Table of Contents

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

Commission file number 000-21640

STATION CASINOS, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

         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 ý    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 o    No 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 definition of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act:

         Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o    No ý

         Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

         As of August 2, 2010 there were 41.7 shares outstanding of the registrant's voting common stock, $0.01 par value and 41,674,838 shares outstanding of the registrant's non-voting common stock, $0.01 par value. The issued and outstanding equity securities of the registrant are all owned by FCP Holding Inc., Fertitta Partners LLC and FCP VoteCo LLC.

---

Table of Contents

STATION CASINOS, INC.
(Debtor and Debtor-In-Possession)
INDEX

2

---

Table of Contents

Part I. Financial Information

Item 1.    Financial Statements

        

STATION CASINOS, INC.

(Debtor and Debtor-In-Possession)

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(amounts in thousands, except share data)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

3

---

Table of Contents

STATION CASINOS, INC.

(Debtor and Debtor-In-Possession)

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(amounts in thousands)

(unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

4

---

Table of Contents

STATION CASINOS, INC.

(Debtor and Debtor-In-Possession)

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(amounts in thousands)

(unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

5

---

Table of Contents

STATION CASINOS, INC.
(Debtor and Debtor-In-Possession)
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(unaudited)

1. Basis of Presentation

        Station Casinos, Inc. (the "Company", "Station", "we", "our" or "us"), a Nevada corporation, is a gaming and entertainment company that currently owns and operates ten major hotel/casino properties (two of which are 50% owned) and eight smaller casino properties (three of which are 50% owned), in the Las Vegas metropolitan area, as well as manages a casino for a Native American tribe. The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Station, its wholly-owned subsidiaries and MPM Enterprises, LLC (which is 50% owned by Station and required to be consolidated). Investments in all other 50% or less owned affiliated companies are accounted for under the equity method. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated.

        The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements included herein have been prepared by Station, without audit, pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States have been condensed or omitted pursuant to such rules and regulations, although we believe that the disclosures are adequate to make the information presented not misleading. In the opinion of management, all adjustments (which include normal recurring adjustments) necessary for a fair presentation of the results for the interim periods have been made. The results for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010 are not necessarily indicative of results to be expected for the full fiscal year. These financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended, for the year ended December 31, 2009, and in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2010.

        Certain amounts in the condensed consolidated financial statements for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009 have been reclassified to be consistent with the current year presentation. These reclassifications had no effect on the previously reported net loss.

Overview of Recent Developments

        On July 28, 2009, the Company and certain of its affiliates (collectively, the "Debtors") filed voluntary petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada in Reno, Nevada (the "Bankruptcy Court") under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code. These cases are being jointly administered under the caption In re Station Casinos, Inc., et al Debtors Case No. 09-52470 (the "Chapter 11 Case"). On February 10, 2010, GV Ranch Station, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Station Casinos, Inc. that manages and owns 50% of Green Valley Ranch Resort Spa Casino ("Green Valley Ranch"), filed a voluntary petition in the Bankruptcy Court under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code. The Chapter 11 Case and the GV Ranch Station, Inc. chapter 11 case are collectively referred to as the "Chapter 11 Cases."

        On June 4, 2010 the Bankruptcy Court approved bidding procedures for the auction of certain assets of Station and the other Debtors, including Santa Fe Station, Texas Station, Fiesta Henderson, Fiesta Rancho and Native American gaming projects (the "New Opco Acquired Assets"). Pursuant to the approved bidding procedures, a newly-formed company ("Newco"), which is expected to be owned primarily by the mortgage lenders of FCP Propco, LLC ("Propco" and the "Propco Lenders", respectively), Fertitta Gaming LLC, which is owned by affiliates of Frank J. Fertitta III and Lorenzo J. Fertitta ("Fertitta Gaming"), and, if certain options or warrants are exercised, an affiliate of Colony Capital, submitted a $772 million "stalking horse" bid to acquire the New Opco Acquired Assets. On

6

---

Table of Contents

1. Basis of Presentation (Continued)

August 6, 2010, the stalking horse bid submitted by Newco was declared the winning bid in the auction of the New Opco Acquired Assets. and the Company, certain of its subsidiaries and Newco entered into an asset purchase agreement with respect to the sale of such assets (the "Asset Purchase Agreement") . The consummation of the sale of the New Opco Acquired Assets is subject to the satisfaction of conditions set forth in the Asset Purchase Agreement, including confirmation of the Debtors' Joint Plan of Reorganization, described below, final approval of the sale by the Bankruptcy Court and receipt of required regulatory approvals. Following the consummation of the restructuring and the acquisition of the New Opco Acquired Assets, it is expected that subsidiaries of Fertitta Gaming will manage the Red Rock Casino Resort Spa, Palace Station, Boulder Station and Sunset Station (the "Propco Properties") and the New Opco Acquired Assets pursuant to long term management contracts.

        On July 28, 2010, the Debtors filed the First Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization for Station Casinos, Inc. and Its Affiliated Debtors (the "Joint Plan of Reorganization") and an accompanying Disclosure Statement (the "Disclosure Statement"). The Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving the Disclosure Statement on July 29, 2010.

        Fertitta Gaming and a steering committee representing over 60% of the Company's senior secured bank debt (the "Opco Lenders") have entered into a restructuring support agreement pursuant to which, among other things: (a) the Opco Lenders agreed to support the Joint Plan of Reorganization and Newco's stalking horse bid to purchase the New Opco Acquired Assets; and (b) the parties agreed to support a restructuring of Propco pursuant to which the Propco Properties would be acquired by the Propco Lenders.

        In addition, the Debtors and the official committee of unsecured creditors (the "Unsecured Committee") have entered into a stipulation (the "Stipulation") pursuant to which the Unsecured Committee agreed, among other things, to refrain from engaging in certain litigation activity and recommend that all unsecured creditors of the Company vote to accept the Joint Plan of Reorganization, which provides that certain unsecured creditors of the Company will receive certain (i) warrants exercisable for equity interests in Newco and (ii) rights to participate in a rights offering ("Rights Offering") and certain other equity offerings contemplated to be conducted by Newco. In connection with the execution of the Stipulation, certain holders of the Company's unsecured notes have committed, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions, to purchase up to $100 million, in the aggregate, of equity interests contemplated to be issued by Newco in the Rights Offering and certain other equity offerings by Newco if such equity interests are not otherwise purchased in such offerings.

        This report is not intended to be, and should not in any way be construed as, a solicitation of votes on the Joint Plan of Reorganization. The Joint Plan of Reorganization and the Disclosure Statement have been filed with the Bankruptcy Court and were filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by the Company on its Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 28, 2010, which is publicly available at http://www.sec.gov. The Company is currently soliciting acceptances of the Joint Plan of Reorganization and will seek its confirmation by the Bankruptcy Court. There can be no assurance that such plan acceptances or confirmation will be obtained or that the transactions contemplated by the Asset Purchase Agreement will be consummated.

        Other than GV Ranch Station, Inc., which manages and operates one of the Company's 50% owned hotel/casino properties, the Company's direct and indirect subsidiaries that operate its hotel and casino properties have not filed for bankruptcy relief and continue to operate their businesses in the ordinary course. As required by the Asset Purchase Agreement, however, the Debtors anticipate filing Chapter 11 cases for its subsidiaries following confirmation of the Joint Plan of Reorganization to the extent required to implement and facilitate the sale and related restructuring transactions.

7

---

Table of Contents

1. Basis of Presentation (Continued)

        The Debtors continue to conduct their businesses as debtors-in-possession under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and in accordance with applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and the orders of the Bankruptcy Court.

