SEC Info℠

Home

Search

My Interests

Help

Sign In

Please Sign In

Boyd Gaming Corp – ‘10-K405’ for 12/31/01

On:  Friday, 3/22/02   ·   For:  12/31/01   ·   Accession #:  950148-2-672   ·   File #:  1-12168

in

this entire Filing. an “Entity” Search.

Show

Documents searched

and

each “hit”. the 1st “hit”.

↓↑Hints

 Text Wildcards:  ? (any letter/digit),  * (many).  Search Logic:  for Documents:  & (and),  | (or);  for Text:  | (anywhere),  "(&)" (near).  Details... 

  As Of                Filer                Filing    For·On·As Docs:Size              Issuer               Agent

 3/22/02  Boyd Gaming Corp                  10-K405    12/31/01    2:1.3M                                   Bowne of Century City/FA

Document/Exhibit                   Description                      Pages   Size 

 1: 10-K405     Annual Report -- [x] Reg. S-K Item 405              HTML   1.25M 
 2: EX-23.1     Consent of Experts or Counsel                          1      5K 

Table of Contents

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

FORM 10-K

Commission file number: 1-12168

BOYD GAMING CORPORATION

2950 Industrial Road, Las Vegas NV 89109

(702) 792-7200

Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

      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 than 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 if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K 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.     x

      As of February 28, 2002, the aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant, based on the closing price on the New York Stock Exchange for such date, was approximately $346,368,000. Shares of Common Stock held by officers, directors and holders of more than 5% of the outstanding Common Stock have been excluded from this calculation because such persons may be deemed to be affiliates. This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.

      As of February 28, 2002, the Registrant had outstanding 63,095,164 shares of Common Stock.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO PARTS I – III:

      Portions of the definitive Proxy Statement for the Registrant’s 2002 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference into Part III hereof.

Table of Contents

BOYD GAMING CORPORATION

2001 ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

Table of Contents

PART I

Item 1. Business

Overview

      We are a multi-jurisdictional gaming company that has operated successfully for over 25 years. We currently own and operate twelve casino facilities, one of which commenced casino operations on February 13, 2002. Our facilities are located in eight distinct gaming markets in five states.

      We currently own and operate seven properties in or near Las Vegas, Nevada:

      We also own and operate five properties outside the State of Nevada:

      We are currently developing The Borgata, a $1 billion casino resort in Atlantic City. We and MGM MIRAGE each own 50% of the entity that owns The Borgata.

      As of December 31, 2001, we owned an aggregate of approximately 512,400 square feet of casino space, containing 13,854 slot machines and 383 table games. We derive the majority of our on-going gross revenues from our gaming operations, which produced 75%, 74%, and 68% of on-going gross revenues during the years ended December 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999. Food and beverage revenues, which produced 12.9%, 13.6%, and 14.7% of on-going gross revenues during the years ended December 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999, represent the only other revenue source which produced more than 10% of on-going gross revenues during this timeframe.

Business Strategy and Competitive Strengths

      We believe that the following factors have contributed to our success in the past and are central to our future success:

1

Table of Contents

Properties

Las Vegas Strip — Stardust Resort and Casino

      The Property. The Stardust is a casino hotel complex with approximately 75,000 square feet of casino space, a conference center with approximately 35,000 square feet of meeting space, a 40,000 square foot special event pavilion/exhibit center and the 950-seat Wayne Newton Theatre. The property is situated on 52 acres of land we own and 9 acres of land we lease on the Las Vegas Strip. The casino offers approximately 1,600 slot machines and 67 table games. It also has a well-known race and sports book and is the home of the Stardust line, a sports line service that is quoted throughout the United States and abroad. The Stardust features a 32-story hotel tower and has 1,552 guest rooms. The Stardust complex is distinguished by its dramatic building lighting and has five restaurants, a shopping arcade, two swimming pools and parking spaces for approximately 2,400 cars. During 2001, the occupancy rate and average daily room rate at the Stardust were approximately 90% and $57.

      The property caters primarily to adult Las Vegas visitors seeking the classic Las Vegas gaming experience. Using its extensive database, the property promotes customer loyalty and generates repeat customer business by communicating with its customers regarding special events, new product offerings and special incentive promotions at the property. The Stardust uses a network of tour operators and wholesalers to reach customers who prefer packaged trips, and print and broadcast media to attract the independent traveler. It also attracts proven slot and table game players through direct mail promotions for tournaments, events and a variety of special offers. In addition to walk-in customers, the Stardust also attracts meeting, banquet and exhibit business. Patrons of the property are primarily from Southern California, Arizona and the Midwest.

      Capital Improvements. In the fourth quarter of 1999, we completed a $23 million renovation project at the Stardust which included the upgrading of guest rooms and public spaces, the construction of a 340-seat buffet style dining room, and exterior enhancements, including a new exterior design and lighting system and the refurbishment of the property’s 188-foot electric sign. During the summer of 2001, we constructed a 40,000 square foot multi-use pavilion on the property to enhance our convention offerings.

Las Vegas Area — Boulder Strip Properties

      The Property. Sam’s Town Las Vegas is situated on 56 acres of land we own and seven acres of land we lease on the Boulder Strip, approximately six miles east of the Las Vegas Strip. Sam’s Town features a 133,000-square foot casino and a state-of-the-art 56-lane bowling center. The gaming facilities include approximately 2,800 slot machines and 39 table games, a sports book and bingo and poker areas. The property has 648 guest rooms, twelve restaurants, 500 spaces for recreational vehicles and approximately 3,800 parking spaces. The resort features a 25,000-square foot atrium that contains extensive foliage and trees, streams, bridges, and a waterfall with a laser light show. The property also offers an outdoor recreation area, as well as banquet and meeting facilities. During 2001, the occupancy rate and average daily room rate at Sam’s Town Las Vegas were approximately 85% and $48.

      Marketing Theme. Sam’s Town Las Vegas has a contemporary western theme. Its informal, friendly atmosphere appeals to both local residents and visitors alike. Gaming, bowling, a western dance hall and live entertainment create a social center that attracts many Las Vegas residents. The property sponsors several NASCAR events at the Las Vegas Motor Speedway that are televised nationally. The property attracts a mix of tourists and local market patrons, many of whom are repeat customers, by offering excellent values in its food and beverage operations, and slot marketing programs that include generous slot payouts. The popularity of Sam’s Town Las Vegas among local residents allows it to benefit from the rapid development of the Las Vegas metropolitan area, which has been one of the fastest growing cities in the United States over the last decade.

      Capital Improvements. In December 2000, we completed an $84 million renovation and expansion project at Sam’s Town Las Vegas. The project included, among other things, an eighteen screen movie theatre complex with stadium seating, childcare facilities, an arcade, additional casino space, an 11,200 square foot

2

Table of Contents

      The Eldorado is situated on four acres of land we own in downtown Henderson, Nevada, which is approximately 14 miles from the Las Vegas Strip. The casino has 16,000 square feet of gaming space featuring approximately 600 slot machines and eleven table games, as well as keno, bingo and a sports book. The facility also offers three restaurants, a children’s arcade and a parking garage for up to 500 cars. The principal customers of the Eldorado are Henderson residents.

      Jokers Wild is situated on thirteen acres of land we own in Henderson. The property offers 22,500 square feet of casino space with approximately 600 slot machines and eleven table games, as well as keno and a sports book. The facility also offers a 24-hour restaurant, a buffet, an entertainment lounge, a sports bar, a video arcade and approximately 800 parking spaces. Jokers Wild serves both local residents and visitors to the Las Vegas area traveling on the Boulder Highway.

      Boulder Strip — Market Overview. Gaming facilities located on the Boulder Strip primarily cater to the local residents in the surrounding area, and to a lesser extent visitors to Las Vegas including visitors from Southern California and Arizona. Las Vegas has recently had one of the two highest population and income growth rates in the United States, providing for a steady stream of potential new customers from the local population. Casinos in the Boulder Strip market generally target local residents, are less dependent upon Las Vegas visitor volumes and emphasize slot play as their major source of revenue. This emphasis on slot play generally insulates these properties from the risks associated with more volatile high-end table play.

Downtown Las Vegas Properties

      The California is situated on 13.9 acres of land we own and 1.6 acres of land we lease in downtown Las Vegas. It has 36,000 square feet of gaming space, 781 guest rooms, 5 restaurants, approximately 5,000 square feet of meeting space, and more than 800 parking spaces, including a parking garage for up to 425 cars. The casino offers approximately 1,100 slot machines and 35 table games, as well as a sports book. During 2001, the occupancy rate and average daily room rate at the California were approximately 95% and $31.

      The Fremont is situated on 1.4 acres of land we own and 0.9 acres of land we lease adjacent to the principal pedestrian thoroughfare in downtown Las Vegas known as the Fremont Street Experience. The property has 32,000 square feet of casino space and includes 1,133 slot machines and 26 table games, as well as a sports book. The hotel has 447 guest rooms and five restaurants, including the Second Street Grill, an upscale contemporary restaurant, and the Paradise Buffet, which features tropical-themed surroundings. The property also has approximately 8,200 square feet of meeting space and a parking garage for up to 350 cars. During 2001, the occupancy rate and average daily room rate at the Fremont were approximately 95% and $33.

      Main Street Station is situated on fifteen acres of land we own in downtown Las Vegas. We acquired the property in 1993, and completed a renovation and expansion in November 1996. The property includes 28,500 square feet of gaming space with approximately 900 slot machines and 19 table games. The property also includes 406 hotel rooms, a 475-seat buffet, a 125-seat specialty restaurant, a 200-seat brewpub and oyster bar and expanded parking with over 2,000 spaces. We also have a 96-space recreational vehicle park, the only such

3

Table of Contents

      Our Unique Downtown Niche. We have developed a distinct niche for our downtown properties by focusing on customers from Hawaii. Our marketing strategy for the downtown properties targets gaming enthusiasts from Hawaii and tour and travel agents in Hawaii with whom we have cultivated relationships since we opened the California in 1975. Through our Hawaiian travel agency, Vacations Hawaii, we currently operate seven wide-body charter flights from Honolulu to Las Vegas each week, helping to ensure a stable supply of reasonably priced air seats. This, as well as our strong, informal relationships with other Hawaiian travel agencies, our affordably priced, all-inclusive packages and our Hawaiian promotions, have allowed the California, the Fremont and Main Street Station to capture a significant share of the Hawaiian tourist trade in Las Vegas.

      We believe that for more than twenty years the California, and more recently the Fremont and Main Street Station, have been the leading Las Vegas destinations for visitors from Hawaii. We attribute this success to the amenities and atmosphere at the properties, which are designed to appeal specifically to visitors from Hawaii, and to our marketing strategy featuring significant promotions in Hawaii and a bi-monthly newsletter circulated to over 93,000 households, primarily in Hawaii. During the year ended December 31, 2001, patrons from Hawaii comprised approximately 68% of the room nights at the California, 58% of the room nights at the Fremont and 46% of the room nights at Main Street Station.

      We coordinate marketing efforts and support functions and have standardized operating procedures and systems among our three downtown properties, with the goal of enhancing revenues and reducing expenses. This effort includes a consolidated database and marketing program for all downtown properties. We believe these efforts have significantly reduced costs and will continue to allow the downtown properties to operate efficiently.

      Downtown Las Vegas — Market Overview. The downtown Las Vegas market is located approximately three miles from the Stardust. In November 1995, several casino operators opened the Fremont Street Experience which has been successful in revitalizing the downtown Las Vegas gaming district. The Fremont Street Experience converted five blocks of Fremont Street into a pedestrian mall with retail and dining attractions, and added a unique 1,500-foot long, 90-foot high “Space Frame”, which incorporates approximately 2.1 million lights and offers light shows several times on a nightly basis.

Central Region Properties

      The Property. Sam’s Town Tunica is located in Tunica County, Mississippi. The complex features a 75,000 square foot casino, an 843-room hotel including 49 suites, a recreational-vehicle park and a 1,000-car parking garage that was the first covered parking structure at a Tunica County casino. The casino offers approximately 1,500 slot machines and 51 table games, as well as the only live keno in Tunica County. The property includes extensive amenities, including the hotel, an entertainment lounge featuring regional country-western and top-40 music, five restaurants including Corky’s B-B-Q (a popular Memphis eatery), bars, specialty shops and the River Palace Arena, a 1,650-seat entertainment facility featuring a cross-section of national recording artists. The casino portion of the property is on a permanently moored riverboat. Sam’s Town Tunica and two other neighboring casino properties are each one-third partners in an entity that owns River Bend Links, an eighteen-hole championship lynx-style golf course. During 2001, the occupancy rate and average daily room rate at Sam’s Town Tunica were approximately 89% and $45.

      Market Overview. Tunica is the largest gaming market in the State of Mississippi and the closest gaming market to Memphis, Tennessee. Sam’s Town Tunica is located off of State Highway 61, approximately 30 miles south of Memphis. The adult population within a 200-mile radius is over three million people and includes the cities of Nashville, Tennessee, Jackson, Mississippi and Little Rock, Arkansas. Residents of these cities account for a large portion of the customers in this primarily drive-in market. Tunica has historically been one of the fastest growing gaming markets in the United States. Growth in recent years has

4

Table of Contents

      Capital Improvements. In December 2000, we completed a $21 million renovation project at Sam’s Town Tunica. The project reconfigured and remodeled the casino, redesigned and enhanced the restaurants, remodeled the atrium and constructed a recreational vehicle park adjacent to the property.

      The Property. Docked on the Illinois River, in East Peoria, Illinois, the Par-A-Dice riverboat measures 238 feet long and 66 feet wide and features 33,000 square feet of gaming space on four levels. The Par-A-Dice riverboat operates as a dockside facility. The casino has 1,150 slot machines and 30 table games, as well as food and beverage services. Located adjacent to Par-A-Dice is our 208-room hotel with food, beverage, banquet and meeting facilities. During 2001, the occupancy rate and average daily room rate at Par-A-Dice were approximately 94% and $51.

      Market Overview. East Peoria, Illinois is approximately 170 miles from Chicago. Par-A-Dice is the primary casino entertainment facility serving central Illinois and is strategically located within three-quarters of a mile from Interstate 74, a major east-west interstate highway. Par-A-Dice is the only gaming facility located within approximately 90 miles of Peoria, Illinois.

      The Property. Treasure Chest is a dockside casino located in the western suburbs of New Orleans, Louisiana. The property is designed as a classic 18th-century Victorian-style paddle-wheel riverboat. The riverboat has a total capacity of 1,750 people, approximately 24,000 square feet of casino space, 981 slot machines and 47 table games. Each of the riverboat’s gaming decks has a different theme, with one featuring contemporary Las Vegas-style decor, one offering a Caribbean environment and one providing a festive Mardi Gras setting. The adjacent property houses a 140-seat Caribbean showroom, as well as a 24-hour buffet, steakhouse, gift shop and snack bar.

