectly hold a 31.71% interest in the aggregate Series A Units of CCR.

On October 30, 2013, AcquisitionCo distributed $1.9 million as a return of capital to Blocker. Blocker in turn paid the Company a total of $1.9 million as payment of accrued interest on intercompany loans to the Company. The Company then repaid $0.9 million in principal and interest for a related party loan (see Note 5) and distributed $0.1 million to InvestCo as a return of capital.

In December 2013, the Company’s subsidiaries, OCM Land Co, LLC (“LandCo”) and OCM AcquisitionCo II, LLC were dissolved.

On May 13, 2014, CCR and its wholly-owned subsidiary, PA MezzCo, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company entered into a Membership Interest Purchase Agreement with Gaming and Leisure Properties, Inc. and one of its subsidiaries to sell PA Meadows for approximately $465 million (see Note 3).

On July 14, 2014, AcquisitionCo distributed $0.5 million as a return of capital to Blocker. Blocker in turn paid OCM a total of $0.5 million as payment of accrued interest on intercompany loans to OCM. OCM then distributed $1.1 million to InvestCo as a return of capital.

Concentrations and economic uncertainties

The Company ~~and~~expects ~~its consolidated subsidiaries expect~~ to be economically dependent upon relatively few investments in the gaming industry. The United States recently experienced a recession accompanied by, among other things, weakness in the commercial and investment banking systems resulting in reduced credit and capital financing availability, and highly curtailed gaming, other recreational, construction and real estate market activities and general discretionary consumer spending. Although capital market activity and liquidity have improved of late, the recovery from this recession period is fragile and there can be no assurance that our business, which has been severely affected by the downturn, will fully recover to pre-recession levels.

F-7

Table of Contents

NOTE 2 - Significant Accounting Policies:

Use of estimates

Timely preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, as well as the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting periods. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Management estimates that the Company will eventually sell its investment in unconsolidated investees following an expected economic recovery at a price sufficient to realize the carrying value of the Company’s assets; these estimates are subject to material variation over the next year.

Basis of accounting and presentation

The accompanying consolidated financial statements as of and for the years ended December 31, ~~2013~~2014 and ~~2012~~2013, include the accounts of the ~~Company~~OCM and its subsidiaries OCM Blocker, LLC (“Blocker”), ~~AcquisitionCo, OCM AcquisitionCo II, LLC,~~ and ~~OCM LandCo, LLC~~AcquisitionCo. All significant inter-company accounts and transactions have been eliminated.

The investment in CCR (see Note 3) is accounted for using the equity method of accounting. Accordingly, the Company measures all of its assets and liabilities on the historical cost basis of accounting except as required by generally accepted accounting principles.

Statement of cash flows and cash concentration

At the request and for the convenience of the Company, certain ~~of the~~ disbursements of ~~the~~OCM ~~Company~~ and its consolidated subsidiaries for operating expenses are made by InvestCo and/or its beneficial owners directly to vendors and investees, and distributions from the Company’s investees are received directly by InvestCo. Accordingly, these activities are treated as constructive cash inflows and outflows in the statements of cash flow.

F-8

Table of Contents

Gaming Licenses

Professional fees and other costs associated with the applications for licensure of ~~the~~OCM ~~Company~~ and its consolidated subsidiaries and certain ~~of its~~ beneficial owners, including payments to regulatory agencies, have been capitalized. These fees and costs have been treated as indefinite life intangible assets, based on expectations that such licenses would be granted and enable the Company to own interests in gaming enterprises, and benefit from future periods of profitable operations of its investees and resultant expected increases in the value of its investments. License renewal fees are not significant and are expensed as incurred.

Such assets are evaluated at least annually (and more frequently when circumstances warrant) to determine if events or changes in circumstances indicate that the probability that such assets will continue to benefit future periods might have been impaired. Examples of such events or changes in circumstances that might indicate impairment of these assets might include an active or likely regulatory threat to the availability or viability of a license, specifically, as a result of (i) non-compliance with regulations, (ii) an adverse change in the legal, regulatory or business climate relative to gaming nationally or in the jurisdiction, or (iii) a significant long term decline in historical or forecasted earnings or cash flows of the investee or the fair value of its property or business possibly as a result of competitive or other economic or political factors. As of December 31, ~~2013~~2014, based on our evaluation, there has been no impairment to these assets.

