ITEM 1. BUSINESS
GENERAL THE COMPANY
The Company, through a wholly-owned subsidiary, Zante, Inc. ("Zante"), owns and operates the Sands Regency hotel/casino in downtown Reno, Nevada. The Company, through three wholly-owned subsidiaries, Patrician, Inc. ("Patrician"), Gulfside Casino, Inc. ("GCI") and Artemis, Inc., ("Artemis"), owns Gulfside Casino Partnership (the "Partnership"), which owns the Copa Casino, a dockside gaming vessel located in Gulfport, Mississippi. GCI, Patrician and Artemis own .006%, 98.744% and 1.25%, respectively, of the Partnership. Gaming operations for the Copa Casino commenced in September 1993.
Reno, Nevada. The Sands Regency hotel/casino has approximately 27,000 square feet of gaming space and 938 hotel rooms, including 32 suites of various sizes. The complex also includes three restaurants, a coffee house/deli-style restaurant, a "Pizza Hut", and an "Arby's" restaurant, and an "Orange Julius" operated by third parties. The facilities also include three cocktail lounges, a gift shop, a beauty/barber shop and a liquor store, each operated by third parties, a video arcade, a health club, a swimming pool and almost 12,000 square feet of convention and meeting space which can seat up to 950 people. The Company maintains six parking areas on its main hotel/casino property and adjacent to it, including two parking garages, with a total combined capacity for approximately 1,000 vehicles. Although the Company offers, on a very limited basis, complimentary hotel accommodations to select customers, no group arrangements known as "junkets" are conducted.
The average room occupancy for fiscal 1998 was 83.3% compared to 84.4% for 1997. The hotel's average room rate for the current fiscal year was approximately $31.00 as compared to $29.00 in the prior fiscal year.
As of September 21, 1998, the casino offered 20 table games, including 14 blackjack tables, 1 craps table, and 2 roulette tables, 2 let it ride tables and 1 three-card poker table; 2 keno games and approximately 700 slot machines. In connection with the supervision of its gaming activities, the Company's policies include stringent controls, cross-checks and recording of all receipts and disbursements.
The Company's Reno, Nevada operations are conducted 24 hours a day, every day of the year. The primary source of revenues and income to the Company is its gaming activities, although the hotel, bars, shops, restaurants and other services are an important adjunct to the gaming activities. The Company's operating and marketing philosophy emphasizes high volume business, offering large, attractive hotel rooms at reasonable prices to travel group wholesalers, primarily from Western Canada, the Pacific Northwest and Northern California. Gaming accounted for approximately 54% of the Company's revenues in fiscal 1998 and approximately 73% of the gaming revenues were generated by slot machines. The Company generally does not extend credit to its gaming customers.
The Company has concentrated its resources on renovating and improving existing Reno facilities and services. Future expansion plans will be considered based upon future market conditions and the need to add hotel rooms and other major facilities.
Gulfport, Mississippi. The Copa Casino is a permanently moored 500-foot former cruise ship located in Gulfport, Mississippi. Mississippi, which legalized casino gaming in September 1991, allows for 24-hour gaming on riverboats or other floating vessels located on or adjacent to approved navigable waterways. Such floating facilities need not cruise into the waterways and, as such, become permanently moored as dockside gaming facilities. Gulfport is a deep-water port located on U.S. Highway 90 on the Mississippi gulf coast. A population of approximately 2.5 million resides within a 100-mile radius, including New Orleans, Louisiana and Mobile, Alabama. Interstate Highway 10, which is the main thoroughfare between Mobile and New Orleans, lies approximately 10 miles to the north of the port area. The Gulfport-Biloxi metropolitan area has almost 9,000 hotel and motel rooms located in the immediate Gulfport-Biloxi area.
The Copa Casino consists of approximately 24,000 square feet of casino space located on two decks. As of September 21, 1998, the Copa offered approximately 785 slot machines and 22 table games, including 1 craps table, 2 roulette tables, 16 blackjack tables, 1 caribbean stud table, 1 three-card poker table and 1 Spanish 21 table. In addition, the facility also includes 4 cocktail lounges/bars, a deli-style restaurant, a gift shop and various other ancillary services and facilities. The deck below the two casino decks contains a surveillance area, a vault, count rooms and security and various operations and administrative offices. An additional three decks on the ship are available for future expansion of gaming and dining facilities.
The Copa Casino is permanently moored dockside at a location known as the "Horseshoe Site." Such site, which is leased from the Mississippi Department of Economic and Community Development and the Mississippi State Port Authority, is between the East and West Piers of the Mississippi State Port in Gulfport, Mississippi. This location, which includes 8.3 acres of land based facilities, will accommodate surface parking for approximately 840 vehicles. The leased facilities also include a docking structure which accommodates the Copa Casino ship and will allow for mooring of additional vessels. The docking structure also includes a roadway and pedestrian walk which provides access to the Copa Casino entrance.
As in Nevada, the Mississippi operations are conducted 24 hours a day every day of the year. Present operations provide for the offering of complimentary food and beverage on a limited basis. Group arrangements, known as "junkets," are not conducted.
MARKETING
Reno, Nevada. Traditionally, the central component of the Company's marketing philosophy has been to utilize travel wholesalers to attract group and air wholesale business to the hotel/casino. This philosophy is based on offering attractive, well-furnished, large hotel accommodations and quality food and beverages at prices slightly lower than those of most major hotel/casinos in Reno. This strategy has proven to be successful and will continue to be one of the Company's primary focuses in the future. However, because of the significant increase in the number of Reno area hotel rooms in the last several years and increased competition from other gaming venues, competition for wholesale business has intensified. This has resulted in, by necessity, the Sands Regency developing other areas for revenue generating opportunities.
In the past year, the Sands Regency has developed a more comprehensive casino marketing program with an emphasis on guest retention, data base marketing and an increase in advertising awareness. In addition, programs are being developed to attract business segments that had previously been largely untapped, such as locals and residents of Northern California, particularly the Sacramento metropolitan area.