Accounting for Reorganization

        Accounting Standards Codification ("ASC") Topic 852, Reorganizations provides accounting guidance for financial reporting by entities in reorganization under the bankruptcy code including companies in chapter 11, and generally does not change the manner in which financial statements are prepared. The condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared on a going-concern basis, which assumes continuity of operations, realization of assets and satisfaction of liabilities in the ordinary course of business. The Chapter 11 Cases create substantial doubt about Station's ability to continue as a going concern. The accompanying consolidated financial statements do not reflect any adjustments relating to the recoverability of assets and the classification of liabilities that might result from the outcome of these uncertainties. In addition, a plan of reorganization could materially change the amounts and classifications reported in the consolidated financial statements which do not give effect to any adjustments to the carrying values of assets or amounts of liabilities that might be necessary as a consequence of confirmation of a plan of reorganization.

        Station's ability to continue as a going concern is contingent upon, among other things, its ability to (i) generate sufficient cash flow from operations; and (ii) obtain confirmation of a plan of reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code. In the event Station's restructuring activities are not successful and it is required to liquidate, the Company will be required to adopt the liquidation basis of accounting. Under the liquidation basis of accounting, assets are stated at their estimated net realizable values and liabilities are stated at their estimated settlement amounts.

        ASC Topic 852 requires that the financial statements for periods subsequent to the filing of the Chapter 11 Case distinguish transactions and events that are directly associated with the reorganization from the ongoing operations of the business. As a result, revenues, expenses, realized gains and losses, and provisions for losses that can be directly associated with the reorganization and restructuring of the business were reported separately as reorganization items in the statements of operations beginning in the quarter ended September 30, 2009. ASC Topic 852 also requires that the balance sheet distinguish pre-petition liabilities subject to compromise from both those pre-petition liabilities that are not subject to compromise and from post-petition liabilities, and requires that cash used for reorganization items be disclosed separately in the statement of cash flows. Station adopted ASC Topic 852 on July 28, 2009 and has segregated those items as outlined above for all reporting periods subsequent to such date.

Factors Affecting Comparability

        As a result of the filing of the Chapter 11 Cases, Station is now periodically required to file various documents with (and provide certain information to) the Bankruptcy Court, including statements of financial affairs, schedules of assets and liabilities, and monthly operating reports in forms prescribed by federal bankruptcy law, as well as certain financial information on an unconsolidated basis. Such materials will be prepared according to requirements of federal bankruptcy law. While they accurately provide then-current information required under federal bankruptcy law, they are nonetheless unconsolidated, unaudited, and prepared in a format different from that used in Station's financial statements filed under the securities laws. Accordingly, we believe that the substance and format do not allow meaningful comparison with our regular publicly disclosed financial statements. Moreover, the materials filed with the Bankruptcy Court are not prepared for the purpose of providing a basis for an investment decision relating

8

---

Table of Contents

1. Basis of Presentation (Continued)

to Station's securities, or for comparison with other financial information filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

DIP Financing

        In connection with the filing of the Chapter 11 Case, on July 31, 2009, the Company entered into a $150 million unsecured, subordinated administrative priority debtor in possession credit agreement (the "DIP Credit Agreement") among the Company, as borrower, Vista Holdings, LLC (a non-debtor subsidiary of the Company) as administrative agent (the "Administrative Agent") and lender, and the lenders party thereto. The DIP Credit Agreement provided for a $150 million revolving credit facility to be funded on a committed basis for so long as Vista Holdings, LLC has cash and cash equivalents on hand in an amount in excess of $100 million. During the three months ended March 31, 2010, the DIP Credit Agreement was amended to increase the facility to $185 million. The proceeds of the loans incurred under the DIP Credit Agreement will be used for working capital and other general corporate purposes of the Company and will be available for intercompany loans to its subsidiaries during the pendency of the Chapter 11 Case. At June 30, 2010, advances under the DIP Credit Agreement totaled $172.0 million. The DIP Credit Agreement matured on August 10, 2010.

        The Company's obligations under the DIP Credit Agreement will be an administrative expense claim in the Chapter 11 Case having pari passu priority with other administrative expense claims, provided that repayment of the loan by the Company shall be subordinate to the full repayment of the lenders under the Company's prepetition Credit Agreement.

        The Company's obligations under the DIP Credit Agreement may be accelerated following certain events of default, including (without limitation) the conversion of any of the Chapter 11 Case to a case under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code or the appointment of a trustee pursuant to chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

        Also, in connection with the filing of the Chapter 11 Case, on July 31, 2009, the Company entered into an Unsecured Revolving Loan Promissory Note in favor of Past Enterprises, Inc. (a non-debtor subsidiary of the Company) pursuant to which Past Enterprises provides to the Company an unlimited revolving credit facility (the "Past Revolving Loan") at an interest rate of 2.78% per annum, the proceeds of which will be used for working capital and other general corporate purposes of the Company and will be available for intercompany loans to its subsidiaries. We still have the ability to borrow under the Past Revolving Loan, and there is no limit on the Company's borrowings under the Past Revolving Loan.

        The Past Revolving Loan matures on the earlier of (i) demand, or (ii) July 31, 2011, and provides for a default rate of interest of 4.78% if principal or interest due thereunder is not paid when due. At June 30, 2010, the outstanding balance due under the Past Revolving Loan totaled $177.4 million.

        The Company's obligations under the Past Revolving Loan will be an administrative expense claim in the Chapter 11 Case having pari passu priority with other administrative expense claims, provided that repayment of the loan by the Company shall be subordinate to the full repayment of the lenders under the Company's prepetition Credit Agreement.

Significant Accounting Policies

        A description of the Company's significant accounting policies can be found in Item 7 of its Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended, for the year ended December 31, 2009.

9

---

Table of Contents

1. Basis of Presentation (Continued)

Recently Issued Accounting Standards

        In April 2010, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued Accounting Standards Update ("ASU") No. 2010-17, Revenue Recognition—Milestone Method (Topic 605): Milestone Method of Revenue Recognition, a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force. The amendments in this Update provide guidance on the criteria that should be met for determining whether the milestone method of revenue recognition is appropriate. A vendor can recognize the consideration that is contingent upon the achievement of a milestone in its entirety as revenue in the period in which the milestone is achieved only if the milestone meets all criteria to be considered substantive. The amendments in this Update are effective on a prospective basis for milestones achieved in fiscal years, and interim periods within those years beginning on or after June 15, 2010, and early adoption is permitted. The adoption of this new guidance is not expected to have a material impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements.

        A variety of proposed or otherwise potential accounting guidance is currently under study by standard-setting organizations and certain regulatory agencies. Because of the tentative and preliminary nature of such proposed accounting guidance, we have not yet determined the effect, if any, that the implementation of such proposed accounting guidance would have on our condensed consolidated financial statements.

2. Intangible Assets

        Intangible assets, net consist of the following (amounts in thousands):

 

        The intangible asset for customer relationships refers to the value associated with our rated casino guests. The Company amortizes its definite-lived intangible assets ratably over their estimated useful lives. The aggregate amortization expense for those assets that are amortized under the provisions of ASC Topic 350, Intangibles—Goodwill and Other, was approximately $6.7 million and $15.6 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010 and approximately $14.1 million and $28.2 million for the three and six

10

---

Table of Contents

2. Intangible Assets (Continued)

months ended June 30, 2009, respectively. Estimated annual amortization expense for intangible assets for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 is anticipated to be approximately $16.0 million, $3.8 million, $4.3 million, $23.8 million and $23.8 million, respectively.