Income taxes

The Company records estimated penalties and interest, if any, related to income tax matters, including uncertain tax positions, if any, as a component of income tax expense.

Members’ capital

Allocations of net income and distributions to the Members are determined in accordance with the Company’s operating agreement.

NOTE 3 - Unconsolidated Investees:

For the year ended December 31, ~~2013~~2014, the Company’s equity in loss of CCR totaled $72,~~434~~972,~~403~~256. For the year ended December 31, ~~2012~~2013, the Company’s equity in the loss of CCR totaled $57,~~839~~434,~~077, respectively~~403.

~~The following tables present condensed financial information of CCR as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, and for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012:~~F-8

	2013			2012
Balance Sheet
Current assets	$	66,779,000		$	73,700,000
Investments in securities	383,000			383,000
Property and equipment, net	656,580,000			673,714,000
Other	119,335,000			126,514,000
	$	843,077,000		$	874,311,000
Current liabilities	$	35,348,000		$	35,338,000
Long-term liabilities	561,893,000			569,952,000
Members’ equity	245,836,000			269,021,000
	$	843,077,000		$	874,311,000
Income Statement
Revenue	$	443,354,000		$	486,825,000
Net loss	$	(23,445,000	)	$	(18,414,000	)

Table of Contents

The following tables present condensed financial information of CCR as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, and for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 (in thousands):

	2014			2013
Balance Sheet
Current assets	$	65,816		$	66,779
Investments in securities	327			383
Property and equipment, net	631,390			656,580
Other	116,382			119,335
	$	813,915		$	843,077

Current liabilities	$	35,277		$	35,348
Long-term liabilities	542,478			561,893
Members’ equity	236,160			245,836
	$	813,915		$	843,077

Income Statement
Revenue	$	422,089		$	443,354

Net loss	$	(9,373	)	$	(23,445	)

On May 13, 2014, CCR and its wholly-owned subsidiary, PA MezzCo, LLC, (“MezzCo” and collectively with CCR, the “Sellers”), entered into a Membership Interest Purchase Agreement (the “MIPA”) with Gaming and Leisure Properties, Inc. (“GLPI”) and GLP Capital, L.P., a subsidiary of GLPI, (“GLP,” and together with GLPI, the “Buyers”) to sell PA Meadows for approximately $465 million. To close, the transaction requires approval from the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (the “Pennsylvania Board”) and the Pennsylvania Racing Commission (the “Pennsylvania Commission”) and, subject to a favorable outcome to Sellers in the litigation discussed in the next paragraph, is expected to close in 2015. In connection with entering into the MIPA, Sellers simultaneously also entered into a consulting agreement with the Buyers (“Consulting Agreement”) whereby Sellers have agreed to provide general advisory services to the Buyers relating to the transaction contemplated under the MIPA. The Consulting Agreement terminates upon the earliest of (i) the closing of the sale of PA Meadows, (ii) 33 months from execution of the Consulting Agreement, or (iii) the failure of the Buyers and Sellers to deliver certain required representations to extend the Consulting Agreement upon the 13-month and 25-month anniversary of executing the Consulting Agreement. Upon executing the Consulting Agreement, Sellers received a non-refundable consulting fee of $10 million, and if extended, would earn a $5 million extension fee at each of the 13-month and 25-month anniversaries of executing the Consulting Agreement, assuming the delivery of certain representations and subject to a favorable outcome to Sellers in the litigation discussed in the next paragraph.

On October 27, 2014, GLPI filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against CCR. The lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by GLPI for jurisdictional reasons on December 29, 2014. On January 7, 2015, GLPI and GLP filed a lawsuit against Sellers in the Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York. Buyers allege breach of contract and other misconduct on the part of CCR with respect to the MIPA and Consulting Agreement. Buyers seek declaratory relief regarding the breach of contract claims, unspecified damages and a declaration that a material adverse effect has occurred that would excuse GLPI from closing the transaction to purchase PA Meadows.

CCR’s management believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the suit vigorously to ensure that GLPI complies with its contractual obligations under both agreements, but the ultimate outcome of this litigation cannot be predicted at this time.