      Market Overview. Treasure Chest is located on Lake Pontchartrain in Kenner, Louisiana, approximately five miles from the New Orleans International Airport. Treasure Chest primarily serves suburban New Orleans, and currently competes with two other riverboats and one land-based casino. Since April 2001, the Louisiana Gaming Board has allowed riverboats in the New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Lake Charles markets to operate dockside gaming operations. Louisiana increased gaming taxes from 18.5% to 21.5% of gaming revenues for the nine riverboats operating in those markets which were permitted to convert to dockside operations. The Louisiana Gaming Control Board recently awarded the fifteenth and final riverboat gaming license to Pinnacle Entertainment to operate in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Pending final approval in a public referendum in April 2002, Pinnacle’s new casino is scheduled to open in 2004, complete with a luxury hotel and golf course.

      The Property. Blue Chip, located in Michigan City, Indiana, is a riverboat casino that measures 348 feet long by 80 feet wide, offers 37,400 square feet of gaming space on three levels and accommodates up to 3,000 passengers. The Blue Chip features 1,511 slot machines and 47 table games, three bars, a snack bar and a players club. The land-based 87,000 square foot pavilion facility includes three large meeting rooms, a grand ballroom, executive boardroom, entertainment lounge, snack shop, 285-seat buffet and 72-seat gourmet restaurant. In February 2000, we completed the construction of a 188-room hotel and a parking facility that is attached to the existing casino complex. During 2001, the occupancy rate and average daily room rate at Blue Chip were approximately 87% and $57.

      Market Overview. Michigan City, Indiana is located 60 miles east of Chicago and 40 miles west of South Bend, Indiana. The property competes primarily with four casinos in Indiana and four casinos in Illinois that serve the Chicago area market. There are currently ten licenses granted in the State of Indiana and an

5

Table of Contents

      The Property. On May 31, 2001, we acquired substantially all of the assets of the Delta Downs Racetrack in Vinton, Louisiana, as well as an off-track betting facility in Mound, Louisiana. Delta Downs has historically conducted horse races on a seasonal basis and operated year-round simulcast facilities for customers to place bets on races held at other tracks.

      On February 13, 2002, we began slot operations with approximately 1,500 machines in connection with a $33 million renovation project that expanded the facility and equipped the new casino. The property features a 400-seat buffet, a 130-seat fine dining restaurant, a sports bar and small food outlets. Our license to operate slot machines at Delta Downs is currently the subject of litigation. For more information, see “Investment Considerations — If either of the actions filed against us regarding our Delta Downs property proceeds to trial and we are not ultimately successful in defending against such action, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.” In addition, our license to operate slot machines at Delta Downs was temporarily suspended. For more information, see “Investment Considerations — We are subject to extensive gaming regulation, which may harm our business,” and “Governmental Gaming Regulations — Louisiana — Slot Facilities.”

      We purchased the property for an original purchase price of $125 million that was subject to certain conditions. In December 2001, we paid an additional $5.1 million to the sellers of Delta Downs, in connection with amending the terms of the original purchase agreement, in order to remove the conditions and to fix the purchase price for Delta Downs at $130 million.

      Market Overview. Delta Downs is 25 miles closer to Houston than the next closest gaming market located in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Customers traveling from Houston, Beaumont and other parts of southeastern Texas will generally have to drive past Delta Downs to reach Lake Charles, and we intend to market to those customers. Since April 2001, gaming properties located in the Lake Charles, Baton Rouge and New Orleans markets have been operating dockside gaming facilities in exchange for an increase in gaming taxes from 18.5% to 21.5%. In addition, the Louisiana Gaming Control Board recently awarded the fifteenth and final riverboat gaming license to Pinnacle Entertainment to operate in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Pending final approval in a public referendum in April 2002, Pinnacle’s new casino is scheduled to open in 2004, complete with a luxury hotel and golf course.

      The Property. We are constructing The Borgata in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The Borgata is expected to cost approximately $1.035 billion and will include a 43-story hotel tower with 2,010 guest rooms, and a 120,000 square foot casino with 3,650 slot machines and 119 table games. The property will also feature several specialty restaurants and boutiques, a European-style health spa, meeting space and several entertainment venues. We expect the property to open in the summer of 2003. When it opens, The Borgata will be the first new casino in Atlantic City in over thirteen years. Situated on approximately 28 acres, The Borgata will be served by the Brigantine Connector roadway, which will make the property one of the most convenient properties in Atlantic City to access. We will operate the property upon its completion.

      We and MGM MIRAGE each own a 50% interest in the project and have each invested $145 million to date. We will each invest an additional $62 million in 2002 and 2003. The remaining $621 million is being financed by a bank credit agreement that is non-recourse to both us and MGM MIRAGE. We have provided an unlimited completion guarantee for the project but have no other financial obligations to support the property. As of February 28, 2002, approximately 93% of the total construction hard costs have either been spent or are subject to fixed-price contracts. The construction is currently on time and within budget.

      Market Overview. Atlantic City is the second largest gaming jurisdiction in the United States by revenues and is predominantly a regional day-trip and overnight-trip market. There are currently several new

6

Table of Contents

      The Atlantic City gaming market has historically demonstrated continued growth, despite the lack of new properties and the emergence of gaming facilities in the Northeast (primarily Connecticut in 1992 and Delaware in 1999).

Corporate Structure

      We currently conduct substantially all of our business through eight wholly owned subsidiaries:

      California Hotel and Casino directly owns and operates Sam’s Town Las Vegas and the California and owns and operates the Stardust, the Fremont, the Eldorado, Jokers Wild and Main Street Station through wholly owned subsidiaries. Boyd Tunica, Inc. owns and operates Sam’s Town Tunica. Boyd Kenner, Inc. operates Treasure Chest and owns a 15% equity interest in Treasure Chest Casino, L.L.C., the owner of Treasure Chest. Boyd Louisiana L.L.C. owns the remaining 85% equity interest in Treasure Chest Casino, L.L.C. Par-A-Dice Gaming Corporation owns and operates the Par-A-Dice. Boyd Indiana, Inc. owns the full equity interest in Blue Chip Casino, LLC. Boyd Louisiana Racing, Inc. owns Boyd Racing, L.L.C. which owns and operates Delta Downs Racetrack and Casino. Boyd Atlantic City, Inc. owns a 50% interest in Marina District Development Holding Company, the company that is developing The Borgata.

INVESTMENT CONSIDERATIONS

      This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Such statements include statements regarding the Company’s expectations, hopes or intentions regarding the future, including but not limited to statements regarding the Company’s strategy, competition (including the expansion of gaming into additional markets), expenses, indebtedness, development plans (including anticipated costs, timing and eventual acceptance of new facilities, such as The Borgata and the Delta Downs Racetrack and Casino by the market), financing, revenue, EBITDA, operations, earnings, recoveries and ramping up of operations at Sam’s Town Las Vegas and Tunica, regulations and compliance with applicable laws. Forward-looking statements involve certain risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ materially from those discussed in any such statement. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from such forward-looking statements include the risks described in greater detail in the following paragraphs. All forward-looking statements in this document are made as of the date hereof, based on information available to the Company as of the date hereof, and the Company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statement.

7

Table of Contents

Intense competition exists in the gaming industry and we expect competition to continue to intensify.

      The gaming industry is highly competitive. If other properties operate more successfully, if existing properties are enhanced or expanded, or if additional hotels and casinos are established in and around the locations in which we conduct business, we may lose market share. In particular, the expansion of casino gaming in or near any geographic area from which we attract or expect to attract a significant number of our customers could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

      We also compete with legalized gaming from casinos located on Native American tribal lands. In March 2000, California voters approved an amendment to the California Constitution permitting Native American tribes in California to operate a limited number of slot and video poker machines and house-banked card games. The Governor of California has entered into compacts with numerous tribes in California. The federal government has approved many of these compacts, and casino-style gaming is now legal on those tribal lands. A proliferation of Native American gaming in California, or a proliferation of Native American gaming in other areas located near our properties, could have an adverse effect on our operating results in those markets.

      In Michigan, the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, a federally recognized Native American tribe, announced, in 1994, its intention to construct a land-based gaming operation in or near the City of New Buffalo, Michigan, which is located less than fifteen miles from our Blue Chip Casino. Although the Pokagons have several legal and regulatory issues that must be resolved prior to construction of the proposed gaming facility, if their facility is constructed and begins operations, it could have a significant adverse impact on the operations of Blue Chip.

      The casinos owned and being developed by us compete, and will in the future compete, with all forms of existing legalized gaming and with any new forms of gaming that may be legalized in the future. Additionally, we face competition from all other types of entertainment.

Our expansion, development and renovation projects may face significant risks inherent in the establishment of a new enterprise or marketing strategy, including receipt of necessary government approvals.

      We regularly evaluate expansion, development and renovation opportunities and are currently involved in developing The Borgata and have recently completed our expansion and renovation of Delta Downs in February 2002. Each of these projects will be subject to the many risks inherent in the establishment of a new business enterprise or expansion or renovation of an existing enterprise, including unanticipated design, construction, regulatory, environmental and operating problems, and the significant risks commonly associated with implementing a marketing strategy in new markets. In particular, we may experience:

      Our anticipated costs and construction period for projects are based upon budgets, conceptual design documents and construction schedule estimates prepared by us in consultation with our architects and contractors. The cost of any project may vary significantly from initial expectations, and we may have a limited amount of capital resources to fund cost overruns on any project. If we cannot finance cost overruns on a timely basis, the completion of one or more projects may be delayed until adequate funding is available. The completion dates of any of our projects could also differ significantly from expectations for construction-related or other reasons. We cannot assure you that any project will be completed, if at all, on time or within established budgets. Significant delays or cost overruns on our projects could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

8

Table of Contents

      Many permits, licenses and approvals necessary for our current projects have not yet been obtained. The scope of the approvals required for a project of this nature is extensive, including gaming approvals, state and local land-use permits, building and zoning permits and liquor licenses. Unexpected changes or concessions required by local, state or federal regulatory authorities could involve significant additional costs and delay the scheduled openings of the facilities. We may not receive the necessary permits, licenses and approvals or obtain the necessary permits, licenses and approvals within the anticipated time frame.

      In addition, although we design our projects for existing facilities to minimize disruption of business operations, expansion and renovation projects require, from time to time, portions of the existing operations to be closed or disrupted. Any significant disruption in operations could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If either of the actions filed against us regarding our Delta Downs property proceeds to trial and we are not ultimately successful in defending against such action, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

      On October 30, 2001, the Louisiana Gaming Control Board granted us a gaming license to operate slot machines at Delta Downs. However, on November 2, 2001, Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries filed an action in state district court in Louisiana against the Louisiana Gaming Control Board, and later named Delta Downs to the action, seeking to enjoin the legal effect of our gaming license to operate slot machines at Delta Downs. Isle of Capri’s petition alleged that the former owner of Delta Downs did not properly describe the square foot specifications for the Delta Downs renovations in the request for the Calcasieu Parish Slot Machine Gaming Referendum, that a separate gaming referendum was required prior to the issuance of our gaming license for Delta Downs, that our application for a gaming license should have been referred to a hearing officer, that the Gaming Control Board abused its discretion by not limiting the square footage and number of gaming devices at Delta Downs and that the former owner of Delta Downs was required to be found suitable in order to be eligible to receive certain performance-based payments pursuant to the terms of our purchase agreement for Delta Downs.

      Isle of Capri requested that the state district court preliminarily enjoin the legal effect of our gaming license based on the allegations made in its November 2, 2001 petition. On November 20, 2001, after a hearing on Isle of Capri’s request for the preliminary injunction, the state district court denied all of Isle of Capri’s claims, except for the claim asserting that the former owner of Delta Downs required a suitability hearing, and preliminarily enjoined the legal effect of our gaming license to operate slot machines at Delta Downs, pending a trial on the merits. On November 21, 2001, we sought a supervisory writ from the appellate court, which request was denied. On December 14, 2001, in response to our motion, the state district court dissolved the preliminary injunction. However, Isle of Capri’s action to permanently enjoin the legal effect of our gaming license, based on certain of the claims in its November 2, 2001 petition, is still pending in state district court in Louisiana.

      In addition, on October 29, 2001, Harrah’s of Lake Charles, LLC (formerly the Players Lake Charles, LLC), Harrah’s Star Partnership (formerly the Showboat Star Partnership) and several individuals, collectively, the plaintiffs, filed suit in state district court in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, against DDRA Capital, Inc. (the former owner of Delta Downs), the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury and Boyd Racing, L.L.C., the entity that owns and operates Delta Downs, seeking to revoke the building permit that the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury granted to us for our construction and renovation at Delta Downs. Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that our construction and renovation at Delta Downs exceeds the square foot specifications that were approved by the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury, and that the number of slot machines that we were approved to operate at Delta Downs exceeds the number which the former owner previously represented, in connection with the Calcasieu Parish Slot Machine Gaming Referendum, would be operated at the facility. On December 7, 2001, we responded to the plaintiffs’ complaint claiming, among other things, that their complaint failed to state a cause of action for which relief could be sought and that the statute of limitations on their action had lapsed. On February 11, 2002, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to eliminate certain defendants from the action. On March 1, 2002, the state district court approved Harrah’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury from the action, leaving DDRA and Boyd Racing as the defendants.

9

Table of Contents

      We can provide no assurances that, if either action proceeds to trial, we will ultimately be successful in defending against such action at trial. In the event the claim seeking to permanently enjoin the legal effect of our license to operate slot machines at Delta Downs is ultimately successful, we would not be able to continue the operation of slot machines at Delta Downs. In addition, in the event the claim seeking to revoke our building permit at Delta Downs is ultimately successful, we would have to reduce both the number of slot machines we can operate and the size of the casino at Delta Downs.

      If either action is ultimately successful at trial, it would materially affect our cash flow from Delta Downs, would reduce the value of the Delta Downs acquisition and could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

If we are unable to finance our expansion, development and renovation projects as well as capital expenditures through cash flow and borrowings under our bank credit facility, our expansion, development and renovation efforts will be jeopardized.

      We intend to finance our current and future expansion, development and renovation projects primarily with cash flow from operations and borrowings under our bank credit facility. If we are unable to finance such projects in this manner, we will have to adopt one or more alternatives, such as reducing or delaying planned expansion, development and renovation projects as well as capital expenditures, selling assets, restructuring debt or obtaining additional equity financing or joint venture partners or modify our bank facility. These sources of funds may not be sufficient to finance our expansion, and other financing may not be available on acceptable terms, in a timely manner or at all. In addition, our existing indebtedness contains certain restrictions on our ability to incur additional indebtedness. If we are unable to secure additional financing, we could be forced to limit or suspend expansion, development and renovation projects, which may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may be required to pay or perform certain obligations pursuant to an unlimited completion guaranty that we entered into in connection with the construction of The Borgata.

      A subsidiary of the entity that owns The Borgata entered into a $630 million credit agreement to provide financing for the development and construction of The Borgata. Pursuant to the terms of that credit agreement, we entered into an unlimited completion guaranty which requires us to guarantee the performance of certain obligations of that entity. Under the completion guarantee, if certain specified obligations are not met in connection with the construction of the project, we are required to bring the project into compliance. This may require us to provide additional funds to complete the construction. The completion guarantee is a senior unsecured obligation of Boyd Gaming. If we are required to provide additional funds to complete The Borgata, we may be required to seek consents or waivers from our existing lenders under our bank credit facility.

We are subject to extensive governmental gaming regulation, which may harm our business.