The Company's player tracking system is instrumental in the data base marketing efforts and in guest recognition. This system allows the casino marketing efforts to more effectively identify good customers and
develop special events, programs and activities that appeal to them. An aggressive promotion and player events schedule has also been implemented to allow the Sands Regency to retain guests for longer periods of time and generate incremental visits.
The Company will also continue to use a flexible approach to pricing its rooms which is designed to maximize occupancy levels. Hotel rooms are offered at discount prices to travel wholesalers, as much as six months in advance of arrival, for block sales of rooms used in travel packages. This is particularly important to the Company because of the impact of hotel occupancy on the level of gaming activity. The Company is particularly dependent upon group business from November through February because of the seasonal decline in other sources of business. During these months, a substantial amount of the Sands Regency's hotel capacity is normally prebooked 30 to 180 days in advance on a cancellable basis.
Significant group and air wholesale market areas continue to include Western Canada, the Pacific Northwest and Northern California. The Company continues to expand its marketing areas by adding additional air wholesalers and has been successful in obtaining wholesale business in Central Canada, the Midwest, Southwest and Southern California.
The Sands Regency is the lead hotel/casino in the Reno area for several major travel wholesalers who serve major cities in the West, Midwest and Southwest United States and in Western and Central Canada. Group and air wholesale business accounted for approximately 61% of the hotel's occupancy in fiscal 1998 compared to 62% in fiscal 1997.
In addition to the group and air wholesale business, the Company aggressively packages and markets convention and military reunion business which require 300 rooms or less. Other travel package arrangements are also promoted which are geared toward individual travelers.
The Sands Regency will continue to rely on advertising by travel wholesalers in their markets. However, an increase in advertising efforts, in both the local market and selected feeder markets, such as Northern California, is important to the Sands Regency's long-term success. The Sands Regency has recently increased local and out-of-market advertising expenditures including radio, billboard, and print advertising. During periods of time when group business operates at reduced levels, the Company will also continue to utilize print advertising in its major market areas, with an emphasis on room rates, to attract individual customers. These efforts will continue into the future as the Sands Regency strives to strengthen its position in the Reno market.
Gulfport, Mississippi. The Company has positioned the Copa Casino as a casino for local residents. Emphasis has been placed on providing a casual and friendly atmosphere. To maintain this marketing position, the Company's goal is to provide its products and services at values favored by the Company's guests. The Company also uses numerous, in-house promotional programs to attract local residents and other customers. These Company-sponsored promotional and special event programs include gaming and slot tournaments, football season promotions, give-a-way programs and seasonal promotions.
The Company has implemented a variety of outside advertising campaigns in order to attract "drive-up" gaming customers. This includes billboards within a 100-mile radius of Gulfport and newspaper, radio and television advertising in the local market and in the New Orleans area on a selective basis. In addition, the Company has implemented drive-up promotions and programs to generate more frequent customer visits and to identify valued customers. Direct mail programs, which have resulted in positive customer responses, will continue to be undertaken to encourage more frequent visits by customers.
In fiscal 1997, the Company acquired a computerized slot player tracking and marketing system which has improved the Company's ability to offer different and more diverse promotions. The system also provides player tracking information so as to allow the Company to reward gaming customers with complimentary and other promotional goods and services.
The Company has also pursued marketing efforts toward developing group business, primarily bus charters and hotel promotional programs to entice visits from hotel/motel guests staying in the many non-casino hotel/motel rooms in the local area. The Company has been successful in attracting bus charters from various areas within a 500-mile radius including Atlanta, Georgia and Florida.
The Company will continue to utilize various marketing strategies with a goal of increasing the frequency of casino visits by its customers which includes implementing programs to identify and retain selected valued customers and the establishment of promotional programs which cater to senior citizens. The Company has employed sales representatives to market to tour operators, travel agents, social groups, corporations and associations.
COMPETITION
Reno, Nevada. The Company competes in the greater Reno area with approximately sixteen major casinos and hotel/casinos, some of which are larger than the Sands Regency. In addition, there are numerous other smaller casinos in the greater Reno area. The Company competes for its customers based upon gaming activities, room rates, room size and quality of rooms, food, beverages and location. Competitors of the Company have received governmental approval to construct an additional 3,700 hotel rooms, of which approximately 600 are presently under construction. Such governmental approval does not provide assurance that all of these rooms will be built. If construction is completed on all hotel rooms presently under construction or approved for construction, the hotel room capacity in the greater Reno area will increase by approximately an additional 22%. In the event all approved hotel rooms are built, and depending on the time frames during which they are completed, management of the Company believes that this added capacity may have an adverse effect on operations of the Company.
The Company's Reno operations compete, to a lesser extent, with gaming operations in other parts of the state of Nevada, such as Laughlin, Las Vegas and Lake Tahoe. California currently sponsors a state lottery and allows other non-casino style gaming, including parimutuel wagering, card parlors, bingo and off-track betting. There is also casino style gaming on various Native American lands in California. The Company believes that such non-casino style gaming does not have a significant impact on the Company's operations. The Company believes, however, that Native American gaming in California does have somewhat of an impact on the Company's gaming operation and that the general legalization of casino-style gaming in California could have a material impact on the Company's operations.
Gulfport, Mississippi. The Company's operations on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi are in competition with numerous gaming operations currently established or to be established on vessels or barges moored on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi, and on boats or barges cruising or moored on the Mississippi River. Currently there are ten dockside gaming facilities, excluding the Company, operating along the Gulf Coast of Mississippi, including one in Bay Saint Louis, one in Gulfport and eight in Biloxi. There is also one gaming facility presently under construction on the Gulf Coast which is expected to be completed in the Spring 1999.