3. Investments in Joint Ventures

        We have various investments in 50% owned joint ventures, and a 6.7% investment in a joint venture that owns the Palms Casino Resort in Las Vegas, Nevada, which are accounted for under the equity method. Under the equity method, original investments are recorded at cost and adjusted by our share of earnings, losses and distributions of the joint ventures, and the carrying value of investments may be reduced below zero, resulting in a deficit investment balance, when the investor is committed to provide further financial support for the investee. The investment balance also includes the effect of any previously recognized impairment charges. As of June 30, 2010, we have received distributions in excess of our equity earnings. Investments in joint ventures consist of the following (amounts in thousands):

11

---

Table of Contents

3. Investments in Joint Ventures (Continued)

        Summarized balance sheet information for the joint ventures is as follows (amounts in thousands):

        Summarized results of operations for the joint ventures are as follows (amounts in thousands, unaudited):

        The operating earnings from these joint ventures are shown as a separate line item on our condensed consolidated statements of operations after operating income. In addition, interest and other expense from joint ventures is shown as a separate component under other expense on our condensed consolidated statements of operations, and includes our 50% interest in the mark-to-market valuation of the interest rate swaps that are not designated as hedging instruments for accounting purposes. The following table identifies the total equity loss from joint ventures (amounts in thousands, unaudited):

12

---

Table of Contents

4. Long-term Debt and Liabilities Subject to Compromise

        Long-term debt consists of the following (amounts in thousands):

Liabilities Subject to Compromise

        Under bankruptcy law, actions by creditors to collect upon liabilities of the Debtors incurred prior to the Petition Date are stayed and certain other pre-petition contractual obligations may not be enforced against the Debtors without approval of the Court. In accordance with ASC Topic 852, these liabilities are classified as liabilities subject to compromise in our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30,

13

---

Table of Contents

4. Long-term Debt and Liabilities Subject to Compromise (Continued)

2010 and December 31, 2009, and are adjusted to the expected amount of the allowed claims, even if they may be settled for lesser amounts. The expected amount of the allowed claims for certain liabilities subject to compromise differ from their prepetition carrying amounts mainly as a result of the write-off of approximately $185.7 million in debt discounts during the year ended December 31, 2009 and the reversal of approximately $88.6 million in nonperformance risk adjustments that had previously been included in the pre-petition fair values of the interest rate swap liabilities in accordance with ASC Topic 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures. Adjustments to the claims may result from negotiations, payments authorized by the Court, interest accruals, or other events. It is anticipated that such adjustments, if any, could be material. As of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively, certain pre-petition liabilities included in liabilities subject to compromise have been reduced or increased as a result of the payment of certain accounts payable and notes payable as allowed by the court, and as a result of non-cash adjustments of the expected amount of the allowed claims related to interest rate swap liabilities. In addition, during the six months ended June 30, 2010, a $6.1 million settlement liability related to a pre-petition litigation matter was recorded. Any payment terms established for the liabilities subject to compromise will be established in connection with actual confirmation of a plan of reorganization. Liabilities subject to compromise are classified separately from long-term obligations and current liabilities on the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets.

        Liabilities subject to compromise consist of the following (in thousands):

Interest Expense

        In accordance with ASC Topic 852, interest expense is recognized only to the extent that it will be paid during the bankruptcy proceeding or that it is probable that it will be an allowed claim. Currently the Company is not accruing interest for the senior notes, the senior subordinated notes or the mezzanine financings. As a result, post-petition interest expense is lower than pre-petition interest expense. The write-off of debt discounts and deferred debt issue costs related to liabilities subject to compromise also reduces post-petition interest expense as there are no longer any non-cash amortization charges related to these items.

14

---

Table of Contents

4. Long-term Debt and Liabilities Subject to Compromise (Continued)

CMBS Loans

        In connection with the Merger, on November 7, 2007, a number of wholly-owned unrestricted direct and indirect subsidiaries of Station (collectively, the "CMBS Borrower") entered into a mortgage loan and related mezzanine financings in the aggregate principal amount of $2.475 billion (the "CMBS Loans"), for the purpose of financing the Merger consideration payable to the Company's stockholders upon consummation of the Merger and paying fees and expenses incurred in connection with the Merger.

        The CMBS Loans are secured by substantially all fee and leasehold real property comprising Palace Station, Boulder Station, Sunset Station and Red Rock (collectively, the "CMBS Property") and will mature in November 2010. Prior to the 2009 maturity date, the CMBS Borrower exercised a one-year extension to extend the maturity date to November 2010 subject to two additional one-year extensions. The lenders have disputed the effectiveness of the extension. Interest on the CMBS Loans is equal to one-month LIBOR plus 5.3% per annum, which includes an additional 3.0% default rate. As a result of the Chapter 11 Case, interest due on the mezzanine financings is not being remitted to the mezzanine lenders. The CMBS Borrower is required to hedge the LIBOR interest rate such that it will not exceed 5.5% on a blended basis. As a result, the CMBS Borrower purchased interest rate caps with a combined notional amount of $1.11 billion and a cap rate of 5.8% for an initial premium of $3.6 million. The initial premium was recorded in other assets and, in accordance with the authoritative guidance for accounting for derivative Instruments and hedging activities, is marked to market at each reporting period. In addition, the CMBS Borrower entered into an interest rate swap with a notional amount of $1.36 billion in which the borrower paid a fixed rate of approximately 5.3% and received one-month LIBOR, terminating in November 2012. This interest rate swap was early terminated during the three months ended December 31, 2009 (see Note 5—Derivative Instruments).

        The loan documents for the CMBS Loans (the "CMBS Loan Documents") contain a number of covenants that, among other things, restrict, subject to certain exceptions, each wholly-owned unrestricted direct and indirect subsidiary's ability to incur additional indebtedness; create liens on assets; engage in mergers or consolidations; sell assets; pay dividends or make distributions; make investments, loans or advances; make certain acquisitions; engage in certain transactions with affiliates; and fundamentally change its business. The CMBS Loan Documents also require the CMBS Borrower to fund specific reserves as defined. In addition, the CMBS Loan Documents contain a requirement that if the CMBS Borrower fails to maintain a minimum lease coverage ratio of 1.15 to 1.00 during two consecutive fiscal quarters, 80% of the funds available following the payment of all amounts and reserves required to be made pursuant to the CMBS Loan Documents be deposited into an account for the benefit of the lenders instead of permitting distribution of such funds to the Company. As of December 31, 2009 and June 30, 2010, we were not in compliance with the lease coverage ratio. In a letter dated April 6, 2009 to the CMBS Borrower, certain lenders under the CMBS Loans alleged that the CMBS Borrower had not calculated the lease coverage ratio in accordance with the CMBS Loan Documents for the quarters ended September 30, 2008 and December 31, 2008 and further alleged that the CMBS Borrower would not have been in compliance with the minimum lease coverage ratio if the lease coverage ratio had been properly calculated. As a result, those lenders instituted a block against the release of 80% of the funds available following the payment of all amounts and reserves due under the CMBS Loans and instructed our depository bank to hold such funds in a collateral account for the benefit of the lenders. As a result of the Chapter 11 Case, the block against the release of funds increased to 100% of the funds available following the payment of all amounts and reserves due under the CMBS Loans. As of June 30, 2010, $136.3 million has been deposited in the collateral account in relation to this block, which is recorded in restricted cash on the condensed consolidated balance sheet.

15

---

Table of Contents

4. Long-term Debt and Liabilities Subject to Compromise (Continued)

Land Loan

        On February 7, 2008, CV Propco, LLC, a wholly-owned, indirect unrestricted subsidiary of Station, as borrower, entered into a $250 million delay-draw term loan which is collateralized by land located on the southern end of Las Vegas Boulevard at Cactus Avenue and land surrounding Wild Wild West in Las Vegas, Nevada (the "Land Loan"). The Land Loan contains no principal amortization and matures on February 7, 2011. At closing, $200 million was drawn with the remaining $50 million drawn in June 2008. The proceeds were used to fund a distribution to Station, establish an interest reserve and pay transaction expenses. Borrowings under the Land Loan bear interest at LIBOR plus 5.5% per annum or at the Alternate Base Rate (as defined in the Land Loan) plus 4.5% per annum, which includes an additional 2% default rate, at the borrower's election. The borrower is required to hedge the interest rate such that LIBOR will not exceed 6.5%. As a result, the borrower entered into two interest rate swap agreements with notional amounts of $200 million and $50 million in which the borrower pays a fixed LIBOR rate of 3.0% and 3.7%, respectively, and receives one-month LIBOR. These interest rate swaps were early terminated in November 2009 (see Note 5—Derivative Instruments).