NOTE 4 - Income Taxes:

Prior to the election by Blocker to be taxable as a corporation, effective January 1, 2006, neither the parent nor its subsidiaries were tax-paying entities for federal or state income tax purposes. Blocker owns 100% of the other subsidiaries included in this consolidation. Accordingly, equity in the flow-through earnings of CCR is taxed to Blocker. Blocker also incurred interest expense ($2~~,659,460~~.7 million for ~~2013~~2014 and $~~3,528,600~~2.7 million for ~~2012, respectively~~2013) on inter-company indebtedness ($50~~,000,000~~ million at both December 31, ~~2013~~2014 and ~~2012~~2013) that is deductible for tax purposes (a permanent difference) but is eliminated, along with the related debt, in this consolidation. The Company incurs certain other costs, primarily associated with being a public company, including professional and other fees, which, for tax purposes, flow through to its members.

F-9

Table of Contents

Income tax provision (benefit) of $7.8 million and $(0.4) million for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively, are comprised entirely of deferred tax provision (benefit) and changes to the deferred tax asset valuation allowance. The following table presents a reconciliation of the income tax provision (benefit) ~~with~~ that was determined by applying the statutory U.S. federal income tax rate to ~~income~~loss before income taxes for the years ended December 31, ~~2013~~2014 and ~~2012~~2013:

	2013					2012
	2014					2013
	Amount			Percentage		Amount			Percentage
	Amount (in thousands)			Percentage		Amount (in thousands)			Percentage
Statutory federal rate	$	(21,~~715,000~~140	)	35	%	$	7(2,~~027,000~~715	)	35	%
General business tax credits	(~~88,000~~109		)	13	%	(~~118,000~~88		)	(1	)%
Miscellaneous CCR attributes	~~281,000~~195			(46	)%	~~236,000~~281			1(4	)%
Rampart/CCR lease	—			0	%	(148,000		)	(1	)%
Intercompany interest expense	(945		)	29	%	(931		)	12	%
Expired Option	—			0	%	5,335,000			27	%
Attributes passed through to members	103			(3	)%	116			(1	)%
Intercompany interest expense	(931,000		)	12	%	(1,235,000		)	(6	)%
CCR income not taxable to Company	289			(9	)%	71			(1	)%
Attributes passed through to members	116,000			(1	)%	125,000			1	%
Return to provision reconciliation	(123		)	4	%	66			(1	)%
CCR income not taxable to Company	71,000			(1	)%	(928,000		)	(5	)%
Valuation allowance	9,557			(293	)%	2,793			(36	)%
Return to provision reconciliation	66,000			(1	)%	(140,000		)	(1	)%
Tax at effective rate	$	7,827		(240	)%	$	(407	)	5	%
Other	—			0	%	15,000			0	%
Valuation allowance	2,793,000			(36	)%	—			0	%
Tax at effective rate	$	(407,000	)	5	%	$	10,169,000		50	%

At December 31, ~~2013~~2014, Blocker had approximately $~~69,658,000~~76.4 million and $1~~,101,000~~.9 million in federal net operating loss and general business tax credit carryforwards, which expire beginning in 2026. The Company’s general business plan is to eventually, following the likely economic recovery (Note 6), sell its appreciated investment in its unconsolidated investee before its net operating loss carryforwards begin to expire, and, thus realize a majority of the related deferred tax assets. As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, the Company has recorded a valuation allowance to reduce its deferred tax assets to the amount that is more likely than not to be realized. ~~The~~Management ~~Company did not record a valuation allowance as of December 31, 2012 as realization of deferred tax assets was~~ considered ~~more likely than not. Management considers~~ the scheduled reversal of deferred tax liabilities, projected taxable income and tax planning strategies in making this assessment.

Deferred income taxes reflect the net tax effects of temporary differences between the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes and the amounts used to determine taxable income for income tax reporting purposes. The following table presents the significant components of the non-current deferred tax assets (liabilities) of the Company and its consolidated subsidiaries related to its investment in CCR for the years ended December 31, ~~2013~~2014 and ~~2012~~2013:

	2013			2012
	2014 (in thousands)			2013 (in thousands)
Basis adjustment (Section 754 elections)	$	(1011,~~711,000~~869	)	$	(910,~~502,000~~711	)
Other CCR attributes	(21,~~330,000~~917		)	(32,~~214,000~~330		)
Other comprehensive income	~~68,000~~101			~~110,000~~68
General business tax credits	1,~~860,000~~933			1,~~772,000~~860
Minimum tax credit carryover	—			4,000
Charitable contributions	60			—
Distributions from unconsolidated investee	(2,680~~,000~~		)	(2,680~~,000~~		)
Net operating loss carryforwards	2426,~~380,000~~722			2024,~~944,000~~380
	10,587,000			7,434,000
	12,350			10,587
Valuation allowance	(212,~~793,000~~350		)	—(2,793		)
Deferred tax asset, net of valuation allowance	~~7,794,000~~—			7,~~434,000~~794
Deferred tax asset (liability), current	230,000			47,000
Deferred tax (liability) asset, current	(28		)	230
Deferred tax asset, non-current	$	~~7,564,000~~28		$	7,~~387,000~~564

The other CCR attributes shown above consist primarily of depreciation and amortization.