Along the Mississippi River, there are presently eighteen Mississippi dockside casino facilities; one in Natchez, four in Vicksburg, three in Greenville, one near Lula and nine in Tunica. There is one additional proposed casino operation to be located along the Mississippi River in Vicksburg which has been granted a gaming license and other proposed casinos which are presently involved in litigation regarding proposed locations. There is also one casino currently in operation on an Indian reservation near Philadelphia, Mississippi.
In addition to the above, there are also several other proposed Mississippi casino operations along the Mississippi River and the Gulf Coast. Requiring both site approval and gaming licenses, such proposed operations are at various stages in the developmental process without assurances that development and operation will occur.
In addition to direct competition which the Company faces in the Mississippi market, the Company faces competition from riverboats and a possibly reopened land-based casino in the State of Louisiana, which is an important market area for the Company's Gulfport casino. Current Louisiana legislation permits unlimited stakes gaming and a total of fifteen riverboat licenses and one land-based license have been authorized statewide. At present, there are fourteen riverboats in operation. Besides these State of Louisiana gaming operations, it is also anticipated that gaming may be implemented on Indian reservations near Gulfport and New Orleans.
In the event that all, or a significant number, of these proposed facilities are licensed, built and operated, management of the Company believes that this added capacity may have an adverse effect on its Gulfport casino operation. Management believes that the principal competitive factors will include ease of access, availability of parking, attractiveness of casino vessels and surrounding property, proximity to other gaming facilities, and quality of food and entertainment offered.
General. To a significantly lesser extent, the Company competes with gaming facilities in New Jersey, Colorado, South Dakota, Illinois, Iowa and other parts of the world. The Company also competes with various gaming operations on Native American land, including those located in California, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Connecticut, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Indian casino gaming has become a growing sector of the gaming industry as a result of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, which generally permits unrestricted gaming on Indian land in any state that allows similar forms of gaming, whether or not restricted. Other states may legalize various forms of gaming that may compete with the Company. In any jurisdiction where the Company may commence operations, it will face competition for desirable sites and qualified personnel.
EMPLOYEES
At June 30, 1998, the Company employed 896 people at the Sands Regency in Reno, Nevada, including 88 salaried employees and 808 hourly employees. The Copa Casino employed 478 people, including 55 salaried employees and 423 hourly employees. None of the Company's employees is represented by a union. The Company has not experienced any work stoppages or other significant labor problems and management considers its labor relations to be good.
REGULATION AND LICENSING-GAMING
Nevada. The ownership and operation of casino gaming facilities in Nevada are subject to (i) The Nevada Gaming Control Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder (collectively, "Nevada Act"); and (ii) various local regulation. The Company's gaming operations are subject to the licensing and regulatory control of the Nevada Gaming Commission ("Nevada Commission"), the Nevada State Gaming Control Board ("Nevada Board") and the City of Reno, (together, the "Nevada Gaming Authorities").
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: (i) the prevention of unsavory or unsuitable persons from having a direct or indirect involvement with gaming at any time or in any capacity; (ii)
the establishment and maintenance of responsible accounting practices and procedures; (iii) the maintenance of effective controls over the financial practices of licensees, including the establishment of minimum procedures for internal fiscal affairs and the safeguarding of assets and revenues, providing reliable record keeping and requiring the filing of periodic reports with the Nevada Gaming Authorities; (iv) the prevention of cheating and fraudulent practices; and (v) to provide a source of state and local revenues through taxation and licensing fees. Change in such laws, regulations and procedures could have an adverse effect on the Company's gaming operations.
Zante operates the Sands Regency hotel/casino and is required to be licensed by the Nevada Gaming Authorities. The gaming license requires a periodic payment of fees and taxes and is not transferable. The Company is registered by the Nevada Commission as a publicly traded corporation ("Registered Corporation") and as such, it is required periodically to submit detailed financial and operating reports to the Nevada Commission and furnish any other information which the Nevada Commission may require. No person may become a stockholder of, or receive any percentage of profits from Zante without first obtaining licenses and approvals from the Nevada Gaming Authorities. The Company and Zante 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, the Company or Zante 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 Zante must file applications with the Nevada Gaming Authorities and may be required to be licensed or found suitable by the Nevada Gaming Authorities. Officers, directors and key employees of the Company who are actively and directly involved in gaming activities of Zante 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 the Company or Zante, the companies involved would have to sever all relationships with such person. In addition, the Nevada Commission may require the Company or Zante to terminate the employment of any person who refuses to file appropriate applications. Determinations of suitability or of questions pertaining to licensing are not subject to judicial review in Nevada.
The Company and Zante 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 Zante must be reported to, or approved by, the Nevada Commission.
If it were determined that the Nevada Act was violated by Zante, the gaming licenses it holds could be limited, conditioned, suspended or revoked, subject to compliance with certain statutory and regulatory procedures. In addition, Zante, the Company, and the persons involved could be subject to substantial fines for each separate violation of the Nevada Act at the direction of the Nevada Commission. Further, a supervisor could be appointed by the Nevada Commission to operate the Company's gaming properties and, under certain circumstances, earnings generated during the supervisor's appointment (except for the reasonable rental value of the Company's 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 the Company's gaming operations.
Any beneficial holder of the Company's 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 the Company's 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 the Company's voting securities to report the acquisition to the Nevada Commission. The Nevada Act requires that beneficial owners of more than 10% of the Company's voting securities apply to the Nevada Commission for a finding of suitability within thirty 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 the Company's 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 the board of the directors of the Company, any change in the Company's corporate charter, bylaws, management, policies or operations of the Company, or any of its gaming affiliates, or any other action which the Nevada Commission finds to be inconsistent with holding the Company's voting securities for investment purposes only. Activities which are not deemed to be inconsistent with holding voting securities for investment purposes only include: (i) voting on all matters voted on by stockholders; (ii) making financial and other inquiries of management of the type normally made by securities analysts for informational purposes and not to cause a change in its management, policies or operations; and (iii) such other activities as the Nevada Commission may determine to be consistent with such investment intent. 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 thirty 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 common stock of a Registered Corporation beyond such period of time as may be prescribed by the Nevada Commission may be guilty of a criminal offense. The Company is subject to disciplinary action if, after it receives notice that a person is unsuitable to be a stockholder or to have any other relationship with the Company or Zante, the Company (i) pays that person any dividend or interest upon voting securities of the Company, (ii) allows that person to exercise, directly or indirectly, any voting right conferred through securities held by that person, (iii) pays remuneration in any form to that person for services rendered or otherwise, or (iv) fails to pursue all lawful efforts to require such unsuitable person to relinquish his voting securities for cash at fair market value.