        The Land Loan contains a number of covenants that, among other things, restrict, subject to certain exceptions, the borrower's ability to incur additional indebtedness; create liens on assets; engage in mergers or consolidations; sell assets; pay dividends or make distributions; make investments, loans or advances; make certain acquisitions; engage in certain transactions with affiliates; and fundamentally change its business. In addition, the Land Loan requires the borrower to maintain a loan-to-value ratio of no more than 40% and also contains customary affirmative covenants and certain events of default.

        During the first quarter of 2009, the lenders under the Land Loan, based on appraisals, indicated their opinion that the value of the collateral had likely decreased to the point that the loan-to-value ratio was no longer less than 40%, as required under the credit agreement, and thus an event of default had occurred under the credit agreement. As a result of such event of default, lenders have become entitled to exercise remedies, including, among other things, the ability to declare the Land Loan and related accrued interest due and payable and to foreclose on the underlying collateral of the borrower which at June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009 included land with a book value of $133.2 million. In December 2009, the balance of the interest reserve account of $8.2 million was liquidated, and $8.0 million was applied as a principal reduction to the loan with the remainder applied to the swap termination settlement amount. In addition, the borrower did not make the November 2009 payments or any subsequent payments due on account of interest or the interest rate swap agreements. There is no recourse to the Company for any portion of the land loan that is not satisfied by the Borrower or the collateral. The Company is in discussions with the lenders regarding a restructuring of the Land Loan however the Company can provide no assurance that it will be able to reach an agreement with the lenders. As a result the outstanding indebtedness related to the Land Loan has been classified as current in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

        Subsequent to June 30, 2010, we did not make scheduled interest payments totaling $2.3 million on the Land Loan.

Credit Agreement

        In connection with the Merger, Station, as borrower, entered into a new $900 million senior secured credit agreement (the "Credit Agreement") consisting of a $650 million revolving facility (the "Revolver") and a $250 million term loan (the "Term Loan"). The maturity date for both the Term Loan and the Revolver is August 7, 2012 subject to a single 15-month extension (as further defined in the Credit Agreement). The Term Loan requires quarterly principal payments of $625,000. The Revolver contains no principal amortization. Borrowings under the Credit Agreement bear interest at a margin above the Alternate Base Rate or the Eurodollar Rate (each as defined in the Credit Agreement), as selected by us.

16

---

Table of Contents

4. Long-term Debt and Liabilities Subject to Compromise (Continued)

The margin above such rates, and the fee on the unfunded portions of the Revolver, will vary quarterly based on our total debt to Adjusted EBITDA (as defined in the Credit Agreement). As of June 30, 2010, the borrower's margin above the Eurodollar Rate on borrowings under the Credit Agreement was 4.50%. As of June 30, 2010, the maximum margin for Eurodollar Rate borrowings was 4.50% and the maximum margin for Alternate Base Rate borrowings was 3.50%. As of June 30, 2010, the fee for any unfunded portion of the Revolver was 0.375%.

        The Credit Agreement contains certain financial and other covenants. These include a minimum interest coverage, a maximum total debt to Adjusted EBITDA (as defined in the Credit Agreement) ratio and a total senior secured debt to Adjusted EBITDA (as defined in the Credit Agreement) ratio.

        For the quarters ended December 31, 2008, March 31, 2009, June 30, 2009, September 30, 2009, December 31, 2009, March 31, 2010, and June 30, 2010, we were not in compliance with the financial covenants in the Credit Agreement. In addition, the filing of the Chapter 11 Case constitutes an event of default under the terms of the Credit Agreement resulting in an acceleration of the obligations thereunder, subject to the bankruptcy stay.

Senior and Senior Subordinated Notes

        The indentures (the "Indentures") governing our $2.3 billion in aggregate principal amount of senior and senior subordinated notes (the "Notes") contain certain customary financial and other covenants, which limit our and our subsidiaries' ability to incur additional debt.

        We have not made scheduled interest payments on the Company's $450 million 6¹/2% Senior Subordinated Notes due February 1, 2014 (the "2014 Subordinated Notes"), $400 million 7³/4% Senior Notes due August 15, 2016 (the "2016 Senior Notes"), $700 million 6⁷/8% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2016 (the "2016 Subordinated Notes"), $300 million 6⁵/8% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2018 (the "2018 Subordinated Notes") or $450 million 6% Senior Notes due 2012 (the "2012 Senior Notes") since February 1, 2009. The grace periods with respect to the payment of interest on the 2014 Subordinated Notes, 2016 Senior Notes, 2016 Subordinated Notes, 2018 Subordinated Notes and 2012 Senior Notes have expired, resulting in an event of default under the indentures governing such indebtedness. In addition as a result of the filing of the Chapter 11 Case, the 2014 Subordinated Notes, 2016 Senior Notes, 2016 Subordinated Notes, 2018 Subordinated Notes and 2012 Senior Notes have been accelerated and are due and payable, subject to the bankruptcy stay.

Gain on Early Retirement of Debt

        In January 2009, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company purchased $40.0 million in aggregate principal amount of our outstanding $700 million 6⁷/8% Senior Subordinated Notes and $8.0 million in aggregate principal amount of our outstanding $450 million 6¹/2% Senior Subordinated Notes for approximately $1.5 million plus approximately $1.4 million in accrued interest. As a result, during the three months ended March 31, 2009, we recorded a gain on early retirement of debt of approximately $40.3 million, which is the difference between the reacquisition price and the net carrying amount of the extinguished debt including the face amount of the associated debt adjusted for the related unamortized discount and debt issuance costs.

Corporate Office Lease

        In November 2007, we entered into a sale-leaseback agreement related to our corporate office building with a third-party real estate investment firm. We sold the corporate office building for approximately $70 million and subsequently entered into a lease with the purchaser for an initial period of

17

---

Table of Contents

4. Long-term Debt and Liabilities Subject to Compromise (Continued)

20 years with four options to extend the lease, each option for an extension of five years. An event of default under the sale leaseback agreement for the corporate office building occurred on October 26, 2009 as a result of the Chapter 11 Case not being dismissed within 90 days following the filing thereof, entitling the landlord to exercise its remedies thereunder, including, among other things, termination of the lease and acceleration of contractual rents. Annual lease payments increase approximately 1.2% annually to approximately $6.7 million in the final year of the original term. The lease also contains two options for us to repurchase the corporate office building, one option at the end of the fifth year of the lease term and a second option at the end of the tenth year of the lease term, which is considered continuing involvement under the authoritative guidance for accounting for sale-leaseback transactions involving real estate. Because of this continuing involvement, the sale-leaseback transaction is being accounted for as a financing transaction, with the sales proceeds recorded as a liability and the lease payments recorded as interest expense. In addition, we continue to include the corporate office building within property and equipment, net on our consolidated balance sheets and depreciate it according to our policy. During the three months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, we recorded interest expense related to this lease of approximately $1.3 million and $1.4 million, respectively. During the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, we recorded interest expense related to this lease of approximately $2.7 million and $2.7 million, respectively. Future minimum lease payments related to this lease for the next five years are approximately $5.4 million, $5.5 million, $5.5 million, $5.6 million and $5.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014, respectively.