Management has made an analysis of its state and federal tax returns that remain subject to examination by major authorities (consisting of tax years ~~2010~~2011 and thereafter) and concluded that the Company has no recordable liability as a result of uncertain tax positions taken. The Company is generally subject to audit for tax years ~~2010~~2011 and forward.

On June 23, 2011, the Internal Revenue Services (the “IRS”) proposed adjustments for certain deductions on WTA’s corporate income tax returns for tax years ended December 31, 2007 through 2009. The deductions primarily relate to a loss attributable to the dismantling of the temporary casino facility. The IRS initially took a position that this loss deduction should be disallowed in full. CCR’s management vigorously defended its position and maintains that the position taken was proper and supported by applicable laws and regulations. Nevertheless, on November 26, 2012, CCR reached a settlement with the IRS Appeals Office pursuant to which the IRS has agreed to allow 70% of this loss deduction. The net effect of the settlement is a $6.4 million reduction of the net operating loss generated by WTA in 2009.

F-10

Table of Contents

NOTE 5—Related party loans

F-10

Table of Contents

NOTE 6—Contingencies

The ~~Company~~United ~~often~~States ~~carries~~recently ~~cash~~experienced ~~and~~a ~~equivalents~~recession onaccompanied ~~deposit~~by, ~~with~~among ~~financial~~other ~~institutions~~things, ~~substantially~~weakness in ~~excess~~the ofcommercial ~~federally-insured limits,~~ and ~~the~~investment ~~risk~~banking ofsystems ~~losses~~resulting ~~related~~in toreduced ~~such~~credit ~~concentrations~~and ~~has~~capital ~~been~~financing ~~increasing~~availability, asand ahighly ~~result~~curtailed ofgaming, ~~recent~~other ~~economic~~recreational, ~~developments~~construction and ~~uncertainties~~real ~~discussed~~estate inmarket ~~the~~activities ~~foregoing~~and ~~paragraph. The~~general ~~extent~~discretionary ofconsumer ~~any~~spending. ~~loss~~Although ~~that~~capital ~~might~~market beactivity ~~incurred~~and asliquidity ahave ~~result~~improved of ~~uninsured~~late, ~~deposits~~the inrecovery ~~the~~from ~~event~~this ofrecession aperiod ~~future~~is ~~failure~~fragile ofand athere ~~bank~~can orbe ~~other~~no ~~financial~~assurance ~~institutions,~~that ifour ~~any~~business, iswhich ~~not~~has ~~subject~~been toseverely ~~estimation~~affected atby ~~this~~the ~~time~~downturn, will fully recover to pre-recession levels.

The Company often carries cash on deposit with financial institutions substantially in excess of federally-insured limits, and the risk of losses related to such concentrations has been increasing as a result of recent economic developments and uncertainties discussed in the foregoing paragraph. The extent of any loss that might be incurred as a result of uninsured deposits in the event of a future failure of a bank or other financial institutions, if any, is not subject to estimation at this time.

As disclosed in Note 3 Unconsolidated Investees, CCR is involved in litigation with GLPI relating to the PA Meadows transaction.

NOTE 7—Distribution to members

On October 30, 2013, AcquisitionCo distributed $1.9 million as a return of capital to Blocker. Blocker in turn paid the Company a total of $1.9 million as payment of accrued interest on intercompany loans to the Company. The Company then repaid $0.9 million in principal and interest for related party loans (see Note 5) and distributed $0.1 million to InvestCo as a return of capital.

NOTE 8—Financial Instruments

Except for cash, the fair value of which equals its carrying value, the only significant financial instruments the Company has is its investment in unconsolidated investees accounted for on the equity method for which fair value disclosure is not required.

F-11

Filing Compare · OCM HoldCo, LLC