The Nevada Commission may, in 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: (i) pays to the unsuitable person any dividend, interest, or any distribution whatsoever; (ii) recognizes any voting right by such unsuitable person in connection
with such securities; (iii) pays the unsuitable person remuneration in any form; or (iv) makes any payment to the unsuitable person by way of principal, redemption, conversion, exchange, liquidation or similar transaction.
The Company is 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. The Company is also required to render maximum assistance in determining the identity of the beneficial owner. The Nevada Commission has the power to require the Company's stock certificates to bear a legend indicating that the securities are subject to the Nevada Act. The Company's stock certificates do bear such a legend.
The Company may not make a public offering of its securities without the prior approval of the Nevada Commission if the securities or the proceeds therefrom are intended to be used to construct, acquire or finance gaming facilities in Nevada, or to retire or extend obligations incurred for such purposes. Such approval, if given, does not constitute a finding, recommendation or approval by the Nevada Commission or the Nevada Board as to the accuracy or adequacy of the prospectus or the investment merits of the securities. Any representation to the contrary is unlawful.
Changes in control of the Company 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 Board and Nevada Commission 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 proposing to acquire control, to be investigated and licensed as part of the approval process relating to the transaction.
The Nevada legislature has declared that some corporate acquisitions opposed by management, repurchases of voting securities and corporate defense tactics affecting Nevada gaming licensees, and Registered Corporations that are affiliated with those operations, 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: (i) assure the financial stability of corporate gaming operators and their affiliates; (ii) preserve the beneficial aspects of conducting business in the corporate form; and (iii) promote a neutral environment for the orderly governance of corporate affairs. Approvals are, in certain circumstances, required from the Nevada Commission before the Company can make exceptional repurchases of voting securities above the current market price thereof and before a corporate acquisition opposed by management can be consummated. The Nevada Act also requires prior approval of a plan of recapitalization proposed by the Company's Board of Directors in response to a tender offer made directly to the Registered Corporation's stockholders for the purposes of acquiring control of the Registered Corporation.
License fees and taxes, computed in various ways depending on the type of gaming or activity involved, are payable to the State of Nevada and to the counties and cities in which the Nevada licensee's respective operations are conducted. Depending upon the particular fee or tax involved, these fees and taxes are payable either monthly, quarterly or annually and are based upon either: (i) a percentage of the gross revenues received; (ii) the number of gaming devices operated; or (iii) the number of table games operated. A casino entertainment tax is also paid by casino operations where entertainment is furnished in connection with the selling of food or refreshments. Nevada licensees that hold a license as an operator of a slot route, or a manufacturer's or distributor's license, also pay certain fees and taxes to the State of Nevada.
Any person who is licensed, required to be licensed, required to be registered, or is under common control with such persons (collectively, "Licensees"), and who has 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 it knowingly violates any laws of the foreign jurisdiction pertaining to the foreign gaming operation, fails to conduct the foreign gaming operation in accordance with the standards of honesty and integrity required of Nevada gaming operations, engages in activities that are harmful to the State of Nevada or its ability to collect gaming taxes and fees, or employs a person in the foreign operation who has been denied a license or finding of suitability in Nevada on the ground of personal unsuitability.
Mississippi. The ownership and operation of a gaming business in Mississippi is subject to extensive laws and regulations, including the Mississippi Gaming Control Act (the "Mississippi Act") and the regulations (the "Mississippi Regulations") promulgated thereunder by the Mississippi Gaming Commission (the "Mississippi Commission") and the Mississippi State Tax Commission Regulations for Gaming Establishments ("Mississippi Tax Regulations") promulgated by the Mississippi State Tax Commission ("Mississippi Tax Commission"). The Mississippi Commission and Mississippi Tax Commission (together the "Mississippi Gaming Authorities") are empowered to oversee and enforce the Mississippi Act. Gaming in Mississippi can be legally conducted only on floating vessels of a certain minimum size in navigable waters of the Mississippi River or in waters of the State of Mississippi (so called dockside gambling) which lie adjacent and to the south (principally in the Gulf of Mexico) of the counties of Hancock, Harrison and Jackson, and only in counties in Mississippi in which the registered voters have not voted to prohibit such activities. The voters in Jackson County, the southeastern most county of Mississippi, have voted to prohibit gaming in that county. However, gaming could be approved in Jackson County in any subsequently held referendum.
The underlying policy of the Mississippi Act is to ensure that gaming operations in Mississippi are conducted (i) honestly and competitively, (ii) free of criminal and corruptive influences, and (iii) in a manner which protects the rights of the creditors of gaming operations. The laws, regulations and supervisory procedures of the Mississippi Act seek to (i) establish and maintain response accounting practices and procedures; (ii) maintain effective control over the financial practices of licensees, including establishing minimum procedures for internal fiscal affairs and safeguarding assets and revenues, providing reliable record keeping, and making periodic reports to the Mississippi Gaming Authorities; and (iii) provide a source of state and local revenues through taxation and licensing fees. Changes in such laws, regulations and procedures could have an adverse effect on the Company.