      We are subject to a variety of regulations in the jurisdictions in which we operate. Regulatory authorities at the federal, state and local levels have broad powers with respect to the licensing of casino operations and may revoke, suspend, condition or limit our gaming or other licenses, impose substantial fines and take other actions, any one of which could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. For example, on February 22, 2002, our license to operate slot machines at Delta Downs was temporarily suspended for failing to comply with the Louisiana Gaming Control Board’s regulations regarding certain internal controls. As such, Delta Downs was temporarily closed for a period of 18 hours before we were allowed to reopen. In addition, on February 27, 2002, we temporarily closed Delta Downs on a voluntary basis for a six hour period to demonstrate to the Louisiana State Police our ability to remain in compliance with the Louisiana Gaming Control Board’s regulations. Any failure to comply with the Louisiana Gaming Control

10

Table of Contents

      If additional gaming regulations are adopted in a jurisdiction in which we operate, such regulations could impose restrictions or costs that could have a significant adverse effect on us. From time to time, various proposals are introduced in the legislatures of some of the jurisdictions in which we have existing or planned operations that, if enacted, could adversely affect the tax, regulatory, operational or other aspects of the gaming industry and our company. Legislation of this type may be enacted in the future. The federal government has also previously considered a federal tax on casino revenues and may consider such a tax in the future. In addition, gaming companies are currently subject to significant state and local taxes and fees in addition to normal federal and state corporate income taxes, and such taxes and fees are subject to increase at any time. Any material increase in these taxes or fees could adversely affect us. See “Governmental Gaming Regulation.”

      Our directors, officers and key employees must also be approved by certain state regulatory authorities. If state regulatory authorities were to find a person occupying any such position unsuitable, we would be required to sever our relationship with that person. Certain public issuances of securities and certain other transactions by us also require the approval of certain state regulatory authorities.

A successful challenge to the 1999 Illinois legislation authorizing dockside gaming could require us to eliminate dockside gaming operations.

      In June 1999, Illinois passed an amendment to the Illinois Riverboat Gambling Act to permit casinos to offer continuous dockside gaming with unlimited ingress and egress. In addition to legalizing dockside gaming, the amendment authorized the non-operational license in East Dubuque to relocate to a new home dock. The licensee applied for renewal of its license and to relocate its operation to Rosemont, Illinois. A group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit requesting the court to declare that the 1999 amendment violates the Illinois and U.S. Constitutions because the grant of the Rosemont license amounted to “special legislation.” If a court invalidates the grant of the Rosemont license, all of the provisions of the 1999 amendment, including the provisions legalizing dockside gaming, would be invalidated. In such event, we would be required to resume cruising at our dockside gaming activities at our Par-A-Dice Casino until such time as the Illinois legislature passed a law reauthorizing dockside gaming. On January 25, 2001, the court dismissed the lawsuit concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The plaintiffs have filed an appeal. Since the challenge to the Illinois Act is on going, there is no assurance that the Illinois Act will be upheld as constitutional. The loss of dockside gaming at our Par-A-Dice Casino could adversely affect our financial results.

Riverboats and dockside facilities are subject to risks relating to weather or mechanical failure and must comply with applicable regulations.

      Gaming operations conducted on riverboat casinos or at dockside facilities could be lost from service for a variety of reasons, including casualty, forces of nature, mechanical failure or extended or extraordinary maintenance.

      Our riverboats must comply with U.S. Coast Guard requirements as to boat design, on-board facilities, equipment, personnel and safety. Each riverboat must hold a Certificate of Inspection or must be approved by the American Bureau of Shipping for stabilization and flotation, and may also be subject to local zoning and building codes. The U.S. Coast Guard requirements establish design standards, set limits on the operation of the vessels and require individual licensing of all personnel involved with the operation of the vessels. Loss of a vessel’s Certificate of Inspection or American Bureau of Shipping approval would preclude its use as a casino.

      U.S. Coast Guard regulations require a hull inspection for all riverboats at five-year intervals. Under certain circumstances, extensions may be approved. The U.S. Coast Guard may require that such hull inspections be conducted at a U.S. Coast Guard-approved dry-docking facility, and if so required, the travel to and from such docking facility, as well as the time required for inspections of the Treasure Chest, Par-A-Dice

11

Table of Contents

We draw a significant percentage of our customers from limited geographic regions. Changes adversely impacting these regions may also impact our business.

      The California, Fremont and Main Street Station draw a substantial portion of their customers from the Hawaiian market. During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001, patrons from Hawaii comprised approximately 68% of the room nights sold at the California, 58% at the Fremont and 46% at Main Street Station. An increase in fuel costs or transportation prices, a decrease in airplane seat availability or a deterioration of relations with tour and travel agents, as they affect travel between the Hawaiian market and our facilities, could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

      Our Las Vegas properties also draw a substantial number of customers from certain other specific geographic areas, including Southern California, Arizona, Las Vegas and the Midwest. With the amendment of the California Constitution, Native American casinos may divert potential visitors away from Nevada, which could negatively affect Nevada gaming markets. In addition, due to our significant concentration of properties in Nevada, any terrorist activities or disasters in or around Nevada could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Each of our other properties located outside of Nevada depends primarily on visitors from their respective surrounding regions. Adverse economic conditions in any of these regions could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

      In addition, to the extent that the airline industry is negatively impacted due to terrorist or similar activity, increased security restrictions or the public’s general reluctance to travel by air, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be significantly adversely affected.

Energy price increases may adversely affect our cost of operations and our revenues.

      Our casino properties use significant amounts of electricity, natural gas and other forms of energy. While no shortages of energy have been experienced, the substantial increases in the cost of electricity and natural gas in the United States during 2001 have and may continue to negatively affect our operating results. The extent of the impact is subject to the magnitude and duration of the energy price increases, but this impact could be material. In addition, energy price increases in cities that constitute a significant source of customers for our properties could result in a decline in disposable income of potential customers and a corresponding decrease in visitation and spending at our properties, which would negatively impact revenues.

The Boyd family owns a controlling interest in our capital stock and may significantly influence our affairs.

      William S. Boyd, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, together with his immediate family, beneficially owned approximately 50% of our outstanding shares of common stock as of December 31, 2001. As a result, the Boyd family has the ability to significantly influence our affairs, including the election of our directors and, except as otherwise provided by law, approving or disapproving other matters submitted to a vote of our stockholders, including a merger, consolidation or sale of assets. In addition, if the Boyd family were to sell its shares to a single investor or limited group of investors, resulting in those investors’ beneficial ownership of 50% or more of our voting stock, a change in control could be deemed to have occurred in connection with the notes.

Leverage and Debt Service

      At December 31, 2001, we had total consolidated long-term debt, less current maturities, of approximately $1.1 billion, which represents approximately 76% of our total capitalization as of such date. Our current debt service requirements on our bank credit facility primarily consist of interest payments on outstanding indebtedness. The bank credit facility consists of a $500 million revolver component and two $100 million term loan components, term loan B and term loan C, all of which mature in June 2003.

12

Table of Contents

      In addition, we expect to fund our subsidiary’s remaining capital contributions of $62 million required by the Operating Agreement for our Atlantic City Joint Venture with borrowings under the bank credit facility, incremental bank financing, or the issuance of subordinated debt to the extent not funded from cash flow from operations. Our ability to make payments on and to refinance our indebtedness and to fund planned capital expenditures and expansion efforts will depend on our ability to generate cash in the future. This, to a certain extent, is subject to general economic, financial, competitive, legislative, regulatory and other factors that are beyond our control. It is unlikely that our business will generate sufficient cash flow from operations, or that future borrowings will be available to us under our bank credit facility, in amounts sufficient to enable us to pay our indebtedness as it matures and to fund our other liquidity needs. We believe that we will need to refinance all or a portion of our indebtedness on or before maturity. However, we can provide no assurance that we will be able to refinance any of our indebtedness on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. We could have to adopt one or more alternatives, such as reducing or delaying planned expenses and capital expenditures, selling assets, restructuring debt, or obtaining additional equity or debt financing or joint venture partners. There can be no assurance that any of these financing strategies could be effected on satisfactory terms, if at all. In addition, certain states’ laws contain restrictions on the ability to companies engaged in the gaming business to undertake certain financing transactions. Some restrictions may prevent us from obtaining necessary capital. See “— Governmental Gaming Regulation,” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources.”

GOVERNMENTAL GAMING REGULATION

      We are subject to a variety of regulations in the jurisdictions in which we operate. If additional gaming regulations are adopted in a jurisdiction in which we operate, such regulations could impose restrictions or costs that could have a significant adverse effect on us. From time to time, various proposals have been introduced in the legislatures of some of the jurisdictions in which we have existing or planned operations that, if enacted, could adversely affect the tax, regulatory, operational or other aspects of the gaming industry and us. We do not know whether or not such legislation will be enacted. The federal government has also previously considered a federal tax on casino revenues and may consider such a tax in the future. In addition, gaming companies are currently subject to significant state and local taxes and fees in addition to normal federal and state corporate income taxes, and such taxes and fees are subject to increase at any time. Any material increase in these taxes or fees could adversely affect us.

      The ownership and operation of casino gaming facilities in Nevada are subject to the Nevada Gaming Control Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder, which we refer to as the Nevada Act and various local regulations. Our gaming operations are subject to the licensing and regulatory control of the Nevada Gaming Commission, the Nevada State Gaming Control Board, and the Clark County Liquor and Gaming Licensing Board, which we collectively refer to as the Nevada Gaming Authorities.

13

Table of Contents

      The laws, regulations and supervisory procedures of the Nevada Gaming Authorities are based upon declarations of public policy which are concerned with, among other things:

      Changes in such laws, regulations and procedures could have an adverse effect on our gaming operations and our business, financial condition and results of operations.

      Corporations that operate casinos in Nevada are required to be licensed by the Nevada Gaming Authorities. A gaming license requires the periodic payment of fees and taxes and is not transferable. We are registered by the Nevada Commission as a publicly traded corporation, or a Registered Corporation. As a Registered Corporation, we are required periodically to submit detailed financial and operating reports to the Nevada Commission and furnish any other information which the Nevada Commission may require. We have been found suitable by the Nevada Commission to own the stock of California Hotel and Casino. California Hotel and Casino is licensed by the Nevada Commission to operate non-restricted gaming activities at the California and Sam’s Town Las Vegas and is additionally registered as a holding corporation and approved by the Nevada Gaming Authorities to own the stock of Mare Bear, Inc., the operator of the Stardust, Sam Will, Inc., the operator of the Fremont, Eldorado, Inc., the operator of the Eldorado and Jokers Wild, and MSW, Inc., the operator of Main Street Station. No person may become a stockholder of, or receive any percentage of profits from, California Hotel and Casino or its subsidiaries without first obtaining licenses and approvals from the Nevada Gaming Authorities. Boyd Gaming, California Hotel and Casino, Mare Bear, Sam Will, Eldorado, Inc. and MSW have obtained from the Nevada Gaming Authorities the various registrations, approvals, permits and licenses required in order to engage in gaming activities in Nevada.

      The Nevada Gaming Authorities may investigate any individual who has a material relationship to, or material involvement with, Boyd Gaming, California Hotel and Casino or any of its licensed subsidiaries in order to determine whether such individual is suitable or should be licensed as a business associate of a gaming licensee. Officers, directors and certain key employees of California Hotel and Casino and its licensed subsidiaries must file applications with the Nevada Gaming Authorities and may be required to be licensed or found suitable by the Nevada Gaming Authorities. Our officers, directors and key employees who are actively and directly involved in gaming activities of California Hotel and Casino or its licensed subsidiaries may be required to be licensed or found suitable by the Nevada Gaming Authorities. The Nevada Gaming Authorities may deny an application for licensing for any cause which they deem reasonable. A finding of suitability is comparable to licensing, and both require submission of detailed personal and financial information followed by a thorough investigation. The applicant for licensing or a finding of suitability must pay 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 licensure, the Nevada Gaming Authorities have jurisdiction to disapprove a change in a corporate position.

      If the Nevada Gaming Authorities were to find an officer, director or key employee unsuitable for licensing or unsuitable to continue having a relationship with us, California Hotel and Casino or any of its licensed subsidiaries, the companies involved would have to sever all relationships with such person. In addition, the Nevada Commission may require Boyd Gaming, California Hotel and Casino or any of its licensed subsidiaries to terminate the employment of any person who refuses to file appropriate applications.

14

Table of Contents

      Boyd Gaming, California Hotel and Casino and its licensed subsidiaries are required to submit detailed financial and operating reports to the Nevada Commission. Substantially all material loans, leases, sales of securities and similar financing transactions by California Hotel and Casino and its subsidiaries must be reported to, or approved by, the Nevada Commission.

      If it were determined that the Nevada Act was violated by California Hotel and Casino or any of its licensed subsidiaries, the gaming licenses they hold could be limited, conditioned, suspended or revoked, subject to compliance with certain statutory and regulatory procedures. In addition, California Hotel and Casino, the subsidiary involved, Boyd Gaming, and the persons involved could be subject to substantial fines for each separate violation of the Nevada Act at the discretion of the Nevada Commission. Further, a supervisor could be appointed by the Nevada Commission to operate our gaming properties and, under certain circumstances, earnings generated during the supervisor’s appointment (except for reasonable rental value of our gaming properties) 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) materially adversely affect our gaming operations and our business, financial condition and results of operations.

      Any beneficial holder of our voting securities, regardless of the number of shares owned, may be required to file an application, be investigated and have his suitability as a beneficial holder of our voting securities determined if the Nevada Commission has reason to believe that such ownership would otherwise be inconsistent with the declared policies of the State of Nevada. The applicant must pay all costs of investigation incurred by the Nevada Gaming Authorities in conducting any such investigation.

      The Nevada Act requires any person who acquires more than 5% of our voting securities to report the acquisition to the Nevada Commission. The Nevada Act requires that beneficial owners of more than 10% of our voting securities 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. Under certain circumstances, an “institutional investor,” as defined in the Nevada Act, which acquires more than 10%, but not more than 15%, of our voting securities may apply to the Nevada Commission for a waiver of such finding of suitability if such institutional investor holds the voting securities for investment purposes only. An institutional investor shall 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 our board of directors, any change in our corporate charter, bylaws, management, policies or operations, or any of our gaming affiliates, or any other action which the Nevada Commission finds to be inconsistent with holding our voting securities for investment purposes only. Activities which are not deemed to be inconsistent with holding voting securities for investment purposes include only:

      If the beneficial holder of voting securities who must be found suitable is a corporation, partnership or trust, it must submit detailed business and financial information including a list of beneficial owners. The applicant is required to pay all costs of investigation.

      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 if the record owner, after request, fails to identify the beneficial owner. Any stockholder found unsuitable and who holds, directly or indirectly, any beneficial ownership of the

15

Table of Contents

      Additionally, the Clark County Board has taken the position that it has the authority to approve all persons owning or controlling the stock of any corporation controlling a gaming license.