Fair Value of Long-term Debt

        At June 30, 2010, the estimated aggregate fair value of our publicly traded debt securities is $53.7 million compared to a carrying amount of $2.25 billion. At December 31, 2009, the estimated aggregate fair value of our publicly traded debt securities was $138.3 million compared to a carrying amount of $2.25 billion. The fair value of our publicly traded debt securities is estimated based on quoted market prices, which is considered a Level 1 fair value measurement. As a result of the uncertainties surrounding the Chapter 11 Case, it is not practicable to estimate the fair value of our long-term debt that is not publicly traded.

5. Derivative Instruments

        Our objective in using derivatives is to add stability to interest expense and to manage our exposure to interest rate movements or other identified risks. To accomplish this objective, we primarily use interest rate swaps and interest rate caps as part of our cash flow hedging strategy. Interest rate swaps utilized as cash flow hedges involve the receipt of variable-rate payments in exchange for fixed-rate payments over the life of the agreements without exchange of the underlying principal amount. We do not use derivative financial instruments for trading or speculative purposes.

        At June 30, 2010 we have a floating-to-fixed interest rate swap with a notional amount of $250 million, terminating in January 2011, which effectively converts a portion of our floating-rate debt to a fixed rate. This interest rate swap is not designated as a hedging instrument and as a result, gains or losses resulting from the change in fair value of this swap are recognized in earnings in the period of the change. As a result of the Chapter 11 Case, this swap is classified in liabilities subject to compromise in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets, and in accordance with ASC Topic 852, the liability is carried at the expected amount of the allowed claim, which approximates the fair value of the swap without adjustments for non-performance risk. Fluctuations in interest rates can cause the fair value of our derivative instruments to change each reporting period. While we attempt to predict such movements in interest rates and impact on derivative instruments, such estimates are subject to a large degree of variability which could have a significant impact on our consolidated financial statements. As of June 30,

18

---

Table of Contents

5. Derivative Instruments (Continued)

2010, we paid a weighted-average fixed rate of approximately 3.0% and received one-month LIBOR which approximated 0.3% on this interest rate swap.

        During the three months ended March 31, 2010 and the year ended December 31, 2009, several derivative instruments were early terminated by us and our 50% owned joint ventures. In certain instances these early terminations resulted in balance sheet adjustments and in reclassifications of deferred losses, net of tax, from accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) into operations. Disclosures related to these transactions have been included in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 and in our Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended, for the year ended December 31, 2009.

        The activity in deferred gains (losses) on derivatives included in accumulated other comprehensive loss is as follows (amounts in thousands, unaudited):

        In accordance with ASC Topic 852, Reorganizations, the Debtors' interest rate swap liabilities are classified as liabilities subject to compromise in our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009. These interest rate swap liabilities are adjusted to the expected amounts of the allowed claims, which are different than the prepetition carrying amounts of these liabilities as a result of changes in the fair values of these instruments. Gains and losses resulting from adjustments to the carrying values of swap liabilities subject to compromise are recorded in reorganization items in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of operations.

19

---

Table of Contents

5. Derivative Instruments (Continued)

        Presented below are the effects of derivative instruments on our condensed consolidated statements of operations (amounts in thousands, unaudited):

        The difference between amounts received and paid under our interest rate swap agreements, as well as any costs or fees, is recorded as an addition to, or reduction of, interest expense as incurred over the life of the interest rate swaps. The net effect of the interest rate swaps and interest rate cap resulted in an increase in interest expense of approximately $1.7 million and $20.1 million for the three months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, respectively, and approximately $3.4 million and $39.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2010, respectively. In addition, our proportionate share of the net effect of interest rate swaps of our 50% owned joint ventures is reflected as an increase or decrease in interest and other expense from joint ventures in our condensed consolidated statements of operations, and totaled approximately $0.2 million and $3.2 million for the three months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, respectively, and approximately $27.0 million and $4.6 million for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

20

---

Table of Contents

5. Derivative Instruments (Continued)

        The fair values of our outstanding derivative instruments are recorded in our condensed consolidated balance sheets as follows (amounts in thousands):

6. Fair Value Measurements

        The Company measures the fair value of its derivative instruments, deferred compensation assets and liabilities, and available-for-sale securities on a recurring basis pursuant to ASC Topic 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, which utilizes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value into three levels. Fair values determined by Level 1 inputs utilize quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that we have the ability to access. Level 2 inputs include inputs other than quoted prices included in Level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly. Level 2 inputs include quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities in active markets, and inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability, such as interest rates and yield curves that are observable at commonly quoted intervals. Level 3 inputs are unobservable, and include situations in which there is little, if any, market activity for the asset or liability at the measurement date.

21

---

Table of Contents

6. Fair Value Measurements (Continued)

        The following table presents information about our financial assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis at June 30, 2010, and indicates the fair value hierarchy of the valuation techniques utilized to determine such fair value (amounts in thousands, unaudited):

        The fair values of Company-owned life insurance deferred compensation assets are based on quotes for like instruments with similar credit ratings and terms. The fair values of available-for-sale securities and deferred compensation liabilities are based on quoted prices in active markets. The fair values of interest rate swaps and interest rate caps are based on quoted market prices from various banks for similar instruments. These quoted market prices are based on relevant factors such as the contractual terms of our interest rate swap agreements and interest rate curves and are adjusted for the non-performance risk of either us or our counterparties, as applicable. Certain interest rate swaps previously accounted for at fair value have been terminated early, and as a result, are no longer accounted for at fair value on a recurring basis.

        The Company's remaining interest rate swap liability that is measured at fair value on a recurring basis has been reclassified to liabilities subject to compromise as a result of the Chapter 11 Case. In accordance with ASC Topic 852, this liability is carried at the expected amount of the allowed claim, which approximates its fair value, and as such, its carrying amount no longer includes an adjustment for non-performance risk.

7. Stockholders' Equity

Other Comprehensive Income

        ASC Topic 220, Comprehensive Income requires companies to disclose other comprehensive income (loss) and the components of such income (loss). Comprehensive income (loss) is the total of net income (loss) and all other non-stockholder changes in equity, and includes unrealized gains (losses) on available-for-sale securities and the amortization of unrecognized pension and postretirement benefit plan liabilities. In addition, comprehensive income (loss) includes recognition of deferred mark-to-market adjustments on interest rate swaps that were previously designated as hedging instruments, as well as our

22

---

Table of Contents

7. Stockholders' Equity (Continued)

50% share of deferred mark-to-market adjustments on interest rate swaps previously designated as hedging instruments at Green Valley Ranch and Aliante Station. Comprehensive loss was computed as follows (amounts in thousands, unaudited):

        The components of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) are as follows (amounts in thousands):

        The mark-to-market valuation of interest rate swaps, net of tax, included in accumulated other comprehensive loss at December 31, 2009 relates to our 50% interest in the mark-to-market valuation of the interest rate swap at Green Valley Ranch that was de-designated as a cash flow hedge during the year ended December 31, 2009. During the three months ended March 31, 2010, the Green Valley Ranch interest rate swap was early terminated and as a result, the remaining balance of deferred losses, net of tax, in accumulated other comprehensive loss was reclassified to operations.

8. Share-Based Compensation

        Long-term incentive compensation is provided in the form of non-voting limited liability company membership interests in FCP and Fertitta Partners pursuant to the Second Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of Fertitta Colony Partners and the Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of Fertitta Partners, respectively (collectively "the Operating Agreements"). The Operating Agreements allow certain officers and members of management of the Company to participate in the long-term growth and financial success of the Company through indirect ownership of Class B Units and direct ownership of Class C Units in FCP and Fertitta Partners. The purpose is to promote the Company's long-term growth and profitability by aligning the interests of the Company's management with the interests of the owners of the Company and by encouraging retention.