The Mississippi Act requires that a person (including any corporation or other entity) must be licensed to conduct gaming activities in Mississippi. A license will be issued only for a specified location which has been approved as a gaming site by the Mississippi Commission prior to issuing such license. Gaming licenses are issued for an initial two year period and are renewable every two years thereafter. The Mississippi Act also requires that each officer or director of a gaming licensee, or other person who exercises a material degree of control over the licensee, either directly or indirectly, must be found suitable by the Mississippi Commission. The Mississippi Commission will not issue a license or make a finding of suitability unless it is satisfied, only after an extensive investigation paid for by the applicant, that the persons associated with the gaming licensee or applicant for a license are of good character, honesty and integrity, with no relevant or material criminal record. In addition, the Mississippi Commission will not issue a license unless it is satisfied that the licensee is adequately financed or has a reasonable plan to finance its proposed operations from acceptable sources, and that persons associated with the applicant have sufficient business probity, competence and experience to engage
in the proposed gaming enterprise. Other parties, including the Partnership's or the Company's lenders, holders of evidences of indebtedness, underwriters and employees, may be required to be licensed, and such applications for licensing, if any, may be denied for any cause deemed reasonable by the Mississippi Commission. The Mississippi Commission may refuse to issue a work permit to a gaming employee (i) if the employee has committed larceny, embezzlement or any crime of moral turpitude, or knowingly violated the Mississippi Act or Mississippi Regulations, or (ii) for any other reasonable cause.
The Partnership holds the gaming license to the Copa Casino gaming facility in Gulfport, Mississippi. Patrician, GCI and Artemis, all wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company, have been approved as partners of the Partnership. The license is not transferrable.
In October 1994, the Mississippi Gaming Commission adopted a regulation requiring, as a condition of licensure or license renewal, that a gaming establishment's site development plan include certain infrastructure facilities in close proximity to the casino complex which will amount to at least 25% of the cost of the casino facility. Parking facilities, roads, sewage and water systems or facilities normally provided by governmental entities do not meet the infrastructure requirement. The Mississippi Gaming Commission found the Copa Casino to be in compliance with this regulation as a result of its construction of a general purpose pier facility and other improvements that inure to the benefit of the Mississippi State Port Authority.
The Mississippi Commission has the power to deny, limit, condition, revoke and suspend any license, finding of suitability or registration, or fine any person, as it deems reasonable and in the public interest, subject to an opportunity for a hearing. The Mississippi Commission may fine any licensee or persons who was found suitable up to $100,000 for each violation of the Mississippi Act or the Mississippi Regulations, which is the subject of an initial complaint, and up to $250,000 for each such violation which is the subject of any subsequent complaint. The Mississippi Act provides for judicial review of any final decision of the Mississippi Commission by petition to a Mississippi Circuit Court, but the filing of such petition does not necessarily stay any action taken by the Mississippi Commission pending a decision by the Circuit Court.
The Partnership must submit detailed financial and operating reports to the Mississippi Gaming Authorities. Substantially all loans, leases, sales of securities and other financing transactions entered into by the Partnership must be reported to, and, in some cases, approved by, the Mississippi Gaming Authorities.
Under the Mississippi Regulations, a gaming license may not be held by a publicly traded company, although an affiliate corporation, such as the Company, may be publicly held so long as the Company receives the approval of the Mississippi Commission. The Company has received such approval of the Mississippi Commission. In addition, approval of any public offering of the securities of the Company must be obtained from the Mississippi Commission if any part of the proceeds from that offering are intended to be used to construct, acquire or finance the operation of gaming facilities in Mississippi or to retire or extend obligations incurred for any such purpose.
Under the Mississippi Regulations, a person is prohibited from acquiring control of the Company without prior approval of the Mississippi Commission. The Company is also prohibited from consummating a plan of recapitalization proposed by management in opposition to an attempted acquisition of control of the Company and which involves the issuance of a significant dividend to Common Stockholders, where such dividend is financed by borrowing from financial institutions or the issuance of debt securities. In addition, the Company is prohibited from repurchasing any of its voting securities under circumstances (subject to certain exemptions) where the repurchase involves more than one percent of the Company's outstanding Common Stock at a price in excess of 110% of the then market value of the Company's Common Stock from a person who owns and has for less than one year owned more than three percent of the Company's outstanding Common Stock, unless the
repurchase has been approved by a majority of the Company's shareholders voting on the issue (excluding the person from whom the repurchase is being made) or the offer is made to all other shareholders for the Company.
Any person who, directly or indirectly, or in associations with others, acquires beneficial ownership of more than five percent of the Common Stock of the Company must notify the Mississippi Commission of this acquisition and may be required to be found suitable by the Mississippi Commission. Any person who becomes a beneficial owner of more than 10% of the Company's Common Stock must apply for a finding of suitability by the Mississippi Commission. Furthermore, regardless of the amount of securities purchased, any person who acquires any beneficial ownership in the Common Stock of the Company may be required to be found suitable if the Mississippi Commission has reason to believe that the acquisition and ownership would be inconsistent with the declared policy of Mississippi. Any person who is required to be found suitable must apply for a finding of suitability from the Mississippi Commission within 30 days after being requested to do so, and must deposit with the State Tax Commission a sum of money which is adequate to pay the anticipated investigatory costs associated with such finding. Any person who is found not to be suitable by the Mississippi Commission shall not be permitted to have any direct or indirect ownership in the Company's Common Stock. Any person who is required to apply for a finding of suitability and fails to do so, or who fails to dispose of his or her interest in the Company's Common Stock if found unsuitable, is guilty of a misdemeanor. If a finding of suitability with respect to any person is not applied for where required, or if it is denied or revoked by the Mississippi Commission, the Company is not permitted to pay such person for services rendered, or to employ or enter into any contract with such person.
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 corporations whose stock is publicly traded that are affiliated with those operations, 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 (i) assure the financial stability of corporate gaming operators and their affiliates; (ii) preserve the beneficial aspects of conducting business in the corporate form; and (iii) promote a neutral environmental for the orderly governance of corporate affairs. Approvals are, in certain circumstances, required from the Mississippi Commission before the Company can make exceptional repurchases of voting securities above the current market price thereof (commonly referred to as "greenmail") and before a corporate acquisition opposed by management can be consummated. Mississippi's gaming regulations also requires prior approval by the Mississippi Commission if the Company were to adopt a plan of recapitalization proposed by the Company's Board of Directors in opposition to a tender offer made directly to its stockholders for the purposes of acquiring control of the Company.