      The Nevada Commission may, at its discretion, require the holder of any debt security of a Registered Corporation to file applications, be investigated and be found suitable to own the debt security of a Registered Corporation. If the Nevada Commission determines that a person is unsuitable to own such security, then pursuant to the Nevada Act, the Registered Corporation can be sanctioned, including the loss of its approvals, if without the prior approval of the Nevada Commission, it:

      We are required to maintain a current stock ledger in Nevada which may be examined by the Nevada Gaming Authorities at any time. If any securities are held in trust by an agent or by a nominee, the record holder may be required to disclose the identity of the beneficial owner to the Nevada Gaming Authorities. A failure to make such disclosure may be grounds for finding the record holder unsuitable. We are also required to render maximum assistance in determining the identity of the beneficial owner. The Nevada Commission has the power to require our securities to bear a legend indicating that the securities are subject to the Nevada Act. However, to date, the Nevada Commission has not imposed such a requirement on us.

      We may not make a public offering of our 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. Such approval, if given, does not constitute a finding, recommendation or approval by the Nevada Gaming Authorities as to the accuracy or adequacy of the prospectus or the investment merits of the securities. Any representation to the contrary is unlawful. The Nevada Commission granted us prior approval to make public offerings through September 2003, subject to certain conditions. The Nevada Commission’s approval may be rescinded for good cause without prior notice upon the issuance of an interlocutory stop order by the Chairman of the Nevada Board. The Nevada Commission’s approval does not constitute a finding, recommendation or approval by the Nevada Commission or the Nevada Board as to the accuracy or adequacy of the offering memorandum or the investment merits of the notes offered. Any representation to the contrary is unlawful.

      Changes in control of Boyd Gaming through merger, consolidation, stock or asset acquisitions, management or consulting agreements, or any act or conduct by a person whereby he obtains control, may not occur without the prior approval of the Nevada Commission. Entities seeking to acquire control of a Registered Corporation must satisfy the Nevada Gaming Authorities in a variety of stringent standards prior to assuming control of such Registered Corporation. The Nevada Commission may also require controlling stockholders, officers, directors and other persons having a material relationship or involvement with the entity

16

Table of Contents

      The Nevada legislature has declared that some corporate acquisitions opposed by management, repurchase of voting securities and corporate defense tactics affecting Nevada gaming licensees, and Registered Corporations that are affiliated with those licensees, may be injurious to stable and productive corporate gaming. The Nevada Commission has established a regulatory scheme to ameliorate the potentially adverse effects of these business practices upon Nevada’s gaming industry and to further Nevada’s policy to:

      Approvals are, in certain circumstances, required from the Nevada Commission before we can make exceptional repurchases of voting securities above the current market price thereof and before a corporate acquisition opposed by management can be consummated. As a Registered Corporation, the Nevada Act also requires prior approval of a plan of recapitalization proposed by our Board of Directors in response to a tender offer made directly to our stockholders for the purposes of acquiring control of us.

      License fees and taxes, computed in various ways depending on the type of gaming or activity involved, are payable to the State of Nevada, Clark County and the City of Las Vegas. Depending upon the particular fee or tax involved, these fees and taxes are payable either monthly, quarterly or annually and are based upon any of:

      A casino entertainment tax is also paid by casino operations where entertainment is furnished in connection with the selling of food or refreshments.

      Any person who is licensed, required to be licensed, registered, required to be registered, or is under common control with such persons, which we refer to as Licensees, and who proposes to become involved in a gaming venture outside of Nevada is required to deposit with the Nevada Board, and thereafter maintain, a revolving fund in the amount of $10,000 to pay the expenses of investigation of the Nevada Board of their participation in such foreign gaming. The revolving fund is subject to increase or decrease in the discretion of the Nevada Commission. Thereafter, Licensees are required to comply with certain reporting requirements imposed by the Nevada Act. Licensees are also subject to disciplinary action by the Nevada Commission if they knowingly violate any laws of the foreign jurisdiction pertaining to the foreign gaming operation, fail to conduct the foreign gaming operation in accordance with the standards of honesty and integrity required of Nevada gaming operations, engage in activities that are harmful to the State of Nevada or its ability to collect gaming taxes and fees, or employ a person in the foreign operation who has been denied a license or finding of suitability in Nevada on the ground of personal unsuitability.

      The sale of food or alcoholic beverages at our Nevada casinos is subject to licensing, control and regulation by the applicable local authorities. All licenses are revocable and are not transferable. The agencies involved have full power to limit, condition, suspend or revoke any such license, and any such disciplinary action could, and a revocation would, have a significant adverse effect upon the operations of the affected casino or casinos.

      We are subject to the jurisdiction of the Illinois gaming authorities as a result of our acquisition of the Par-A-Dice Gaming Corporation (dba Par-A-Dice Riverboat Casino) based in East Peoria, Illinois.

17

Table of Contents

      In February 1990, the State of Illinois legalized riverboat gambling. The Illinois Riverboat Gambling Act, which we refer to as the initial Illinois Act, authorizes the five-member Illinois Gaming Board, which we refer to as the Illinois Board, to issue up to ten riverboat gaming owners’ licenses on navigable streams within or forming a boundary of the State of Illinois except for Lake Michigan and any waterway in Cook County, which includes Chicago. Pursuant to the initial Illinois Act, a licensed owner who holds greater than a 10% interest in one riverboat operation, could hold no more than a 10% interest in any other riverboat operation. In addition, the initial Illinois Act restricted the location of certain of the ten owners’ licenses. Four of the licenses were to be located on the Mississippi River, one license was to be at a location on the Illinois River south of Marshall County and one license had to be located on the Des Plaines River in Will County. The remaining licenses were not restricted as to location. Currently, nine owner’s licenses are in operation, including one license in each of Alton, Aurora, East Peoria, East St. Louis, Elgin, Metropolis, Rock Island and two licenses in Joliet. The tenth license, which was initially granted to an operator in East Dubuque, was not renewed by the Illinois Board and has been the subject of on-going litigation.

      Furthermore, under the initial Illinois Act, no gambling could be conducted while a riverboat was docked. A gaming excursion could last no more than four hours, and a gaming excursion was deemed to have started when the first passenger boarded a riverboat. Gaming could continue during passenger boarding for a period of up to 30 minutes. Gaming was also allowed for a period of up to 30 minutes after the gangplank or its equivalent was lowered, thereby allowing passengers to exit the riverboat. During the 30-minute exit time period, new passengers were not allowed to board the riverboat. Although riverboats were mandated to cruise, there were certain exceptions. If a riverboat captain reasonably determined that either it was unsafe to transport passengers on the waterway due to inclement weather or the riverboat had been rendered temporarily inoperable by unforeseeable mechanical or structural difficulties or river icing, the riverboat could remain dockside or return to the dock. In those situations, a gaming excursion could commence or continue while the gangplank or its equivalent was raised and remained raised, in which event the riverboat was not considered docked. If a gaming excursion had to begin or continue with the gangplank or its equivalent raised, and the riverboat did not leave the dock, entry of new patrons on to the riverboat was prohibited until the completion of the excursion.

      In June of 1999, amendments to the Illinois Act, which we refer to as the Amended Illinois Act, were passed by the legislature and signed into law by the Governor. The Amended Illinois Act redefined the conduct of gaming in the state. Pursuant to the Amended Illinois Act, riverboats can conduct gambling without cruising, and passengers can enter and leave a riverboat at any time. In addition, riverboats may now be located upon any water within Illinois, and not just navigable waterways. There is no longer any prohibition of a riverboat being located in Cook County. Riverboats are now defined as self-propelled excursion boats or permanently moored barges. The Amended Illinois Act requires that only three, rather than four, owner’s licenses, be located on the Mississippi River. The 10% ownership prohibition has also been removed. Therefore, subject to certain Illinois Board rules, individuals or entities could own more than one riverboat operation.

      The Amended Illinois Act also allows for the relocation of a riverboat home dock. A licensee that was not conducting riverboat gambling on January 1, 1998, may apply to the Illinois Board for renewal and approval of relocation to a new home dock and the Illinois Board shall grant the application and approval of the new home dock upon the licensee providing to the Illinois Board authorization from the new dockside community. Pursuant to the Amended Illinois Act, the former owner and operator of the East Dubuque riverboat applied for renewal of its license and to relocate its operation to Rosemont, Illinois. The Illinois Board denied the renewal application. Pursuant to the Illinois Board Rules, this entity filed a request for an administrative hearing. Therefore, this license may be the subject of on-going litigation. Any licensee that relocates in accordance with the provisions of the Amended Illinois Act, must attain a level of at least 20% minority ownership of such a gaming operation.

      In October 1999, the constitutionality of the Amended Illinois Act was challenged. That lawsuit was dismissed because the court determined that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Amended Illinois Act. The plaintiffs have appealed this decision. Because the challenge to the Amended Illinois Act is on-going, there is no assurance that the Amended Illinois Act will be upheld as constitutional. There is no assurance that

18

Table of Contents

      The initial Illinois Act strictly regulates the facilities, persons, associations and practices related to gaming operations. The initial Illinois Act grants the Illinois Board specific powers and duties, and all other powers necessary and proper to fully and effectively execute the initial Illinois Act for the purpose of administering, regulating and enforcing the system of riverboat gaming. The Illinois Board has authority over every person, association, corporation, partnership and trust involved in riverboat gaming operations in the State of Illinois.

      The initial Illinois Act requires the owner of a riverboat gaming operation to hold an owner’s license issued by the Illinois Board. Each owner’s license permits the holder to own up to two riverboats, however, gaming participants are limited to 1,200 for any owner’s license. The number of gaming participants will be determined by the number of gaming positions available. Gaming positions are counted as follows:

      Each owner’s license initially runs for a period of three years. Thereafter, the license must be renewed annually. Under the Amended Illinois Act, the Board may renew an owner’s license for up to four years. An owner licensee is eligible for renewal upon payment of the applicable fee and a determination by the Illinois Board that the licensee continues to meet all of the requirements of the initial Illinois Act and Illinois Board rules. The owner’s license for Par-A-Dice Riverboat Casino initially expired in February 1995. Since that time, the license has been renewed annually. The most recent renewal approved by the Illinois Board in March of 2000 was for a term of four years. An ownership interest in an owner’s license may not be transferred or pledged as collateral without the prior approval of the Illinois Board.

      Pursuant to the Amended Illinois Act, which lifted the 10% ownership prohibition, the Illinois Board established certain rules to effectuate this statutory change. In deciding whether to approve direct or indirect ownership or control of an owner’s license, the Illinois Board shall consider the impact of any economic concentration of the ownership or control. No direct or indirect ownership or control shall be approved which will result in undue economic concentration of the ownership of riverboat gambling operations in Illinois. Undue economic concentration means that a person or entity would have actual or potential domination of riverboat gambling in Illinois sufficient to:

      The Illinois Board will consider the following criteria in determining whether the approval of the issuance, transfer or holding of a license will create undue economic concentration:

19

Table of Contents

      The initial Illinois Act does not limit the maximum bet or per patron loss. Minimum and maximum wagers on games are set by the owner licensee. Wagering may not be conducted with money or other negotiable currency. No person under the age of 21 is permitted to wager and wagers may only be received from a person present on the riverboat. With respect to electronic gaming devices, the payout percentage may not be less than 80% nor more than 100%.

      An admission tax is imposed on the owner of a riverboat operation. Under the Amended Illinois Act, a $2.00 admission tax is imposed for each admission to a riverboat casino. Additionally, a wagering tax is imposed on the adjusted gross receipts, as defined in the initial Illinois Act, of a riverboat operation. Currently, the wagering tax is as follows: 15% of adjusted gross receipts up to and including $25,000,000; 20% of adjusted gross receipts in excess of $25,000,000 but not exceeding $50,000,000; 25% of adjusted gross receipts in excess of $50,000,000 but not exceeding $75,000,000; and 30% of adjusted gross receipts in excess of $75,000,000 but not exceeding $100,000,000; and 35% of adjusted gross receipts in excess of $100,000,000. The owner licensee is required, on a daily basis, to wire the wagering tax payment to the Illinois Board.

      In addition to owner’s licenses, the Illinois Board also requires licensing for all vendors of gaming supplies and equipment and for all employees of a riverboat gaming operation. The Illinois Board is authorized to conduct investigations into the conduct of gaming and into alleged violations of the Illinois Act and the Illinois Board rules. Employees and agents of the Illinois Board have access to and may inspect any facilities relating to the riverboat gaming operation.

      A holder of any license is subject to imposition of fines, suspension or revocation of such license, or other action for any act or failure to act by himself or his agents or employees, that is injurious to the public health, safety, morals, good order and general welfare of the people of the State of Illinois, or that would discredit or tend to discredit the Illinois gaming industry or the State of Illinois. Any riverboat operations not conducted in compliance with the initial Illinois Act may constitute an illegal gaming place and consequently may be subject to criminal penalties, which penalties include possible seizure, confiscation and destruction of illegal gaming devices and seizure and sale of riverboats and dock facilities to pay any unsatisfied judgment that may be recovered and any unsatisfied fine that may be levied. The initial Illinois Act also provides for civil penalties, equal to the amount of gross receipts derived from wagering on the gaming, whether unauthorized or authorized, conducted on the day of any violation. The Illinois Board may revoke or suspend licenses, as the Illinois Board may see fit and in compliance with applicable laws of the State of Illinois regarding administrative procedures and may suspend an owner’s license, without notice or hearing, upon a determination that the safety or health of patrons or employees is jeopardized by continuing a riverboat’s operation. The suspension may remain in effect until the Illinois Board determines that the cause for suspension has been abated and it may revoke the owner’s license upon a determination that the owner has not made satisfactory progress toward abating the hazard.

20

Table of Contents

      If the Illinois Board has suspended, revoked or refused to renew the license of an owner or if a riverboat gambling operation is closing and the owner is voluntarily surrendering its owner’s license, the Illinois Board may petition the local circuit court in which the riverboat is situated for appointment of a receiver. The circuit court will have sole jurisdiction over any and all issues pertaining to the appointment of a receiver. The Illinois Board will specify the specific powers, duties and limitations for the receiver, including but not limited to the authority to:

      The Illinois Board will submit at least three nominees to the court. The nominees may be individuals or entities selected from an Illinois Board approved list of pre-qualified receivers who meet the same criteria for a finding of preliminary suitability for licensure under Sections 3000.230(c)(2)(B) and (C). In the event that the Illinois Board seeks the appointment of a receiver on an emergency basis, the Illinois Board will submit at least two nominees selected from the Illinois Board approved list of pre-qualified receivers to the court and will issue a Temporary Operating Permit to the receiver appointed by the Court. A receiver, upon appointment by the court, will before assuming his or her duties, execute and post the same bond as an owner’s licensee pursuant to Section 10 of the initial Illinois Act.

      The receiver will function as an independent contractor, subject to the direction of the Court. However, the receiver will also provide to the Illinois Board regular reports and provide any information deemed necessary for the Illinois Board to ascertain the receiver’s compliance with all applicable rules and laws. From time to time, the Illinois Board may, at its sole discretion, report to the Court on the receiver’s level of compliance and any other information deemed appropriate for disclosure to the Court. The term and compensation of the receiver shall be set by the court. The receiver will provide to the Court and the Illinois Board at least 30 days written notice of any intent to withdraw from the appointment or to seek modification of the appointment. Except as otherwise provided by action to the Illinois Board, the gaming operation will be deemed a licensed operation subject to all rules of the Illinois Board during the tenure of any receivership.