        Upon the consummation of the Merger and during the year ended December 31, 2008, certain members of management were awarded indirect ownership of Class B Units and direct ownership of Class C Units in each of FCP and Fertitta Partners. The Class C Units include certain call and put provisions as defined in the Operating Agreements, such that under certain circumstances, within ninety

23

---

Table of Contents

8. Share-Based Compensation (Continued)

days after termination, in certain cases, of the Class C Unit holder's employment with Station, FCP and Fertitta Partners can call the Class C Units and the employee that holds the Class C Units can put the Class C Units back to FCP and Fertitta Partners. The conditions that could result in the employee putting the Class C Units back to FCP and Fertitta Partners are either contingent or within the control of the issuer.

        At June 30, 2010, we had unearned share-based compensation of approximately $34.9 million associated with Class B Units and Class C Units which was originally expected to be recognized through September 2013. Should the Class B Units and Class C Units be cancelled as a result of the Chapter 11 proceedings, the remaining unearned share-based compensation will be recognized upon cancellation. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, respectively, there were no Class B Units or Class C Units granted.

        The following table shows the classification of share-based compensation expense within the accompanying condensed financial statements (amounts in thousands, unaudited):

9. Future Development

Las Vegas Development

Rancho Road

        In December 2006, we entered into an amended and restated operating agreement with FBLV Holding Company LLC ("FBLV"). Pursuant to the amended and restated operating agreement, the parties contributed approximately 52 acres (with approximately 20 acres contributed by us for our 50% ownership and approximately 32 acres contributed by FBLV for their 50% ownership) of improved and unimproved real property located along Rancho Road south of Palace Station in Las Vegas, Nevada into a joint venture. It is anticipated that the joint venture will develop, construct and manage, pursuant to a master development plan, a mixed-use residential, retail and entertainment project on all or a portion of such property. The timing, cost and scope of the project have yet to be determined. Through June 30, 2010, we have contributed an additional $45.8 million to fund the acquisition of additional property as well as design and development costs.

24

---

Table of Contents

9. Future Development (Continued)

        Effective January 1, 2010, a portion of the assets of Rancho Road were contributed to Richfield Homes, a new joint venture formed by the members of Rancho Road. Station is a 50% owner of Richfield Homes.

Native American Development

The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria

        We have entered into Development and Management Agreements with the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (the "FIGR"), a federally recognized Native American tribe. Pursuant to those agreements, we will assist the FIGR in developing and operating a gaming and entertainment project to be located in Sonoma County, California. The FIGR selected us to assist them in designing, developing and financing their project and, upon opening we will manage the facility on behalf of the FIGR. The Management Agreement has a term of seven years from the date of the opening of the facility and we will receive a management fee equal to 24% of the facility's net income in years 1 through 4 and 27% of the facility's net income in years 5 through 7. We will also receive a development fee equal to 2% of the cost of the project upon the opening of the facility.

        In October 2003, the FIGR entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Rohnert Park. In August 2005, we purchased 270 acres of land just west of the Rohnert Park city limits in Sonoma County, California. In March 2006, we purchased an additional 4.7 acres adjacent to the previously acquired property. The property purchased is approximately one-quarter mile from Highway 101 and approximately 43 miles from downtown San Francisco. In March 2008, it was determined that approximately 247 acres of the 270-acre site purchased in August 2005 would be taken into trust, with the remaining 23 acres retained by Station. As a result, the estimated cost of the remaining 23 acres was reclassified from Native American development costs to land held for development during the year ended December 31, 2008. Over the period of May 2007 through June 2008, we purchased an additional 11 acres of land adjacent to the 23 acres, bringing the total land held for development to 34 acres. Development of the gaming and entertainment project is subject to certain governmental and regulatory approvals, including, but not limited to, negotiating a gaming compact with the State of California, the United States Department of the Interior (the "DOI") accepting a portion of the land into trust on behalf of the FIGR and approval of the Management Agreement by the National Indian Gaming Commission (the "NIGC"). Prior to obtaining third-party financing, we will contribute significant financial support to the project. Through June 30, 2010, we have advanced approximately $146.2 million toward the development of this project, primarily to complete the environmental impact study and secure real estate for the project, which is included on our consolidated balance sheets. Funds advanced by us are expected to be repaid from the proceeds of the project financing or from the FIGR's gaming revenues. In addition, we have agreed to pay approximately $11.3 million upon achieving certain milestones, which will not be reimbursed. Through June 30, 2010, approximately $2.0 million of these payments had been made and were expensed as incurred. The timing and feasibility of the project are dependent upon the receipt of the necessary governmental and regulatory approvals. The Company plans to continue contributing significant financial support to the project, even though there can be no assurances as to when or if the necessary approvals will be obtained.

25

---

Table of Contents

9. Future Development (Continued)

        On May 7, 2008, the DOI published in the Federal Register a Notice of Final Agency Determination (the "Determination") to take certain land into trust for the benefit of the FIGR. The publication commenced a thirty-day period in which interested parties could seek judicial review of the Determination. On June 6, 2008, the Stop The Casino 101 Coalition and certain individuals filed a complaint (the "Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the DOI and officials of the DOI. The Complaint sought judicial review of the Determination. On September 10, 2008, the U.S. Attorney representing the DOI exercised her right to have the case reassigned from a magistrate to an Article III judge, and the FIGR subsequently intervened in the lawsuit. On November 17, 2008, the federal defendants and the FIGR filed their respective motions to dismiss the compliant for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. In response, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint which was granted on January 26, 2009. The DOI and the FIGR filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on February 20, 2009, and on March 27, 2009, a hearing was held to argue such motions. On April 21, 2009, the DOI and FIGR's motions to dismiss were granted. On June 8, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an appeal (the "Appeal") in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Appeals (the "Court of Appeals"), and the DOI agreed to voluntary stay the taking of the site into trust pending resolution of the appeal. The plaintiffs, including several who are now represented separately by a second attorney, filed their opening briefs on October 26, 2009. On November 4, 2009, DOI filed an unopposed motion to expedite the oral argument. DOI and FIGR then filed their answering briefs on November 25, 2009. The plaintiffs responded by filing reply briefs on December 28, 2009. The court clerk initially rejected the motion to expedite oral argument, but following FIGR's motion for reconsideration, the court scheduled oral argument for April 15, 2010. Oral arguments were heard on April 15, 2010, and on June 3, 2010, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Complaint. The plaintiffs have until July 19, 2010 to seek a rehearing or a hearing en banc from the Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs also have until September 1, 2010, to file a petition for certiorari requesting that the United States Supreme Court review the Court of Appeal's decision.

        On February 19, 2009, a Notice of Availability of a Final Environmental Impact Statement (the "EIS") was filed in the Federal Register, leaving only the issuance of the Record of Decision (the "ROD") to complete the environmental process for the FIGR project. Issuance of the ROD will initiate a 30-day period in which opponents of the project will have the right to seek judicial review of the ROD.

Gun Lake Tribe

        On November 13, 2003, we agreed to purchase a 50% interest in MPM Enterprises, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company ("MPM"). Concurrently with our agreement to purchase that interest, MPM and the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan, a federally recognized Native American tribe commonly referred to as the Gun Lake Tribe ("Gun Lake"), entered into amended Development and Management Agreements, pursuant to which MPM agreed to assist Gun Lake in developing and operating a gaming and entertainment project to be located in Allegan County, Michigan. On July 29, 2005, MPM and Gun Lake entered into amended and restated Development and Management Agreements. We agreed to pay $6.0 million for our 50% interest in MPM, which was payable upon achieving certain milestones and is not reimbursable. As of June 30, 2010, payments totaling $6.0 million had been made and were expensed as incurred. An additional $12.0 million in total may be paid by us in years six and seven of the seven-year term of the Fifth Amended and Restated Management Agreement, subject to certain contingencies. Under the terms of the Fifth Amended and Restated Development Agreement, we have agreed to arrange financing for the ongoing development costs and construction of the project. Through June 30, 2010, we have advanced approximately $63.8 million toward the development of this project, primarily to complete the environmental assessment, pay legal and consulting

26

---

Table of Contents

9. Future Development (Continued)

fees, and secure real estate for the project, which is included on our consolidated balance sheets. Funds advanced by us are expected to be repaid from the proceeds of the project financing and from Gun Lake's gaming revenues. The Fifth Amended and Restated Management Agreement has a term of seven years from the opening of the facility and provides for a management fee of 30% of the project's net income to be paid to MPM. Pursuant to the terms of the MPM Operating Agreement, our portion of the management fee is 50% of the first $24 million of management fees earned, 83% of the next $24 million of management fees and 93% of any management fees in excess of $48 million.