Neither the Partnership, the Company nor any controlled affiliate may engage in gaming activities in Mississippi and outside of Mississippi without approval of the Mississippi Commission. The Mississippi Commission may require, among other things, that there be adequate governmental regulation of gaming in the out-of-state location and that there is a means of the Mississippi Commission to have access to information concerning the out-of-state gaming operations and persons associated with them.
REGULATION AND LICENSING - ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
Nevada. The sale of alcoholic beverages by the Company is subject to supervision, control and regulation by the City of Reno, which issues licenses deemed to be nontransferable, revocable privileges, and which has full power to limit, condition, suspend or revoke such licenses. The Company is presently licensed to sell
alcoholic beverages. Any adverse regulatory act with respect to this license could have an adverse effect upon the operations of the Company.
Mississippi. The sale of alcoholic beverages by the Copa Casino is subject to regulation by the Mississippi State Tax Commission, which issues licenses which are both revocable and non-transferable, and which has full power to limit, condition, suspend or revoke any such license. The Partnership is currently licensed to sell alcoholic beverages as an "On-Premises Retailer." Any adverse regulatory act with respect to this license could have an adverse effect upon the operation of the Partnership. The sale of light wine and beer by Copa Casino is also subject to regulation by the Mississippi State Tax Commission, which issues licenses which are both revocable and non-transferable, and which has the full power to limit, condition, suspend or revoke any such license. However, the enforcement of laws regulating the acquisition, use, sale and distribution of light wine and beer is left to local law enforcement agencies. The Partnership is currently licensed to sell light wine and beer as a "Retailer" under a beer permit and privilege license. Any adverse regulatory act with respect to this license could have an adverse effect upon the operation of the Partnership.
ITEM 2.
ITEM 2. PROPERTIES
Reno, Nevada. The Company operates the casino and hotel towers at the Sands Regency on a Company-owned 6.3 acre site in downtown Reno. The hotel/casino site also includes the original three-story motor lodge and four-story hotel tower and other buildings and facilities. Garage and surface parking is provided at the hotel/casino site and also on a 2.7 acre site located adjacent to the hotel/casino site. In addition, the Company's personnel office and certain storage facilities are located one-half block from the hotel/casino site on a Company-owned .5 acre lot. Management considers the Company's facility to be in good condition and well-maintained.
In addition to the main hotel/casino facility, the Company owns a smaller property in Reno consisting of an area of approximately .2 acres.
The Company's Reno hotel/casino property is subject to aggregate encumbrances of approximately $10.8 million as of June 30, 1998.
Gulfport, Mississippi. The Copa Casino gaming facilities are located on two decks of a 500 foot cruise ship owned by Gulfside Casino Partnership. These two decks also include four cocktail lounges/bars, a deli-style restaurant and a gift shop. The deck below the two casino decks contains a surveillance area, a vault, count rooms, security and various operations and administrative offices. An additional three decks on the ship are available for future expansion of gaming and dining facilities. The engines for such cruise ship are disabled. All gaming activities are conducted while moored dockside.
The Copa Casino is permanently moored dockside at a location known as the "Horseshoe Site." Such site, which is leased from the Mississippi Department of Economic and Community Development ("MDECD") and the Mississippi State Port Authority at Gulfport ("Port"), is between the East and West Piers of the Mississippi State Port in Gulfport, Mississippi. This location, which includes 8.3 acres of land-based facilities, will accommodate surface parking for approximately 840 vehicles. The leased facilities also include a docking structure which accommodates the Copa Casino ship and will allow for mooring of additional vessels. The docking structure also includes a four-lane roadway and a pedestrian walk which provides access to the Copa Casino entrance.
The initial term of the lease, as amended, is seven years and ends in October 1999. The lease provides for three renewal periods of five years each and one renewal period of ten years if the Partnership, within the first ten years of the lease agreement, constructs, on the leased premises or within the city limits of Gulfport, a hotel with a minimum of 350 units. If any of such renewal options are exercised, the lease term will be extended under the same terms and provisions of the lease agreement except that the rental amounts will be adjusted and revised annually, in years six through thirty-two, in accordance with changes in the Consumer Price Index.
The lease provides for an annual rental of $511,000 (the "Minimum Rental") plus five percent (5%) of the gross annual gaming revenues over $25,000,000 (the "Percentage Rental"). In addition to the Minimum Rental and Percentage Rental set forth above, the Partnership is also required to pay, monthly, 3% of the gross monthly revenues on all activities other than gaming (the "Additional Percentage Rent"). The Minimum Rental is to be paid in advance, in equal monthly installments of $42,542 on the first day of every month during the lease year. For each month, the Percentage Rental and the Additional Percentage Rental must be calculated and the amounts due, if any, are to be paid on or before the 10th day of the following month.
The lease also provides that the MDECD and Port shall have the right to cancel the lease after the expiration of the initial term for reason of Port expansion of its own facilities to handle expanded shipping and related
commerce activities, unrelated to any business or enterprise which may compete with the Copa Casino operation, upon giving 12 months written notice to the Copa Casino. Should it be necessary for MDECD and the Port to exercise its right to cancel the lease, MDECD and the Port shall use their best efforts to obtain an alternative site on the Port properties for the relocation of the Copa Casino. The Copa Casino shall also have a right of first refusal for any location that is determined not to interfere with normal Port operations.
In July 1996, Copa Casino was notified by the MDECD and the Port that the Copa Casino lease would be canceled and terminated at the end of the initial lease term in October 1999 because the Copa Casino's leased site was needed by the Port to accommodate a purported expansion of Port facilities. Such notice of cancellation and termination was ruled to be invalid and was voided by a January 1998 judgment in Chancery Court of Harrison County, Mississippi as further described in Item 3.