      The Illinois Board requires that a “Key Person” of an owner licensee submit a Personal Disclosure or Business Entity Form and be investigated and approved by the Illinois Board. The Illinois Board shall certify for each applicant for or holder of an owner’s license each position, individual or Business Entity that is to be approved by the Board and maintain suitability as a Key Person. With respect to an applicant for or the holder of an owner’s license, Key Person shall include:

21

Table of Contents

      In order to assist the Illinois Board in its determination of Key Persons, applicants for or holders of an owner’s license shall provide to the Illinois Board a Table of Organization, Ownership and Control, which we refer to as the Table. The Table will identify in sufficient detail the hierarchy of individuals and Business Entities that, through direct or indirect means, manage own or control the interest and assets of the applicant or licensee holder. If a Business Entity identified in the Table is a publicly traded company, the following information must be provided in the Table:

      Each owner licensee must provide a means for the economic disassociation of a Key Person in the event such economic disassociation is required by an order of the Illinois Board. Based upon findings from an investigation into the character, reputation, experience, associations, business probity and financial integrity of a Key Person, the Illinois Board may enter an order upon the licensee or require the economic disassociation of such Key Person.

      Furthermore, each applicant or owner licensee must disclose the identity of every person, association, trust or corporation having a greater than 1% direct or indirect pecuniary interest in an owner licensee or in the riverboat gaming operation with respect to which the license is sought. The Illinois Board may also require an applicant or owner licensee to disclose any other principal or investor and require the investigation and approval of such individuals.

      The Illinois Board (unless the investor qualifies as an Institutional Investor) requires a Personal Disclosure Form from any person or entity who or which, individually or in association with others, acquires directly or indirectly, beneficial ownership of more than 5% of any class of voting securities or non-voting securities convertible into voting securities of a publicly-traded corporation which holds an ownership interest in the holder of an owner’s license. If the Illinois Board denies an application for such a transfer and if no hearing is requested, the applicant for the transfer of ownership interest must promptly divest those shares in the publicly-traded parent corporation. The holder of an owner’s license would not be able to distribute profits to a publicly-traded parent corporation until such shares have been divested. If a hearing is requested, the shares need not be divested and profits may be distributed to a publicly-held parent corporation pending the issuance of a final order from the Illinois Board.

      An Institutional Investor that individually or jointly with others, cumulatively acquires, directly or indirectly, 5% or more of any class of voting securities of a publicly-traded licensee or a licensee’s publicly-traded parent corporation shall, within no less than ten days after acquiring such securities, notify the Administrator of the Board of such ownership and shall provide any additional information as may be required. If an Institutional Investor (as specified above) acquires 10% or more of any class of voting securities of a publicly-traded licensee or a licensee’s publicly-traded parent corporation, then it shall file an Institutional Investor Disclosure Form within 45 days after acquiring such level of ownership interest. The owner licensee shall notify the Administrator as soon as possible after it becomes aware that it or its parent is involved in an ownership acquisition by an Institutional Investor. The Institutional Investor also has an obligation to notify the Administrator of its ownership interest.

22

Table of Contents

      In addition to Institutional Investor Disclosure Forms, certain other forms may be required to be submitted to the Illinois Board. An owner-licensee must submit a Marketing Agent Form to the Illinois Board for each Marketing Agent with whom it intends to do business. A Marketing Agent is a person or entity, other than a junketeer or an employee of a riverboat gaming operation, who is compensated by the riverboat gaming operation in excess of $100 per patron per trip for identifying and recruiting patrons. Key Persons of owner-licensees must submit Trust Identification Forms for trusts, excluding land trusts, for which they are a grantor, trustee or beneficiary each time such a trust relationship is established, amended or terminated.

      Applicants for and holders of an owner’s license are required to obtain formal approval from the Illinois Board for changes in the following areas:

      A holder of an owner’s license is allowed to make distributions to its stockholders only to the extent that such distribution would not impair the financial viability of the gaming operation. Factors to be considered by the licensee include, but are not limited to, the following:

      The Illinois Board may waive any licensing requirement or procedure provided by rule if it determines that such waiver is in the best interests of the public and the gaming industry. Also, the Illinois Board may, from time to time, amend or change its rules.

      From time to time, various proposals have been introduced in the Illinois legislature that, if enacted, would affect the taxation, regulation, operation or other aspects of the gaming industry or Boyd Gaming. Some of this legislation, if enacted, could adversely affect the gaming industry or Boyd Gaming. No assurance can be given whether such legislation or similar legislation will be enacted.

      Uncertainty exists regarding the Illinois gaming regulatory environment due to limited experience in interpreting the Illinois Act.

      On April 27, 1997, Boyd Atlantic City Inc., or BAC, filed an application for a casino license with the New Jersey Casino Control Commission, which we refer to as the NJCCC. We and BAC also sought

23

Table of Contents

      On July 8, 1998, at a public meeting, the NJCCC confirmed BAC’s status as an applicant for a casino license. The NJCCC also considered the petition for Statements of Compliance and declared that, as of the date of the meeting, both we and BAC possessed:

      The NJCCC further found that, as of the date thereof, our officers and directors and those of BAC whose qualifications must be established to receive Statements of Compliance met the qualifications established under the Casino Control Act.

      On August 8, 1998, we notified the NJCCC that our proposed casino project will be that of the Marina District Development Company, LLC, a joint venture between BAC and MAC Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mirage Resorts, Inc., or MAC. We refer to the Joint Venture between BAC and MAC as the Operating Company. Subsequently, on October 6, 1998, the general counsel’s office of the NJCCC, by letter, confirmed that the staff of the NJCCC is treating the Operating Company as the applicant for the proposed casino hotel project.

      While the issuance of Statements of Compliance indicate satisfaction of various criteria as of the date thereof, such issuance is not an assurance of licensure and the NJCCC retains the right to review the Statements of Compliance based on changes of circumstances. Furthermore, the Statements of Compliance do not address many of the items required for casino licensure.

      On December 13, 2000, the membership interests of BAC and MAC in the Operating Company were contributed to Marina District Development Holding Co., LLC (the Holding Company), and the Operating Company became a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Holding Company. Both MAC and BAC are members of the Holding Company and have 50% ownership interests therein, and BAC is the Managing Member of the Holding Company. The Holding Company is the sole member of the Operating Company.

      We, BAC, the Operating Company and the Holding Company will continue to submit additional license application items to the NJCCC as required.

      The ownership and operation of casino gaming facilities in New Jersey are subject to the New Jersey Casino Control Act, which we refer to as the Casino Control Act. In general, the Casino Control Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder contain detailed provisions concerning, among other things:

24

Table of Contents

      The NJCCC is empowered under the Casino Control Act to regulate a wide spectrum of gaming and nongaming related activities and to approve the form of ownership and financial structure of not only a casino licensee, but also its entity qualifiers and intermediary and holding companies.

      No casino hotel facility may operate unless the appropriate license and approvals are obtained from the NJCCC, which has broad discretion with regard to the issuance, renewal, revocation, and suspension of such licenses and approvals, which are nontransferable. The qualification criteria with respect to the holder of a casino license include the following:

      The NJCCC may reopen licensing hearings at any time and must reopen a licensing hearing at the request of the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, or the NJDGE.

      To be considered financially stable, a licensee must demonstrate the following ability:

      In the event a licensee fails to demonstrate financial stability, the NJCCC may take such action as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of the Casino Control Act and protect the public interest, including:

      Pursuant to the Casino Control Act, NJCCC regulations and precedent, no entity may hold a casino license unless:

25

Table of Contents

obtains and maintains qualification approval from the NJCCC. Qualification approval means qualification requirements as a casino key employee, as described below.

      An entity qualifier or intermediary or holding company is required to register with the NJCCC and meet the same basic standards for approval as a casino licensee; provided, however, that the NJCCC, with the concurrence of the Director of the NJDGE, may waive compliance by a publicly-traded corporate holding company as to any officer, director, lender, underwriter, agent or employee thereof, or person directly or indirectly holding a beneficial interest or ownership of the securities of such company, where the NJCCC and the Director of the NJDGE are satisfied that such persons are not significantly involved in the activities of the corporate licensee, and in the case of security holders, do not have the ability to control the publicly-traded corporation or elect one or more of its directors.

      The NJCCC may require all financial backers, investors, mortgagors, bond holders and holders of notes or other evidence of indebtedness, either in effect or proposed, which bears any relation to the casino project, publicly-traded securities of an entity which holds a casino license or is an entity qualifier, subsidiary, or holding company of a casino licensee (a Regulated Company), to qualify as financial sources.

      An Institutional Investor is defined by the Casino Control Act as any:

      An Institutional Investor is granted a waiver by the NJCCC from financial source or other qualification requirements applicable to a holder of publicly-traded securities, in the absence of a prima facie showing by the NJDGE that there is any cause to believe that the Institutional Investor may be found unqualified, on the basis of NJCCC findings that:

26

Table of Contents

      Generally, the NJCCC requires each institutional holder seeking waiver of qualification to execute a certification to the effect that:

      If an Institutional Investor changes its investment intent, or if the NJCCC finds reasonable cause to believe that it may be found unqualified, the Institutional Investor may take no action with respect to the security holdings, other than to divest itself of such holdings, until it has applied for interim casino authorization and has executed a trust agreement pursuant to such an application.

      The Casino Control Act imposes certain restrictions upon the issuance, ownership, and transfer of securities of a Regulated Company, and defines the term “security” to include instruments which evidence a direct or indirect beneficial ownership or creditor interest in a Regulated Company including, but not limited to, mortgages, debentures, security agreements, notes and warrants.

      If the NJCCC finds that a holder of such securities is not qualified under the Casino Control Act, it has the right to take any remedial action it may deem appropriate, including the right to force divestiture by such disqualified holder of such securities. In the event that certain disqualified holders fail to divest themselves of such securities, the NJCCC has the power to revoke or suspend the casino license affiliated with the Regulated Company which issued the securities. If a holder is found unqualified, it is unlawful for the holder:

      With respect to non-publicly-traded securities, the Casino Control Act and NJCCC regulations require that the corporate charter or partnership agreement of a Regulated Company establish:

      With respect to publicly-traded securities, such corporate charter or partnership agreement is required to establish that any such securities of the entity are held subject to the condition that, if a holder thereof is found to be disqualified by the NJCCC, such holder shall dispose of such securities.

      Whenever any person enters into a contract to transfer any property which relates to an ongoing casino operation, including a security of the casino licensee or a holding or intermediary company or entity qualifier, under circumstances which would require that the transferee obtain licensure or be qualified under the Casino Control Act, and that person is not already licensed or qualified, the transferee is required to apply for interim

27

Table of Contents

      If, as the result of a transfer of publicly-traded securities of a Regulated Company or a financing entity of a Regulated Company, any person is required to qualify under the Casino Control Act, that person is required to file an application for licensure or qualification within 30 days after the NJCCC determines that qualification is required or declines to waive qualification.

      The application must include a fully executed trust agreement in a form approved by the NJCCC, or in the alternative, within 120 days after the NJCCC determines that qualification is required, the person whose qualification is required must divest such securities as the NJCCC may require in order to remove the need to qualify.

      The NJCCC may grant interim casino authorization where it finds by clear and convincing evidence that:

      When the NJCCC finds the applicant qualified, the trust will terminate. If the NJCCC denies qualification to a person who has received interim casino authorization, the trustee is required to endeavor, and is authorized, to sell, assign, convey, or otherwise dispose of the property subject to the trust to such persons who are licensed or qualified or shall themselves obtain interim casino authorization.

      Where a holder of publicly-traded securities is required, in applying for qualification as a financial source or qualifier, to transfer such securities to a trust in application for interim casino authorization and the NJCCC thereafter orders that the trust become operative:

      The NJCCC may permit a licensee to increase its casino space if the licensee agrees to add a prescribed number of qualifying sleeping units within two years after the commencement of gaming operations in the additional casino space. However, if the casino licensee does not fulfill such agreement due to conditions within its control, the licensee will be required to close the additional casino space, or any portion of thereof that the NJCCC determines should be closed.

      The NJCCC is authorized to establish annual fees for the renewal of casino licenses. The renewal fee is based upon the cost of maintaining control and regulatory activities prescribed by the Casino Control Act, and may not be less than $100,000 for a one-year casino license nor less than $200,000 for a four-year casino license. Additionally, casino licenses are subject to potential assessments to fund any annual operating deficits incurred by the NJCCC or the NJDGE. There is also an annual license fee of $500 for each slot machine maintained for use or in use in any casino. Additionally, each casino licensee is also required to pay an annual tax of 8% on its gross casino revenues.

28

Table of Contents

      Each party to an agreement for the management of a casino is required to hold a casino license, and the party who is to manage the casino must own at least 10% of all the outstanding equity securities of the casino licensee. Such an agreement shall provide for:

      An investment alternative tax imposed on the gross casino revenues of each licensee in the amount of 2.5% is due and payable on the last day of April following the end of the calendar year. A licensee is obligated to pay the investment alternative tax for a period of 30 years. This investment alternative tax may be offset by investment tax credits equal to 1.25% of gross gaming revenue, which are obtained by purchasing bonds issued by, or investing in housing or other development projects approved by, the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority.

      If, at any time, it is determined that a Regulated Company has violated the Casino Control Act, or that any such entity cannot meet the qualification requirements of the Casino Control Act, such entity could be subject to fines or the suspension or revocation of its license or qualification. If a Regulated Company’s license is suspended for a period in excess of 120 days or revoked, or upon the failure or refusal to renew a casino license, the NJCCC could appoint a conservator to operate or dispose of such entity’s casino hotel facilities. The conservator would be required to act under the direct supervision of the NJCCC and would be charged with the duty of conserving, preserving and, if permitted, continuing the operation of such casino hotel. During the period of true conservatorship, a former or suspended casino licensee is entitled to a fair rate of return out of net earnings, if any, on the property retained by the conservator. The NJCCC may also discontinue any conservatorship action and direct the conservator to take such steps as are necessary to effect an orderly transfer of the property of a former or suspended casino licensee.

      Casino employees are subject to more stringent requirements than non-casino employees and must meet applicable standards pertaining to financial stability, responsibility, good character, honesty, integrity and New Jersey residency. These requirements have resulted in significant competition among Atlantic City casino operators for the services of qualified employees.

      Casinos must follow certain procedures which are outlined in the Casino Control Act when granting gaming credit and recording counter checks which have been exchanged, redeemed or consolidated. Gaming debts arising in Atlantic City in accordance with applicable regulations are enforceable in the courts of the State of New Jersey.

      The operation and management of riverboat casinos, slot machine operations at certain racetracks and live racing facilities in Louisiana are subject to extensive state regulation. The Louisiana Riverboat Economic Development and Gaming Control Act, or the Riverboat Act, became effective on July 19, 1991. The Louisiana Pari-Mutuel Live Racing Facility Economic Redevelopment and Gaming Control Act, or the Slots Act, became effective on July 9, 1997. The statutory scheme regulating live and off-track betting, or the Horse Racing Act, has been in existence for decades.

      The Riverboat Act states, among other things, that certain of the policies of the State of Louisiana are:

29

Table of Contents

      The Slots Act states, among other things, that certain policies of the State of Louisiana are:

      The Horse Racing Act states, among other things, that certain policies of the State of Louisiana are:

      Both the Riverboat Act and the Slots Act make it clear, however, that no holder of a license or permit possesses any vested interest in such license or permit and that the license or permit may be revoked at any time.