        MPM is considered a variable interest entity under the provisions of ASC Topic 810, Consolidation. Under the terms of the MPM Operating Agreement, Station is required to provide the majority of MPM's financing. At June 30, 2010, Station's loans to MPM total approximately $52.1 million and financing provided by MPM's other members, investors and banks totals approximately $5.7 million. The creditors of MPM have no recourse to the general credit of Station. Based on a qualitative analysis, we believe Station directs the most significant activities that impact MPM's economic performance and has the right to receive benefits and the obligation to absorb losses that could potentially be significant to MPM, therefore we believe Station is the primary beneficiary of MPM as defined in ASC Topic 810. As a result, we consolidate MPM in our condensed consolidated financial statements. The following table sets forth the carrying amounts of the assets and liabilities of MPM included in our condensed consolidated balance sheet (amounts in thousands, unaudited):

        The project is being developed on approximately 147 acres on U.S, Highway 131 and 129th Avenue, approximately 25 miles south of Grand Rapids, Michigan and 27 miles north of Kalamazoo, Michigan. As currently contemplated, the project will include approximately 1,400 slot machines, 28 table games and various dining options. Construction of the project includes the conversion of a portion of an existing 192,000 square-foot building into support space for the casino and entertainment facility. On April 29, 2010, the NIGC approved the Fourth Amended and Restated Management Agreement. Subsequently, and as a result of certain changes required by the financing documents, Gun Lake submitted the Fifth Amended and Restated Management Agreement to the NIGC. Development of the gaming and entertainment project and operation of Class III gaming is subject to certain governmental and regulatory approvals, including, but not limited to, approval of the Fifth Amended and Restated Management Agreement by the NIGC.

        On February 27, 2004, the DOI issued a Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the proposed project. On May 13, 2005, the DOI published in the Federal Register a Notice of Final Agency Determination (the "Determination") to take certain land into trust for the benefit of Gun Lake. On June 13, 2005, Michigan Gambling Opposition (the "MGO Plaintiffs") filed a complaint (the "MGO Complaint") in the United States District Court, District of Columbia (the "District Court"), seeking

27

---

Table of Contents

9. Future Development (Continued)

declaratory and injunctive relief against the DOI and officials of the DOI. The MGO Complaint sought judicial review of the Determination. On January 6, 2006, Gun Lake filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Also on January 6, 2006, the DOI filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.

        On February 23, 2007, the District Court issued its decision in favor of the DOI and Gun Lake, finding that there were no facts which would entitle the MGO Plaintiffs to any relief on the issues raised in the MGO Complaint, and granted the parties' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative for summary judgment (the "Dispositive Motions"). On March 1, 2007, the MGO Plaintiffs filed a motion for stay pending appeal with the District Court. On March 5, 2007, the District Court granted the MGO Plaintiffs' motion for stay pending appeal, thereby precluding the DOI from taking the site into trust for the benefit of Gun Lake until the District Court's decision granting the Dispositive Motions had been reviewed on appeal. On May 21, 2007, the MGO Plaintiffs filed their appellate brief in the United States Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia (the "Court of Appeals") appealing the District Court's decision. On July 6, 2007, the DOI and Gun Lake filed their responsive briefs. On July 30, 2007, the MGO Plaintiffs filed their reply brief. Oral arguments were heard on October 19, 2007. On April 29, 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the lawsuit filed by the MGO Plaintiffs.

        On May 13, 2008, the MGO Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc with the Court of Appeals. On July 25, 2008, the Court of Appeals denied the MGO Plaintiffs' petition for rehearing en banc. On July 29, 2008, the MGO Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for stay of mandate pending petition for certiorari. On August 1, 2008, the DOI and Gun Lake filed their responses to the emergency motion for stay of mandate. On August 15, 2008, the Court of Appeals granted the emergency motion for stay of mandate. On October 23, 2008, the MGO Plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari seeking review of the Court of Appeals' decision by the United States Supreme Court. On January 21, 2009, the United States Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari and on January 27, 2009, the appellate court issued a mandate that dissolved the stay. On January 30, 2009, the DOI accepted approximately 147 acres of real property into trust in Allegan County, Michigan, for the benefit of Gun Lake. On August 18, 2009, the Secretary of Interior issued an Initial Reservation Proclamation proclaiming that the 147-acre parcel is Gun Lake's reservation.

        On August 1, 2008, David Patchak filed a complaint (the "Patchak Complaint") seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the DOI and officials of the DOI. On October 6, 2008, Gun Lake filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Patchak Complaint also seeks judicial review of the Determination. On October 7, 2008, the DOI filed a motion to dismiss. On October 17, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion to stop the DOI from taking land into trust for Gun Lake, which was denied by the District Court on January 26, 2009. The District Court filed an order that gave the plaintiff 21 days to submit a memorandum addressing whether the District Court still has jurisdiction in this case in light of the DOI accepting the land in trust for the benefit of Gun Lake. The DOI and Gun Lake filed their memoranda addressing this issue on April 6, 2009. On August 19, 2009, the DOI's motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted and the plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunctive relief were denied. On September 15, 2009, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On November 6, 2009, Gun Lake filed a Motion to Dismiss the appeal in part. The Motion has been referred to the panel of judges to whom the case will be assigned for decision. On January 8, 2010, the Court ordered the Court Clerk to enter a briefing schedule. Appellant's brief was filed on April 9, 2010, Appellees' briefs were filed on May 10, 2010, and Appellant's reply brief was filed on May 24, 2010. Oral arguments have not been scheduled. The Company believes that the appeal is without merit. As with all litigation, no assurances can be provided as to the outcome of this lawsuit.

28

---

Table of Contents

9. Future Development (Continued)

        On March 9, 2007, Gun Lake and the State of Michigan entered into a tribal-state Class III gaming compact. The compact was subject to approval by the Michigan Legislature and, if approved, would regulate gaming at Gun Lake's proposed gaming and entertainment project to be developed on the site. On August 8, 2007, the Michigan House of Representatives ratified the compact. On February 11, 2009, the Michigan Senate passed a resolution approving the compact. On February 19, 2009, the Michigan House of Representatives passed a similar resolution approving the Compact and the Compact was submitted to the Secretary of Interior for his approval. On April 22, 2009, the Compact became effective by publication in the Federal Register. Construction on the project began in September 2009.

        In July 2010, the Gun Lake Tribe completed a $165 million third-party construction financing facility, which we assisted them in obtaining in connection with our Development Agreement. As contemplated by the Development Agreement, our subsidiary SC Michigan, LLC provided $15 million of cash collateral to secure a limited completion guaranty and keep well obligation in connection with the financing. We provided the $15 million to SC Michigan, LLC as a drop down loan. The $15 million remains property of SC Michigan, LLC unless it is used to satisfy the completion guaranty requirements in the financing, at which time it will be converted to a loan payable by the Gun Lake Tribe to SC Michigan, LLC. SC Michigan, LLC deposited the $15.0 million into a restricted cash account under the control of the lenders to the Gun Lake Tribe. As a result, in July 2010 SC Michigan, LLC and MPM received approximately $42.8 million representing a partial repayment of project advances. SC Michigan, LLC received $39.3 million and used all of these funds to purchase $39.3 million of Past Revolving Loans from Past Enterprises at face value. The $39.3 million of proceeds received by Past Enterprises is now on deposit in a blocked account under the control of the lenders that are party to the Credit Agreement.