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
GCI MATTER
In December 1994, a lawsuit was filed by Terry W. Green and Joel R. Carter, Sr. ("Green and Carter") in the Chancery Court of Harrison County, Mississippi, First Judicial District against GCI because of GCI's failure to make payments on promissory note obligations of GCI to Green and Carter. These note obligations, in the aggregate amount of $6 million, plus interest, are secured by a pledge of GCI's partnership interest in GCP. Although these promissory notes and the accrued interest thereon are obligations of GCI, they are reflected as current liabilities in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets at June 30, 1998 and 1997 upon consolidation. These promissory notes were owed by GCI when the Company purchased GCI in February 1994 and have not been assumed or guaranteed by the Company.
In addition to demanding payment of the $6 million plus interest, for which a partial summary judgment was entered, the lawsuit by Green and Carter also demanded the appointment of a receiver to take possession of and sell GCI's ownership interest in GCP and sought attorneys fees which were subsequently awarded in January 1997 in the amount of $54,000. In May 1995, GCP and Patrician were joined as necessary parties to the lawsuit.
In July 1996, following a court hearing, the Chancery Court rendered a judgment that the reallocation of GCI's interest in the partnership may be appropriate as to the GCP partners but had no effect on the lien position of Green and Carter. This ruling related to the reduction in GCI's ownership interest in GCP from an original 60% interest to a .006% interest as a result of an amendment to the partnership agreement and a partner capital call. The amendment to the GCP partnership agreement was entered in April 1994 whereby the profit and loss allocation percentages were amended from 40% to 80% for Patrician and from 60% to 20% for GCI. Such amendment was entered into to cure a monetary partnership breach by GCI which occurred prior to the Company's acquisition of GCI and to properly reflect the relative financial risks of Patrician and GCI. The partner capital call occurred in January 1996 and was for the purpose of improving the partnership capital structure. Patrician and Artemis complied with the capital call; however, GCI failed to comply. As a result, and in accordance with the partnership agreement, GCI's interest in GCP was reduced from 20% to .006%. In May 1997, the Partnership Agreement was again amended to restore the original 60% interest as to GCI. Such was done to resolve the Chancery Court ruling dilemma.
The effect of the July 1996 judgment was that Green and Carter are secured by GCI's pre-amendment, pre-capital call 60% ownership interest in GCP. The fact that the partnership amendments which provided or
allowed for the change in partner ownership interests were found to be valid in a June 1996 arbitration award between Patrician and GCI was ruled as inconsequential relative to Green and Carter. GCI subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration of the judgment with the Chancery Court, which was unsuccessful.
In January 1997, the Chancery Court issued an amendment judgment which reaffirmed the prior judgments and reserved ruling on the necessity to appoint a receiver. The ruling also charged GCP, under Mississippi law, with the obligation to pay the GCI judgment amounts to Green and Carter and to pay Green and Carter 60% of all monies not designated for normal operational expenses on a monthly basis, commencing February 1, 1997, until the judgments due Green and Carter were satisfied. GCP was also required to provide a monthly accounting of income and operating expenses to Green and Carter.
To date, the required monthly reports have been made which report that no monies are available for distribution by GCP and that no monies have been distributed by GCP. Such reports were discontinued, by agreement, in March 1998, in connection with the settlement negotiations discussed below.
GCI, GCP and Patrician, as joined parties to such lawsuit, have filed an appeal with the Mississippi Supreme Court because it is the Company's belief that the Chancery Court's rulings are incorrect and not supported by the facts or the law. A hearing was scheduled in July 1998 and it was agreed, immediately before such hearing was to take place, that briefs were to be submitted in lieu of a hearing because of ongoing settlement negotiations discussed below.
On January 31, 1997, GCI filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division. A Disclosure Statement with related Plan of Reorganization was filed. A hearing for confirmation has not been scheduled.
In February 1997, Carter and Green also each filed separate lawsuits in U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Biloxi Division, against The Sands Regent and certain officers and directors of The Sands Regent and GCI. Such lawsuits allege breach of various common law duties and contractual interference by the defendants and seek compensatory and punitive damages. Such actions are presently stayed pending settlement negotiations described below. Nonetheless, management, and the individual defendants, believe these legal actions to be without merit and will vigorously defend them.
In October 1997, the United States Bankruptcy Court ruled that GCI's ownership interest in GCP was .006% and that the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy code only applied as to this .006% interest. The Bankruptcy Court further held that a May 1997 partnership amendment to restore GCI's ownership interest in the Company to the original 60%, undertaken in order to resolve the GCI ownership/security dilemma created by the Chancery Court judgment and to facilitate a resolution of the Chancery Court proceeding by and through the Chapter 11 reorganization of GCI, was ineffective and void.
In November 1997, as a result of the above Bankruptcy Court ruling, Patrician, holder of the 98.744% interest in GCP, also filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division. This action was deemed necessary in order to protect the 59.994% ownership interest in GCP which was initially owned by GCI and which is now part of the interest held by Patrician. A Disclosure Statement and Plan of Reorganization for Patrician have not yet been filed.
Settlement negotiations are presently underway between Green and Carter, the Company, GCI, Patrician, Artemis and GCP. As a result of such discussions, all court actions have been stayed including in Chancery Court, United States Bankruptcy Court and United States District Court.
PORT MATTER
On January 8, 1998, a judgment was rendered in the Chancery Court of Harrison County, Mississippi lawsuit between GCP and the MDECD and the Port. The Chancery Court ruled in favor of GCP in denying the Port's efforts to terminate the lease at the end of the primary term in October 1999. The Court ruled adverse to GCP in declaring that the Port was not obligated to approve the construction of a hotel requested by GCP or approve GCP's request to substitute another gaming vessel for the present gaming vessel. Damages sought by GCP in connection with such refusals to approve a hotel or the substitution of a gaming vessel, and for other claims, were also denied.