      In a special session held in April 1996, the Louisiana legislature passed the Louisiana Gaming Control Act, or the Gaming Control Act, which created the Louisiana Gaming Control Board, or the Gaming Control Board. Pursuant to the Gaming Control Act, all of the regulatory authority, control and jurisdiction of licensing for both riverboats and slot facilities was transferred to the Gaming Control Board. The Gaming Control Board came into existence on May 1, 1996 and is made up of nine members and two ex-officio members (the Secretary of Revenue and Taxation and the superintendent of Louisiana State Police). It is domiciled in Baton Rouge and regulates riverboat gaming, the land-based casino in New Orleans, racetrack slot facilities and video poker. The Attorney General acts as legal counsel to the Gaming Control Board. Any material alteration in the method whereby riverboat gaming or slot facilities is regulated in the State of Louisiana could have an adverse effect on the operations of the Treasure Chest and at Delta Downs.

Riverboats

      The Louisiana legislature also passed legislation requiring each parish (county) where riverboat gaming is currently authorized to hold an election in order for the voters to decide whether riverboat gaming will remain legal in that parish. Treasure Chest is located in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. Jefferson Parish approved riverboat gaming at the special election held on November 6, 1996.

      The Riverboat Act approved the conducting of gaming activities on a riverboat, in accordance with the Riverboat Act, on twelve separate waterways in Louisiana. The Riverboat Act allows the Gaming Control Board to issue up to fifteen licenses to operate riverboat gaming projects within the state, with no more than six in any one parish. There are presently fifteen licenses issued and fourteen riverboats operating. Pursuant to the Riverboat Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder, each applicant which desired to operate a riverboat casino in Louisiana was required to file a number of separate applications for a Certificate of Preliminary Approval, all necessary gaming licenses and a Certificate of Final Approval. No final Certificate was issued without all necessary and proper certificates from all regulatory agencies including the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, local port authorities and local levee authorities.

      The Treasure Chest project application for a Certificate of Preliminary Approval was filed by Treasure Chest Casino, L.L.C., the owner of Treasure Chest. Treasure Chest received its Preliminary Certificate in August 1993 and received its license on May 18, 1994. The license is subject to certain general operational conditions and is subject to revocation pursuant to applicable laws and regulations.

      We and certain of our directors and officers and certain of our key personnel were found suitable to operate riverboat gaming in the State of Louisiana. New directors, officers and certain key employees associated with gaming must also be found suitable by the Gaming Control Board prior to working in gaming-

30

Table of Contents

      The original Louisiana riverboat gaming license of Treasure Chest was valid for five years and was to expire on May 18, 1999. An application for renewal was filed and, in August 2000, the renewal was approved by the Gaming Control Board for an additional five-year period.

      In October 1998, a former majority member of the entity that previously owned an 85% interest in Treasure Chest pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit extortion under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 371, in connection with the granting of the original Louisiana gaming license of Treasure Chest. Although neither Treasure Chest nor Boyd Gaming or any of its affiliates or employees has been implicated in any manner in this investigation or prosecution, the Gaming Control Board has undertaken a full and complete investigation into the matter. Additionally, we are involved in legal proceedings with two unsuccessful applicants for riverboat licenses in Louisiana. These parties have raised issues concerning the issuance of the Treasure Chest license. See “Business — Legal Proceedings” for a description of these proceedings.

      In a special session held in March 2001, the Louisiana legislature passed legislation which prohibits riverboats from cruising. This act essentially authorized landbased or dockside gaming on each of the licensed riverboats including Treasure Chest. The legislation also increased the amount of taxes paid by each riverboat.

      Annual fees are currently charged to each riverboat project as follows:

      Additionally, each local government may charge a boarding fee of $2.50 per passenger boarding the vessel. Any increase in these fees or taxes could have a material and detrimental effect on the operations of Treasure Chest.

Slot Facilities

      The Slots Act allows for three separate “eligible facilities” to operate slot machines at live horse racing pari-mutuel facilities (one each in Calcasieu Parish, St. Landry Parish and Bossier Parish). Each facility may, upon proper licensure, operate slot machines in up to 15,000 square feet of gaming space.

      On October 30, 2001, the Louisiana Gaming Control Board granted us a gaming license to operate slot machines at Delta Downs. However, on November 2, 2001, Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries filed an action in state district court in Louisiana against the Louisiana Gaming Control Board, and later named Delta Downs to the action, seeking to enjoin the legal effect of our gaming license to operate slot machines at Delta Downs. Isle of Capri’s petition alleged that the former owner of Delta Downs did not properly describe the square foot specifications for the Delta Downs renovations in the request for the Calcasieu Parish Slot Machine Gaming Referendum, that a separate gaming referendum was required prior to the issuance of our gaming license for Delta Downs, that our application for a gaming license should have been referred to a hearing officer, that the Gaming Control Board abused its discretion by not limiting the square footage and number of gaming devices at Delta Downs and that the former owner of Delta Downs was required to be found suitable in order to be eligible to receive certain performance-based payments pursuant to the terms of our purchase agreement for Delta Downs.

      Isle of Capri requested that the state district court preliminarily enjoin the legal effect of our gaming license based on the allegations made in its November 2, 2001 petition. On November 20, 2001, after a hearing on Isle of Capri’s request for the preliminary injunction, the state district court denied all of Isle of Capri’s claims, except for the claim asserting that the former owner of Delta Downs required a suitability hearing, and preliminarily enjoined the legal effect of our gaming license to operate slot machines at Delta

31

Table of Contents

      In addition, on October 29, 2001, Harrah’s of Lake Charles, LLC (formerly the Players Lake Charles, LLC), Harrah’s Star Partnership (formerly the Showboat Star Partnership) and several individuals, collectively, the plaintiffs, filed suit in state district court in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, against DDRA Capital, Inc. (the former owner of Delta Downs), the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury and Boyd Racing, L.L.C., the entity that owns and operates Delta Downs, seeking to revoke the building permit that the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury granted to us for our construction and renovation at Delta Downs. Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that our construction and renovation at Delta Downs exceeds the square foot specifications that were approved by the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury, and that the number of slot machines that we were approved to operate at Delta Downs exceeds the number which the former owner previously represented, in connection with the Calcasieu Parish Slot Machine Gaming Referendum, would be operated at the facility. On December 7, 2001, we responded to the plaintiffs’ complaint claiming, among other things, that their complaint failed to state a cause of action for which relief could be sought and that the statute of limitations on their action had lapsed. On February 11, 2002, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to eliminate certain defendants from the action. On March 1, 2002, the state district court approved Harrah’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury from the action, leaving DDRA and Boyd Racing as the defendants. We have not yet responded to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint, but currently plan to do so in the near future. To date, no trial date has been set on this action. We believe this lawsuit is without merit and we intend to defend the suit vigorously.

      We can provide no assurances that, if either action proceeds to trial, we will ultimately be successful in defending against such action at trial. In the event the claim seeking to permanently enjoin the legal effect of our license to operate slot machines at Delta Downs is ultimately successful, we would not be able to continue the operation of slot machines at Delta Downs. In addition, in the event the claim seeking to revoke our building permit at Delta Downs is ultimately successful, we would have to reduce both the number of slot machines we can operate and the size of the casino at Delta Downs.

      If either action is ultimately successful at trial, it would materially affect our cash flow from Delta Downs, would reduce the value of the Delta Downs acquisition and could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

      Gaming licenses and approvals are issued by the Gaming Control Board, and are subject to revocation for any cause deemed reasonable by the Gaming Control Board. Our operation of slot machines at Delta Downs is subject to strict regulation by the Gaming Control Board and the Louisiana State Police. Extensive regulations concerning accounting, internal controls, underage patrons and other aspects of slot machine operations have been promulgated by the Gaming Control Board. Failure to adhere to these rules and regulations can result in substantial fines and the suspension or revocation of the license to conduct slot machine operations. For example, on February 22, 2002, our license to operate slot machines at Delta Downs was temporarily suspended for failing to comply with the Louisiana Gaming Control Board’s regulations regarding certain internal controls. As such, Delta Downs was temporarily closed for a period of 18 hours before we were allowed to reopen. In addition, on February 27, 2002, we temporarily closed Delta Downs on a voluntary basis for a six hour period to demonstrate to the Louisiana State Police our ability to remain in compliance with the Louisiana Gaming Control Board’s regulations. Any failure to comply with the Louisiana Gaming Control Board’s rules or regulations in the future could ultimately result in the revocation of our license to operate slot machines at Delta Downs.

      Annual Fees and taxes currently charged each pari-mutuel slot facility under the Slots Acts are as follows:

32

Table of Contents

Gaming Control Board

      At any time, the Gaming Control Board may investigate and require the finding of suitability of any stockholder, beneficial stockholder, officer or director of Boyd Gaming or of any of its subsidiaries. The Gaming Control Board requires all holders of more than a 5% interest in the license holder to submit to suitability requirements. Additionally, if a shareholder who must be found suitable is a corporate or partnership entity, then the shareholders or partners of the entity must also submit to investigation. The sale or transfer of more than a 5% interest in any riverboat or slot project is subject to Gaming Control Board approval.

      Pursuant to the regulations promulgated by the Gaming Control Board, all licensees are required to inform the Gaming Control Board of all debt, credit, financing and loan transactions, including the identity of debt holders. Our subsidiaries, Treasure Chest Casino, L.L.C. and Boyd Racing, L.L.C., are licensees and are subject to these regulations. In addition, the Gaming Control Board, in its sole discretion, may require the holders of such debt securities to file applications and obtain suitability certificates from the Gaming Control Board. Although the Riverboat Act and the Slots Act do not specifically require debt holders to be licensed or to be found suitable, the Gaming Control Board retains the discretion to investigate and require that any holders of debt securities be found suitable under the Riverboat Act or the Slots Act. Additionally, if the Gaming Control Board finds that any holder exercises a material influence over the gaming operations, a suitability certificate will be required. If the Gaming Control Board determines that a person is unsuitable to own such a security or to hold such an indebtedness, the Gaming Control Board may propose any action which it determines proper and necessary to protect the public interest, including the suspension or revocation of the license. The Gaming Control Board may also, under the penalty of revocation of license, issue a condition of disqualification naming the person(s) and declaring that such person(s) may not:

      Any violation of the Riverboat Act, the Slots Act or the rules promulgated by the Gaming Control Board could result in substantial fines, penalties (including a revocation of the license) and criminal actions. Additionally, all licenses and permits issued by the Gaming Control Board are revocable privileges and may be revoked at any time by the Gaming Control Board.

Live Horse Racing

      Pari-mutuel betting and the conducting of live horse race meets in Louisiana are strictly regulated by the Louisiana State Racing Commission, which we refer to as the Racing Commission. The Racing Commission is comprised of ten members and is domiciled in New Orleans, Louisiana. In order to be approved to conduct a live race meet and to operate pari-mutuel wagering (including off-track betting), an applicant must show, among other things:

33

Table of Contents

      In May 2001, a subsidiary of Boyd Gaming applied for and received approval from the Racing Commission to buy Delta Downs. Approval was also granted to conduct live race meets and to operate pari-mutuel wagering at the Delta Downs facility and to conduct off-tract wagering both at Delta Downs and at a facility located at Mound, Louisiana (across the Mississippi River from Vicksburg, Mississippi). The term of these licenses is ten years.

      Any alteration in the regulation of riverboat casinos, slot machine operations at certain racetracks, or live racing facilities could have a material adverse effect on the operations of Treasure Chest Casino, L.L.C. or of Delta Downs.

      The ownership and operation of casino gaming facilities in the State of Mississippi, such as those at Sam’s Town Tunica, are subject to extensive state and local regulation, but primarily the licensing and regulatory control of the Mississippi Gaming Commission, or the Mississippi Commission.

      The Mississippi Gaming Control Act, or the Mississippi Act, is similar to the Nevada Gaming Control Act. The Mississippi Commission has adopted regulations which are also similar in many respects to the Nevada gaming regulations.

      The laws, regulations and supervisory procedures of the Mississippi Commission are based upon declarations of public policy that are concerned with, among other things:

      The regulations are subject to amendment and interpretation by the Mississippi Commission. Changes in Mississippi laws or regulations may limit or otherwise materially affect the types of gaming that may be conducted and such changes, if enacted, could have an adverse effect on us and our business, financial condition and results of operations.

      The Mississippi Act provides for legalized dockside gaming at the discretion of the fourteen counties that border the Gulf Coast or the Mississippi River, but only if the voters in the county have not voted to prohibit gaming in that county. In recent years, certain anti-gaming groups proposed for adoption through the initiative and referendum process certain amendments to the Mississippi Constitution which would prohibit gaming in the state. The proposals were declared illegal by Mississippi courts on constitutional and procedural grounds. The latest ruling was appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court, which affirmed the decision of the lower court. If another such proposal were to be offered and if a sufficient number of signatures were to be gathered to place a legal initiative on the ballot, it is possible for the voters of Mississippi to consider such a proposal in November of 2003. While we are unable to predict whether such an initiative will appear on a ballot or the

34

Table of Contents

      As of January 1, 2001, dockside gaming was permissible in nine of the fourteen eligible counties in the state and gaming operations had commenced in seven counties. Under Mississippi law, gaming vessels must be located on the Mississippi River or on navigable waters in eligible counties along the Mississippi River, or in the waters lying south of the counties along the Mississippi Gulf Coast.

      Our Sam’s Town Tunica casino is located on barges situated in a specially constructed basin several hundred feet inland from the Mississippi River. In the past, whether basins such as the one in which our casino barges are located constituted “navigable waters” suitable for gaming under Mississippi law was a controversial issue. The Mississippi Attorney General issued an opinion in July 1993 addressing legal locations for gaming vessels under the Mississippi Act and the Mississippi Commission later approved the location of the casino barges on the Sam’s Town Tunica site as legal under the opinion of the Mississippi Attorney General. Although a competitor requested the Mississippi Commission to review and reconsider its decision, the Mississippi Commission declined to do so and since that date has issued or renewed licenses to Sam’s Town Tunica on several separate occasions. Sam’s Town Tunica’s license requires demonstration of compliance with the Mississippi Attorney General’s “navigable waters” opinion, a requirement which has been imposed on many Tunica County licensees. We believe that Sam’s Town Tunica is in compliance with the Mississippi Act and the Mississippi Attorney General’s “navigable waters” opinion. However, no assurance can be given that a court would ultimately conclude that our casino barges at Sam’s Town Tunica are located on navigable waters within the meaning of Mississippi law. If the basin in which our Sam’s Town Tunica casino barges are presently located were not deemed navigable waters within the meaning of Mississippi law, such a decision would have a significant adverse effect on us and our business, financial condition and results of operations.

      The Mississippi Act permits unlimited stakes gaming on permanently moored vessels on a 24-hour basis and does not restrict the percentage of space which may be utilized for gaming. The Mississippi Act permits substantially all traditional casino games and gaming devices.