        We will continue to advance certain other development costs to Gun Lake, as required by the Development Agreement, until the opening of the casino.

Mechoopda Indian Tribe

        We have entered into Development and Management Agreements with the Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, California (the "MITCR"), a federally recognized Native American tribe. Pursuant to those agreements, we will assist the MITCR in developing and operating a gaming and entertainment facility to be located on a portion of an approximately 650-acre site in Butte County, California, at the intersection of State Route 149 and Highway 99, approximately 10 miles southeast of Chico, California and 80 miles north of Sacramento, California. Under the terms of the Development Agreement, we have agreed to arrange the financing for the ongoing development costs and construction of the facility. Funds advanced by us are expected to be repaid from the proceeds of the project financing or from the MITCR's gaming revenues. Through June 30, 2010, we have advanced approximately $11.8 million toward the development of this project, primarily to complete the environmental assessment and secure real estate for the project. In addition, we have agreed to pay approximately $2.2 million of payments upon achieving certain milestones, which will not be reimbursed. Through June 30, 2010, $50,000 of these payments had been made and were expensed as incurred. Although the Company continues to fund advances to MITCR, given the recent recession and thus the revised expected potential of the project, as of June 30, 2010 the Company has fully impaired the associated long-term asset. The Management Agreement has a term of seven years from the opening of the facility and provides for a management fee of 24% of the facility's net income. As currently contemplated, the facility will include slot machines, table games and dining and entertainment amenities. Development of the facility is subject to certain governmental and regulatory approvals, including, but not limited to, negotiating a gaming compact with the State of California, the DOI accepting land into trust on behalf of the MITCR and approval of the Management Agreement by the NIGC. Prior to obtaining third-party financing, we will contribute significant financial support to the project. The timing of this type of project is difficult to predict and is dependent upon the receipt of the

29

---

Table of Contents

9. Future Development (Continued)

necessary governmental and regulatory approvals. There can be no assurances when or if these approvals will be obtained.

        On January 17, 2008, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (the "BIA") issued a Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the proposed project. On May 8, 2008, the DOI published in the Federal Register a Notice of Final Agency Determination (the "Determination") to take certain land into trust for the benefit of MITCR. On March 26, 2008, Butte County, California (the "Plaintiff") filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the "District Court") seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the NIGC. On May 19, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint") in the District Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the NIGC, the DOI and officials of the DOI. The Amended Complaint sought judicial review of the Determination and the NIGC's approval of the tribal-gaming ordinance. On May 13, 2008, MITCR filed a motion to intervene in that lawsuit which was granted by the District Court on June 16, 2008. On June 30, 2008, MITCR filed an answer to the Amended Complaint. On September 12, 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of the NIGC and DOI, and MITCR each filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff's opposition to MITCR's motion to dismiss and the Plaintiff's dispositive motion were filed on October 24, 2008, and the NIGC, DOI and MITCR briefs concerning the dispositive motions were filed on December 8, 2008. Oral arguments were heard by the District Court on February 13, 2009. On April 13, 2009, the District Court granted the DOI and MITCR's motion to dismiss. On May 13, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Washington DC (the "Court of Appeals"). The Plaintiff's brief was filed on September 14, 2009, and the MITCR and DOI's briefs were filed October 14, 2009. The Plaintiff's reply brief was filed October 28, 2009, and oral arguments were held on December 10, 2009. On July 13, 2010, the Court of Appeals overturned the decision of the District Court and ruled that the Secretary's Determination to take land into trust for the MITCR be set aside and remanded the case for further proceedings.

North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indian Tribe

        We have entered into Development and Management Agreements with the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians (the "Mono"), a federally recognized Native American tribe located near Fresno, California. Pursuant to those agreements, we will assist the Mono in developing and operating a gaming and entertainment facility to be located in Madera County, California. We have purchased, for the benefit of the Mono, a 305-acre parcel of land located on Highway 99 north of the city of Madera. Under the terms of the Development Agreement, we have agreed to arrange the financing for the ongoing development costs and construction of the facility. Funds advanced by us are expected to be repaid from the proceeds of the project financing or from the Mono's gaming revenues. Through June 30, 2010, we have advanced approximately $16.0 million toward the development of this project, primarily to complete the environmental impact study and secure real estate for the project, which is included on our consolidated balance sheets. In addition, we have agreed to pay approximately $1.3 million of payments upon achieving certain milestones, which will not be reimbursed and will be expensed as incurred. Through June 30, 2010, none of these payments had been made. The Management Agreement has a term of seven years from the opening of the facility and provides for a management fee of 24% of the facility's net income. As currently contemplated, the facility will include slot machines, table games, restaurants, a hotel and entertainment amenities. On August 6, 2010, the BIA published notice in the Federal Register that the environmental impact statement for the Mono's casino and resort project has been finalized and is available for review. Development of the gaming and entertainment project is subject to certain governmental and regulatory approvals, including, but not limited to, approval by the California Legislature of the gaming compact with the State of California, the DOI accepting the land into trust on behalf of the Mono and approval of the Management Agreement by the NIGC.

30

---

Table of Contents

9. Future Development (Continued)

        On April 28, 2008, the Mono and the State of California entered into a tribal-state Class III gaming compact. The compact is subject to approval by the California Legislature and, if approved, will regulate gaming at the Mono's proposed gaming and entertainment project to be developed on the site. No assurances can be provided as to whether the California Legislature will approve the compact. Prior to obtaining third-party financing, we will contribute significant financial support to the project. The timing of this type of project is difficult to predict, and is dependent upon the receipt of the necessary governmental and regulatory approvals. There can be no assurances when, or if, these approvals will be obtained.

Land Held for Development

        We have acquired certain parcels of land as part of future development activities. Our decision whether to proceed with any new gaming or development opportunity is dependent upon future economic and regulatory factors, the availability of acceptable financing and competitive and strategic considerations. As many of these considerations are beyond our control, no assurances can be made that we will be able to proceed with any particular project.

        As of June 30, 2010, we had $305.5 million of land held for development consisting primarily of eleven sites that are owned or leased, which includes 368 acres in the Las Vegas valley, 1,321 acres in northern California and 200 acres in Reno, Nevada. The primary gaming-entitled land that we own in the Las Vegas valley consists of 77 acres of land (106 acres including those leased or under contract) on which the Wild Wild West is located and the surrounding area, 71 acres located at the intersection of Durango Road and the Southern Beltway/Interstate 215 in the southwest area of Las Vegas, 58 acres also located in southwest Las Vegas at the intersection of Town Center and Interstate 215, 45 acres in the master-planned community of Inspirada located in Henderson, Nevada, 61 acres located on the southern end of Las Vegas Boulevard at Cactus Avenue of which we lease and have an option to purchase 2.5 acres, and 30 acres on Boulder Highway at the site formerly known as the Castaways Hotel Casino and Bowling Center.

        In December 2008, we amended the lease and purchase agreement for the 19-acre parcel of land on which the Wild Wild West is located. Under the amended agreement, we have an option to purchase the land for a purchase price of $36 million. The amended lease also includes options to purchase the land in July 2023, 2044 and 2065 for a purchase price equal to fair market value as of July 2022, 2043 and 2064, respectively. No amounts related to these purchase options have been recorded on our consolidated balance sheets at June 30, 2010 or December 31, 2009.

10. Write-downs and other charges, net

        Write-downs and other charges, net includes various pretax charges to record losses on asset disposals and other non-routine transactions. The components of write-downs and other charges, net were as follows (amounts in thousand, unaudited):

31

---

Table of Contents