On February 6, 1998, GCP filed a Notice of Appeal with the Chancery Court to appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court certain of the Court's rulings adverse to GCP. Specifically, GCP's appeal included appealing the Court's rulings denying the Port's obligations to reasonably approve a hotel and the substitution of a gaming vessel and the court's ruling denying damages. MDECD and the Port have filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal, claiming that the Chancery Court's ruling disallowing the termination of the lease was incorrect. Appropriate appeal briefs are to be filed with the Mississippi Supreme Court in accordance with a briefing schedule which has not been determined.
Management believes that the outcome of this appeal is not presently predictable or subject to reasonable estimation.
OTHER
GCP is a defendant in a wrongful termination action filed by Mary Ann Ackerman, a former employee of GCP, in the United States District Court of the Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division. Such lawsuit seeks damages in the amount of $650,000, for alleged violation of the Family Medical Leave Act. Management believes the lawsuit is without merit and will vigorously defend against it. The likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is uncertain and a potential range of losses is not subject to reasonable estimation.
The Company is also a party to various other legal actions, proceedings and pending claims arising in the normal course of its business. Management does not expect the outcome of these claims or suits to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of future operations.
ITEM 4.
ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS
The Company did not submit any matters to a vote of security holders in the fourth quarter of fiscal 1998.
PART II
ITEM 5.
ITEM 5. MARKET FOR THE REGISTRANT'S COMMON STOCK AND RELATED SHAREHOLDER MATTERS
The Common Stock of the Company is traded in the Nasdaq National Market under the symbol "SNDS." The Company recently received notification that its listing will be discontinued in the event the market value of the Company's Common Stock does not exceed $5.0 million for ten consecutive trading days on or before October 19, 1998. If such occurs, the Company will seek listing on the Nasdaq SmallCap Market. The following table sets forth the range of high and low closing sales prices as reported by Nasdaq.
FOR THE YEARS ENDED JUNE 30,
- -----------
The declaration and payment of dividends in the future, if any, will be determined by the Board of Directors in light of the conditions then existing, including the Company's earnings, financial condition, capital requirements and other factors.
As of September 23, 1998, the Company had 157 shareholders of record and in excess of 400 beneficial shareholders.
ITEM 6.
ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
There is hereby incorporated by reference the information appearing under the caption "The Sands Regent - Selected Financial Data" in the Company's 1998 Annual Report, filed as Exhibit 13 to this Form 10-K.
ITEM 7.
ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
There is hereby incorporated by reference the information appearing under the caption "The Sands Regent - Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" in the Company's 1998 Annual Report, filed as Exhibit 13 to this Form 10-K.
ITEM 8.
ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
There is hereby incorporated by reference the Consolidated Financial Statements and the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the Company's 1998 Annual Report, filed as Exhibit 13 to this Form 10-K. Reference is made to the Consolidated Financial Statements and the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 14(a)(1) hereof.
With the exception of the aforementioned information and the information in Items 6 and 7, the Company's 1998 Annual Report is not deemed filed as part of this Form 10-K.
ITEM 9.
ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
None.
PART III
ITEM 10.
ITEM 10. DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT
There is hereby incorporated by reference the information appearing under the caption "Directors and Executive Officers" in the Company's definitive Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on November 2, 1998, filed or to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
ITEM 11.
ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
There is hereby incorporated by reference the information appearing under the caption "Compensation of Executive Officers" in the Company's definitive Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on November 2, 1998, filed or to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
ITEM 12.
ITEM 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT
There is hereby incorporated by reference the information appearing under the captions "Principal Shareholders" and "Directors and Executive Officers" in the Company's definitive Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on November 2, 1998, filed or to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
ITEM 13.
ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS
There is hereby incorporated by reference the information appearing under the caption "Certain Relationships and Related Transactions" in the Company's definitive Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on November 2, 1998, filed or to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
PART IV
ITEM 14.
ITEM 14. EXHIBITS, FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K
(a)(1) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
Included in Part II of this Report:
Independent Auditors' Report
Consolidated Balance Sheets -- June 30, 1998 and 1997
Consolidated Statements of Operations -- Years Ended June 30, 1998, 1997 and 1996
Consolidated Statements of Stockholders' Equity -- Years Ended June 30, 1998, 1997 and 1996
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows -- Years Ended June 30, 1998, 1997 and 1996
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(a)(2) FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES.
Included in Part IV of this Report:
As of and for the Years Ended June 30, 1998, 1997 and 1996:
Independent Auditors' Report on Schedules
Schedule II -- Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
All other schedules have been omitted because they are not applicable or the required information is shown in the financial statements or notes thereto.
(a)(3) EXHIBITS
-------------------------------
* Incorporated by reference
** Filed herewith
(b) REPORTS ON FORM 8-K.
The Company did not file any reports on Form 8-K during the last quarter of fiscal 1998.
(c) INDEX TO EXHIBITS.
(d) FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES.
Financial statement schedules required by Regulation S-X are excluded from the 1998 Annual Report to the Shareholders by Rule 14a-3(b)(1). See Schedule II to the Financial Statements appearing under Item 14(a)(2) hereof.
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
THE SANDS REGENT
Date: September 24, 1998 By: FERENC B. SZONY ------------------------------------- Ferenc B. Szony, President and Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT
To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of The Sands Regent:
We have audited the consolidated financial statements of The Sands Regent and subsidiaries as of June 30, 1998 and 1997, and for each of the three years in the period ended June 30, 1998, and have issued our report thereon dated September 2, 1998. Such consolidated financial statements and report are included in your 1998 Annual Report to Shareholders and are incorporated herein by reference. Our audits also included the consolidated financial statement schedule of The Sands Regent and subsidiaries, listed in Item 14. This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, such consolidated financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.
Deloitte & Touche LLP Reno, Nevada September 2, 1998
The Sands Regent Schedule II Valuation and Qualifying Accounts (in thousands)
- ---------------
(1) Write-offs of uncollectible accounts receivable, net of recoveries
INDEX TO EXHIBITS