      We and any subsidiary of ours that operates a casino in Mississippi, which we refer to as a Gaming Subsidiary, are subject to the licensing and regulatory control of the Mississippi Commission. We are registered under the Mississippi Act as a publicly traded corporation, or a Registered Corporation, of Boyd Tunica, Inc., the owner and operator of Sam’s Town Tunica, a licensee of the Mississippi Commission. As a Registered Corporation, we are required periodically to submit detailed financial and operating reports to the Mississippi Commission and furnish any other information which the Mississippi Commission may require. If we are unable to continue to satisfy the registration requirements of the Mississippi Act, we and any Gaming Subsidiary cannot own or operate gaming facilities in Mississippi. No person may become a stockholder of or receive any percentage of profits from a licensed subsidiary of a Registered Corporation without first obtaining licenses and approvals from the Mississippi Commission. We have obtained such approvals in connection with the licensing of Sam’s Town Tunica.

      A Gaming Subsidiary must maintain a gaming license from the Mississippi Commission to operate a casino in Mississippi. Such licenses are issued by the Mississippi Commission subject to certain conditions, including continued compliance with all applicable state laws and regulations. There are no limitations on the number of gaming licenses which may be issued in Mississippi. Gaming licenses require the payment of periodic fees and taxes, are not transferable, are issued for a three-year period and may be continued for two additional three-year periods and must be renewed periodically thereafter. Sam’s Town Tunica’s current gaming license expires in December of 2004.

      Certain of our officers and employees and the officers, directors and certain key employees of Sam’s Town Tunica must be found suitable or approved by the Mississippi Commission. We believe that we have obtained, applied for or are in the process of applying for all necessary findings of suitability with respect to Boyd Gaming or Sam’s Town Tunica, although the Mississippi Commission, in its discretion, may require additional persons to file applications for findings of suitability. In addition, any person having a material relationship or

35

Table of Contents

      At any time, the Mississippi Commission has the power to investigate and require the finding of suitability of any record or beneficial stockholder of Boyd Gaming. The Mississippi Act requires any person who acquires more than five percent of any class of voting securities of a Registered Corporation, as reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, to report the acquisition to the Mississippi Commission, and such person may be required to be found suitable. Also, any person who becomes a beneficial owner of more than ten percent of any class of voting securities of a Registered Corporation must apply for a finding of suitability by the Mississippi Commission and must pay the costs and fees that the Mississippi Commission incurs in conducting the investigation. The Mississippi Commission generally has exercised its discretion to require a finding of suitability of any beneficial owner of more than five percent of any class of voting securities of a Registered Corporation. However, the Mississippi Commission has adopted a policy that permits certain institutional investors to own beneficially up to fifteen percent of a class of voting securities of a Registered Corporation without a finding of suitability. If a stockholder who must be found suitable is a corporation, partnership or trust, it must submit detailed business and financial information including a list of beneficial owners.

      Any person who fails or refuses to apply for a finding of suitability or a license within thirty days after being ordered to do so by the Mississippi Commission may be found unsuitable. The same restrictions apply to a record owner, if the record owner, after request, fails to identify the beneficial owner. Any person found unsuitable and who holds, directly or indirectly, any beneficial ownership of our securities beyond such time as the Mississippi Commission prescribes, may be guilty of a misdemeanor. We believe that our compliance with the licensing procedures and regulatory requirements of the Mississippi Commission will not affect the marketability of our securities. We may be subject to disciplinary action if, after receiving notice that a person is unsuitable to be a stockholder or to have any other relationship with us or any Gaming Subsidiary owned by us, the company involved:

      We may be required to disclose to the Mississippi Commission, upon request, the identities of the holders of our debt or other securities. In addition, under the Mississippi Act the Mississippi Commission may, in its discretion, require the holder of any debt security of a Registered Corporation to file an application, be investigated and be found suitable to own the debt security if it has reason to believe that the ownership would be inconsistent with the declared policies of the State.

      Although the Mississippi Commission generally does not require the individual holders of obligations such as notes to be investigated and found suitable, the Mississippi Commission retains the discretion to do so for any reason, including but not limited to, a default where the holder of the debt instruments exercises a material influence over the gaming operations of the entity in its question. Any holder of debt securities

36

Table of Contents

      If the Mississippi Commission determines that a person is unsuitable to own a debt security, then the Registered Corporation can be sanctioned, including the loss of its approvals, if without the prior approval of the Mississippi Commission, it:

      Each Mississippi Gaming Subsidiary must maintain in Mississippi a current ledger with respect to the ownership of its equity securities and we must maintain in Mississippi a current list of our stockholders which must reflect the record ownership of each outstanding share of any class of our equity securities. The ledger and stockholder lists must be available for inspection by the Mississippi Commission at any time. If any securities are held in trust by an agent or by a nominee, the record holder may be required to disclose the identity of the beneficial owner to the Mississippi Commission. A failure to make such disclosure may be grounds for finding the record holder unsuitable. We must also render maximum assistance in determining the identify of the beneficial owner.

      The Mississippi Act requires that the certificates representing securities of a Registered Corporation bear a legend indicating that the securities are subject to the Mississippi Act and the regulations of the Mississippi Commission. We have received from the Mississippi Commission a waiver from this legend requirement. The Mississippi Commission has the power to impose additional restrictions on the holders of our securities at any time.

      Substantially all material loans, leases, sales of securities and similar financing transactions by a Registered Corporation or a Gaming Subsidiary must be reported to or approved by the Mississippi Commission. A Mississippi Gaming Subsidiary may not make a public offering of its securities, but may pledge or mortgage casino facilities. A Registered Corporation may not make a public offering of its securities without the prior approval of the Mississippi Commission if any part of the proceeds of the offering is to be used to finance the construction, acquisition or operation of gaming facilities in Mississippi or to retire or extend obligations incurred for those purposes. Such approval, if given, does not constitute a recommendation or approval of the investment merits of the securities subject to the offering. We have received a waiver of the prior approval requirement with respect to public offerings and private placements of securities, subject to certain conditions.

      Under the regulations of the Mississippi Commission, a Gaming Subsidiary may not guarantee a security issued by an affiliated company pursuant to a public offering, or pledge its assets to secure payment or performance of the obligations evidenced by the security issued by the affiliated company, without the prior approval of the Mississippi Commission. A pledge of the stock of a gaming licensee and the foreclosure of such a pledge are ineffective without the prior approval of the Mississippi Commission. Moreover, restrictions on the transfer of an equity security issued by a Gaming Subsidiary and agreements not to encumber such securities are ineffective without the prior approval of the Mississippi Commission. We have obtained approvals from the Mississippi Gaming Commission for such guarantees, pledges and restrictions in connection with offerings of securities, subject to certain restrictions.

      Changes in control of us through merger, consolidation, acquisition of assets, management or consulting agreements or any act or conduct by a person by which he or she obtains control, may not occur without the prior approval of the Mississippi Commission. Entities seeking to acquire control of a Registered Corporation must satisfy the Mississippi Commission in a variety of stringent standards prior to assuming control of the Registered Corporation. The Mississippi Commission may also require controlling stockholders, officers,

37

Table of Contents

      The Mississippi legislature has declared that some corporate acquisitions opposed by management, repurchases of voting securities and other corporate defense tactics that affect corporate gaming licensees in Mississippi and Registered Corporations, may be injurious to stable and productive corporate gaming. The Mississippi Commission has established a regulatory scheme to ameliorate the potentially adverse effects of these business practices upon Mississippi’s gaming industry and to further Mississippi’s policy to:

      Approvals are, in certain circumstances, required from the Mississippi Commission before a Registered Corporation may make exceptional repurchases of voting securities (such as repurchases which treat holders differently) in excess of the current market price and before a corporate acquisition opposed by management can be consummated. Mississippi’s gaming regulations also require prior approval by the Mississippi Commission of a plan of recapitalization proposed by the Registered Corporation’s board of directors in response to a tender offer made directly to the Registered Corporation’s shareholders for the purpose of acquiring control of the Registered Corporation.

      Neither we nor any Gaming Subsidiary may engage in gaming activities in Mississippi while also conducting gaming operations outside of Mississippi without approval of the Mississippi Commission. The Mississippi Commission may require determinations that, among other things, there are means for the Mississippi Commission to have access to information concerning the out-of-state gaming operations of us and our affiliates. We have previously obtained a waiver of foreign gaming approval from the Mississippi Commission for operations in other states in which we conduct gaming operations and will be required to obtain the approval or a waiver of such approval from the Mississippi Commission prior to engaging in any additional future gaming operations outside of Mississippi.

      If the Mississippi Commission determined that we or Sam’s Town Tunica violated a gaming law or regulation, the Mississippi Commission could limit, condition, suspend or revoke our approvals and the license of Sam’s Town Tunica, subject to compliance with certain statutory and regulatory procedures. In addition, we, Sam’s Town Tunica and the persons involved could be subject to substantial fines for each separate violation. Because of such a violation, the Mississippi Commission could attempt to appoint a supervisor to operate the casino facilities. Limitation, conditioning or suspension of any gaming license or approval or the appointment of a supervisor could (and revocation of any gaming license or approval would), materially adversely affect us and our business, financial condition and results of operations.

      License fees and taxes, computed in various ways depending on the type of gaming or activity involved, are payable to the State of Mississippi and to the counties and cities in which a Gaming Subsidiary’s operations are conducted. Depending upon the particular fee or tax involved, these fees and taxes are payable either monthly, quarterly or annually. Gaming taxes are based upon the following:

      The license fee payable to the State of Mississippi is based upon “gaming receipts” (generally defined as gross receipts less payouts to customers as winnings) and the current maximum tax rate imposed is eight percent of all gaming receipts in excess of $134,000. The foregoing license fees we pay are allowed as a credit against our Mississippi income tax liability for the year paid. The gross revenues fee imposed by Tunica County in which Sam’s Town Tunica is located equals approximately four percent of the gaming receipts.

38

Table of Contents

      The Mississippi Commission has adopted a regulation requiring as a condition of licensure or license renewal that an existing gaming establishment’s plan include a 500-car parking facility in close proximity to the casino complex and infrastructure facilities which will amount to at least 25% of the casino cost. The Mississippi Commission later adopted amendments to the regulation that would increase the infrastructure development requirement from 25% to 100% for new casinos (or upon the acquisition of a closed casino), but would grandfather existing licensees. We believe that Sam’s Town Tunica is in compliance with the previously existing infrastructure requirement and is not subject to the increased infrastructure requirement.

      The sale of alcoholic beverages by Sam’s Town Tunica is subject to licensing, control and regulation by both the local jurisdiction and the Alcoholic Beverage Control Division, or ABC, of the Mississippi State Tax Commission. Sam’s Town Tunica is in an area designated as special resort area, which allows Sam’s Town Tunica to serve alcoholic beverages on a 24-hour basis. If the ABC laws are violated, the ABC has the full power to limit, condition, suspend or revoke any license for the serving of alcoholic beverages or to place such a licensee on probation with or without conditions. Any such disciplinary action could (and revocation would) have a significant adverse effect upon us and our business, financial condition and results of operations. Certain of our officers and managers at Sam’s Town Tunica must be investigated by the ABC in connection with our liquor permits and changes in certain key positions must be approved by the ABC.

      In Mississippi, in three separate instances, representatives of an anti-gaming group proposed voter initiatives which, if approved, would have amended the Mississippi Constitution to ban gaming in Mississippi and would have required all currently legal gaming entities to cease operations within two years of the ban. All three of the proposed initiatives were ruled illegal by Mississippi state trial courts because, among other reasons, each of the proposed initiatives failed to include required information regarding the anticipated effect of such a ban on government revenues. The proponents of the most recent initiative appealed the trial court ruling to the Mississippi Supreme Court, which affirmed the decision of the trial court prohibiting the proponents from proceeding with the proposed initiative. Any such initiative must be approved by the Mississippi Secretary of State and signatures of at least 91,673 registered voters statewide (with a minimum of 18,335 registered voters from each of the state’s five congressional districts) must be gathered and certified in order for such a proposal to be included on the statewide ballot for consideration by the voters. The next election for which the proponents could attempt to place such a proposal on the ballot would be in November 2003. It is possible in the future that a revised initiative may be proposed which will adequately address the issues regarding the effect on government revenues of a prohibition of gaming in Mississippi. However, while we are unable to make any predictions with respect to whether such an initiative will appear on a ballot or the likelihood of such an initiative being approved by the voters, if such an initiative were passed and gaming were prohibited in Mississippi, it would have a significant adverse effect on us and our business, financial condition and results of operations.

      The Indiana Riverboat Gaming Act, or the Indiana Act, was passed in 1993 and authorizes the issuance of up to eleven Riverboat Owner’s Licenses to be operated from counties that are contiguous to the Ohio River, Lake Michigan and Patoka Lake. In October 2000, the tenth riverboat commenced operations in Indiana. Five of the riverboats are located in counties contiguous to the Ohio River and five are in counties contiguous to Lake Michigan. The Indiana Gaming Commission, the regulatory body with jurisdiction over Indiana riverboats, has not considered applications for a Riverboat Owner’s License to be sited in a county contiguous to Patoka Lake since Patoka Lake is a project of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Corps has determined Patoka Lake is unsuitable for a riverboat project.

      The Indiana Act and rules promulgated thereunder provide for the strict regulation of the facilities, persons, associations and practices related to gaming operations. The Indiana Act vests the seven member Indiana Gaming Commission with the power and duties of administering, regulating and enforcing riverboat gaming in Indiana. The Indiana Gaming Commission’s jurisdiction extends to every person, association, corporation, partnership and trust involved in any riverboat gaming operation located in the State of Indiana.

39

Table of Contents

      The Indiana Act requires that the owner of a riverboat gambling operation hold a Riverboat Owner’s License issued by the Indiana Gaming Commission. The applicants for a Riverboat Owner’s License must submit a comprehensive application and the substantial owners and key persons must submit personal disclosure forms. The company, substantial owners and key persons must undergo an exhaustive background investigation prior to the issuance of a Riverboat Owner’s License. A person who owns or will own five percent of a Riverboat Owner’s License must automatically undergo the background investigation. The Indiana Gaming Commission may investigate any person with any level of ownership interest. If the holder of a Riverboat license, or the Riverboat Licensee is a publicly traded corporation, its Articles of Incorporation must contain language concerning transfer of ownership, suitability determinations and possible divestiture of ownership.

      A Riverboat Owner’s License entitles the licensee to operate one riverboat. A person licensed to hold more than ten percent of one Indiana riverboat gambling operation may only hold up to ten percent of a second Indiana riverboat gambling operation.

      All riverboats must comply with applicable federal and state laws including, but not limited to, U.S. Coast Guard regulations. Each riverboat must be certified to carry at least five hundred passengers and be at least one hundred fifty feet in length. Those riverboats located in counties contiguous to the Ohio River must replicate historic Indiana steamboat passenger vessels of the nineteenth century. The Indiana Act does not limit the number of gaming positions allowed on each riverboat. The only limitation on the number of permissible patrons allowed is established by the U.S. Coast Guard Certificate of Inspection in the specification of the riverboat’s capacity.

      The Indiana Gaming Commission, after consultation with the Corps, may determine those navigable waterways located in counties contiguous to Lake Michigan or the Ohio River that are suitable for riverboats. If the Corps rescinds approval for the operation of a riverboat gambling facility, the Riverboat Owner’s License issued by the Indiana Gaming Commission is void and the Riverboat Licensee may not commence or must cease conducting gambling operations. Rules promulgated by the Indiana Gaming Commission require that employees working on a riverboat docked on the waters of Lake Michigan hold a merchant marine document from the U.S. Coast Guard. Employees whose duties consist of operating or navigating the riverboat must hold the appropriate licenses and a merchant marine document from the U.S. Coast Guard.

      The initial Riverboat Owner’s License runs for a period of five years. Thereafter, the license is subject to renewal on an annual basis upon a determination by the Indiana Gaming Commission that it continues to be eligible to hold a Riverboat Owner’s License pursuant to the Indiana Act and rules promulgated thereunder. After the expiration of the initial license, each Riverboat Licensee undergoes a complete re-investigation every three years, but the Indiana Gaming Commission reserves the right to investigate Riverboat Licensees at any time it deems necessary. The initial license was issued to Blue Chip Casino, Inc., the predecessor to Blue Chip Casino, LLC, in August of 1997 and will remain valid until August of 2002. Thus, Blue Chip Casino, LLC will undergo its first re-investigation in 2002. Riverboat licensees must apply for and hold all other licenses necessary for the operation of a riverboat gambling operation, including, but not limited to, alcoholic beverage licenses and food preparation licenses.

      The Riverboat Owner’s License may not be leased, hypothecated or have money borrowed or loaned against it. An ownership interest in a Riverboat Owner’s License may only be transferred in accordance with the Indiana Act and rules promulgated thereunder.

      The Indiana Act does not limit the amount a patron may bet or lose. Minimum and maximum wagers for each game are set by the Riverboat Licensee. Wagering may not be conducted with money or other negotiable currency. No person under the age of 21 is permitted to wager on or be present on a riverboat. Wagers may only be taken from a person present on the riverboat. All electronic gaming devices must pay out between eighty and one hundred percent of the amount wagered.

      Unless otherwise approved by the Indiana Gaming Commission, gambling excursions are required to be a minimum of two hours and a maximum of four hours. A gambling excursion begins when patrons are allowed ingress to the vessel if gambling is allowed during that period. A gambling excursion continues during patron

40

Table of Contents

      The riverboat is to commence cruising once the condition has been corrected. If the vessel remains dockside due to one of the conditions listed above, patrons are only allowed access to the riverboat during the thirty-minute embarkation period.

      The Indiana Act imposes a 20% wagering tax on adjusted gross receipts received from gaming. The wagering tax is to be paid by the Riverboat Licensee to the Indiana Department of Revenue before the close of the business day following the day the wagers are made. The Indiana Act requires that Riverboat Licensees pay a $3.00 admission tax for each person admitted to a gambling excursion. The Indiana Act provides for the suspension or revocation of a license whose owner does not timely submit the wagering or admission tax.

      Riverboats licensed by the Indiana Gaming Commission are assessed as real property for property tax purposes and, thus, are taxed at rates determined by local taxing authorities. All Indiana state excise taxes, use taxes and gross retail taxes apply to sales made on a riverboat.

      The Indiana Gaming Commission is authorized to conduct investigations into gambling games, the maintenance of equipment, and violations of the Indiana Act as it deems necessary. The Indiana Gaming Commission may subject a Riverboat Licensee to fines, suspension or revocation of its license for any conduct that violates the Indiana Act, rules promulgated thereunder or that constitutes a fraudulent act.

      A Riverboat Licensee must post a bond during the period of the initial five-year license in an amount the Indiana Gaming Commission deems will secure the obligations of a Riverboat Licensee for infrastructure and other facilities associated with the riverboat gambling operation and that may be used as payment to the local community, the state and other aggrieved parties. The bond must be payable to the Indiana Gaming Commission as obligee. The bond may be reduced during the five-year period of the initial license as the Riverboat Licensee fulfills its obligations. The Riverboat Licensee must carry insurance in types and amounts as required by the Indiana Gaming Commission.

      A Riverboat Licensee may not enter into or perform any contract or transaction in which it transfers or receives consideration that is not commercially reasonable or that does not reflect the fair market value of goods and services rendered or received. All contracts are subject to disapproval by the Indiana Gaming Commission and contracts should reflect the potential for disapproval.

      The Indiana Act places special emphasis on minority and women business enterprise participation in the riverboat industry. Riverboat Licensees must establish goals of expending ten percent of the total dollars spent on the majority of goods and services with minority business enterprises and five percent with women business enterprises. Riverboat Licensees may be subject to a disciplinary action for failure to meet the minority and women business enterprise expenditure goals.

      A Riverboat Licensee or affiliate may not enter into a debt transaction in excess of $1 million without the prior approval of the Indiana Gaming Commission. A debt transaction is any transaction that will result in the encumbrance of assets. Unless waived, approval of debt transactions requires consideration by the Indiana Gaming Commission at two business meetings.

      Rules promulgated by the Indiana Gaming Commission require the reporting of currency transactions to the Indiana Gaming Commission after the transactions are reported to the federal government. Indiana rules also require that Riverboat Licensees track and maintain logs of transactions that exceed $3,000.

41

Table of Contents

      The Indiana Gaming Commission has promulgated a rule that prohibits distributions, excluding distributions for the payment of taxes, by a Riverboat Licensee to its partners, shareholders, itself or any affiliated entity if the distribution would impair the financial viability of the riverboat gaming operation. The Indiana Gaming Commission has also promulgated a rule mandating Riverboat Licensees to maintain a cash reserve to protect patrons against defaults in gaming debts. The cash reserve is to be equal to a Riverboat Licensee’s average payout for a three-day period based on the riverboat’s performance the prior calendar quarter. The cash reserve can consist of cash on hand, cash maintained in Indiana bank accounts and cash equivalents not otherwise committed or obligated.

      The Indiana Act prohibits contributions to a candidate for a state legislative or local office or to a candidate’s committee or to a regular party committee by:

      The prohibition against political contribution extends for three years following a change in the circumstances that resulted in the prohibition.

      Individuals employed on a riverboat and in certain positions must hold an occupational license issued by the Indiana Gaming Commission. Suppliers of gaming equipment and gaming or revenue tracking services must hold a supplier’s license issued by the Indiana Gaming Commission. Riverboat Licensees who employ non-licensed individuals in positions requiring licensure or who purchase supplies from a non-licensed entity may be subject to a disciplinary action.

Employees

      At December 31, 2001, the Company employed approximately 13,750 persons. On such date, the Company had collective bargaining relationships with seven unions covering approximately 2,500 employees, substantially all of whom are employed at the Stardust, the Fremont and Main Street Station. Several collective bargaining agreements are currently in effect; other agreements have expired and are in various stages of negotiation. Employees covered by expired agreements have continued to work during the negotiations, in some cases under the terms of the expired agreements and in others under modifications thereof.

42

Table of Contents

Item 2. Properties

      The following table sets forth certain information regarding our properties as of December 31, 2001.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

      In November 1998, Astoria Entertainment, Inc., an unsuccessful applicant for a riverboat gaming license in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, filed two separate lawsuits (one in state court, one in federal court) which named the Treasure Chest Casino and Boyd Gaming as defendants. After we filed a motion to dismiss the federal claim, Astoria voluntarily dismissed all claims against us and Treasure Chest in the federal actions without prejudice to its right to refile the claims at a later date. Astoria refiled similar claims in early 2001. Motions to dismiss these claims are pending. The Astoria state court suit is stayed pending the outcome of the federal suit.

      Alvin C. Copeland, the sole shareholder of an unsuccessful applicant for a riverboat license at the location of our Treasure Chest Casino, has made several attempts to have the Treasure Chest license revoked and awarded to his company. In 1999 and 2000, Copeland unsuccessfully opposed the renewal of the Treasure Chest license and has brought two separate legal actions against us. In November 1993, Copeland objected to the relocation of Treasure Chest Casino from the Mississippi River to its current site on Lake Ponchatrain. The predecessor to the Louisiana Gaming Control Board allowed the relocation over Copeland’s objection. Copeland then filed an appeal of the agency’s decision with the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. Through a number of amendments to the appeal, Copeland improperly attempted to transform the appeal into a direct action suit and sought the revocation of the Treasure Chest license. Treasure Chest intervened in the matter in order to protect its interests. The appeal/suit was dismissed by the District Court and that dismissal has been appealed by Copeland to the First Circuit Court of Appeal where it is presently pending. Additionally, in 1999, Copeland filed a direct action against Treasure Chest and certain other parties seeking the revocation of Treasure Chest’s license, an award of the license to him and monetary damages. This suit was dismissed by the trial court and the dismissal was appealed by Copeland. That appeal is presently pending in the First Circuit Court of Appeal.

      If any of these matters ultimately result in the Treasure Chest license being revoked, it would have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

43

Table of Contents

      On October 30, 2001, the Louisiana Gaming Control Board granted us a gaming license to operate slot machines at Delta Downs. However, on November 2, 2001, Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries filed an action in state district court in Louisiana against the Louisiana Gaming Control Board, and later named Delta Downs to the action, seeking to enjoin the legal effect of our gaming license to operate slot machines at Delta Downs. Isle of Capri’s petition alleged that the former owner of Delta Downs did not properly describe the square foot specifications for the Delta Downs renovations in the request for the Calcasieu Parish Slot Machine Gaming Referendum, that a separate gaming referendum was required prior to the issuance of our gaming license for Delta Downs, that our application for a gaming license should have been referred to a hearing officer, that the Gaming Control Board abused its discretion by not limiting the square footage and number of gaming devices at Delta Downs and that the former owner of Delta Downs was required to be found suitable in order to be eligible to receive certain performance-based payments pursuant to the terms of our purchase agreement for Delta Downs.

      Isle of Capri requested that the state district court preliminarily enjoin the legal effect of our gaming license based on the allegations made in its November 2, 2001 petition. On November 20, 2001, after a hearing on Isle of Capri’s request for the preliminary injunction, the state district court denied all of Isle of Capri’s claims, except for the claim asserting that the former owner of Delta Downs required a suitability hearing, and preliminarily enjoined the legal effect of our gaming license to operate slot machines at Delta Downs, pending a trial on the merits. On November 21, 2001, we sought a supervisory writ from the appellate court, which request was denied. On December 14, 2001, in response to our motion, the state district court dissolved the preliminary injunction. However, Isle of Capri’s action to permanently enjoin the legal effect of our gaming license, based on certain of the claims in its November 2, 2001 petition, is still pending in state district court in Louisiana.

      In addition, on October 29, 2001, Harrah’s of Lake Charles, LLC (formerly the Players Lake Charles, LLC), Harrah’s Star Partnership (formerly the Showboat Star Partnership) and several individuals, collectively, the plaintiffs, filed suit in state district court in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, against DDRA Capital, Inc. (the former owner of Delta Downs), the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury and Boyd Racing, L.L.C., the entity that owns and operates Delta Downs, seeking to revoke the building permit that the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury granted to us for our construction and renovation at Delta Downs. Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that our construction and renovation at Delta Downs exceeds the square foot specifications that were approved by the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury, and that the number of slot machines that we were approved to operate at Delta Downs exceeds the number which the former owner previously represented, in connection with the Calcasieu Parish Slot Machine Gaming Referendum, would be operated at the facility. On December 7, 2001, we responded to the plaintiffs’ complaint claiming, among other things, that their complaint failed to state a cause of action for which relief could be sought and that the statute of limitations on their action had lapsed. On February 11, 2002, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to eliminate certain defendants from the action. On March 1, 2002, the state district court approved Harrah’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury from the action, leaving DDRA and Boyd Racing as the defendants. We have not yet responded to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint, but currently plan to do so in the near future. To date, no trial date has been set on this action. We believe this lawsuit is without merit and we intend to defend the suit vigorously.

      We can provide no assurances that, if either action proceeds to trial, we will ultimately be successful in defending against such action at trial. In the event the claim seeking to permanently enjoin the legal effect of our license to operate slot machines at Delta Downs is ultimately successful, we would not be able to continue the operation of slot machines at Delta Downs. In addition, in the event the claim seeking to revoke our building permit at Delta Downs is ultimately successful, we would have to reduce both the number of slot machines we can operate and the size of the casino at Delta Downs.

      If either action is ultimately successful at trial, it would materially affect our cash flow from Delta Downs, would reduce the value of the Delta Downs acquisition and could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

44

Table of Contents

      We are also parties to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. We believe that, except for the Astoria, Copeland, Isle of Capri and Harrah’s matters discussed above, all pending claims, if adversely decided, would not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

Item 4A. Executive Officers of the Registrant

      The following table sets forth the non-director executive officers of Boyd Gaming Corporation as of February 28, 2002:

      Ellis Landau has served as our Executive Vice President since January 1997 and Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer since August 1990. From April 1990 through July 1990, he served as our consultant.

      Keith E. Smith was recently promoted to Chief Operating Officer in October 2001 and has served as our Executive Vice President since May 1998. Mr. Smith joined us in September 1990, serving in various controllership positions, the last of which was Senior Vice President and Controller.

      James W. Hippler has served as our Senior Vice President — Administration since April 1990. From 1980 to 1990, Mr. Hippler held various positions with California Hotel and Casino, including Director of Risk Management, Director of Internal Audit and Director of Human Resources.

      Brian A. Larson has served as our Secretary since February 2001 and as our Senior Vice President and General Counsel since January 1998. He became our Associate General Counsel in March 1993 and Vice President — Development in June 1993.

      Jeffrey G. Santoro has been Vice President and Controller since February 2001. Mr. Santoro joined the Company in March 1997 as our Director of Financial Reporting and has also served as our Corporate Controller.

45

Table of Contents

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity and Related Stockholder Matters

      Our Common Stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “BYD.” Information with respect to sales prices and record holders of our Common Stock is set forth below:

PRICE RANGE OF COMMON STOCK

      The following table sets forth, for the calendar quarters indicated, the high and low sales prices of the Common Stock as reported on the NYSE Composite Tape.

      On February 28, 2002, the closing sales price of our Common Stock on the NYSE was $11.10 per share. On that date, we had approximately 1,817 holders of record of our Common Stock.

      We have not paid any cash dividends on our Common Stock to date. We currently anticipate that we will retain future earnings to fund the development and growth of our business and do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Restrictions imposed by commercial lenders and note holders may also limit our ability to pay cash dividends.

Item 6. Selected Consolidated Financial Data

      We have derived the selected consolidated financial data presented below as of December 31, 2001 and 2000 and for the three years in the period ended December 31, 2001 from the audited consolidated financial statements contained elsewhere in this Form 10-K. The selected consolidated financial data presented below as of December 1999, as of and for the years ended December 31, 1998 and June 30, 1997 and as of and for the six month period ended December 31, 1997 have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements not contained herein. Operating results for the periods presented below are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for future years. Effective July 1, 1997, we changed our fiscal year from a June 30 year-end to a December 31 year-end. In January 2001, the Emerging Issues Task Force of the Financial Accounting Standards Board reached a consensus in EITF Issue No. 00-22 Accounting for “Points” and Certain Other Time-Based or Volume-Based Sales Incentive Offer, and Offers for Free Products or Services to be Delivered in the Future. EITF Issue No. 00-22 requires that the redemption of “Points” for

46

Table of Contents