MGM 10-Q Quarter ended June 30, 2013

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2013

OR

For the transition period from to

Commission File No. 001-10362

MGM Resorts International

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

3600 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Las Vegas, Nevada 89109

(Address of principal executive offices)

(702) 693-7120

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days:    Yes x No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files):     Yes x No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act:

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

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

Table of Contents

MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL AND SUBSIDIARIES

FORM 10-Q

I N D E X

Table of Contents

MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL AND SUBSIDIARIES

(In thousands, except share data)

(Unaudited)

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

1

Table of Contents

MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL AND SUBSIDIARIES

(In thousands, except per share data)

(Unaudited)

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

2

Table of Contents

MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)

(In thousands)

(Unaudited)

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

3

Table of Contents

MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL AND SUBSIDIARIES

(In thousands)

(Unaudited)

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

4

Table of Contents

MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited)

Organization. MGM Resorts International (the “Company”) is a Delaware corporation that acts largely as a holding company and, through wholly owned subsidiaries, primarily owns and/or operates casino resorts. The Company owns and operates the following casino resorts in Las Vegas, Nevada: Bellagio, MGM Grand Las Vegas (including The Signature), The Mirage, Mandalay Bay, Luxor, New York-New York, Monte Carlo, Excalibur and Circus Circus Las Vegas. Other Nevada operations include Circus Circus Reno, Gold Strike in Jean and Railroad Pass in Henderson. The Company and its local partners own and operate MGM Grand Detroit in Detroit, Michigan. The Company owns and operates two resorts in Mississippi: Beau Rivage in Biloxi and Gold Strike Tunica. The Company also owns Shadow Creek, an exclusive world-class golf course located approximately ten miles north of its Las Vegas Strip resorts, Primm Valley Golf Club at the California/Nevada state line and Fallen Oak golf course in Saucier, Mississippi. The Company has two reportable segments: wholly owned domestic resorts and MGM China.

The Company owns 51% and has a controlling interest in MGM China Holdings Limited (“MGM China”), which owns MGM Grand Paradise, S.A. (“MGM Grand Paradise”), the Macau company that owns and operates the MGM Macau resort and casino and the related gaming subconcession and land concession. On October 18, 2012, MGM Grand Paradise formally accepted a land concession contract with the government of Macau to develop a second resort and casino on an approximately 17.8 acre site in Cotai, Macau. The land concession contract became effective on January 9, 2013 when the Macau government published the agreement in the Official Gazette of Macau.

The Company owns 50% of CityCenter, located between Bellagio and Monte Carlo. The other 50% of CityCenter is owned by Infinity World Development Corp (“Infinity World”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Dubai World, a Dubai, United Arab Emirates government decree entity. CityCenter consists of Aria, a casino resort; Mandarin Oriental Las Vegas, a non-gaming boutique hotel; Crystals, a retail, dining and entertainment district; and Vdara, a luxury condominium-hotel. In addition, CityCenter features residential units in the Residences at Mandarin Oriental and Veer. The Company receives a management fee of 2% of revenues for the management of Aria and Vdara, and 5% of EBITDA (as defined in the agreements governing the Company’s management of Aria and Vdara). In addition, the Company receives an annual fee of $3 million for the management of Crystals.

The Company has 50% interests in Grand Victoria and Silver Legacy. Grand Victoria is a riverboat casino in Elgin, Illinois; an affiliate of Hyatt Gaming owns the other 50% of Grand Victoria and also operates the resort. Silver Legacy is located in Reno, adjacent to Circus Circus Reno, and the other 50% is owned by Eldorado LLC.

MGM Hospitality. MGM Hospitality seeks to leverage the Company’s management expertise and well-recognized brands through strategic partnerships and international expansion opportunities. MGM Hospitality has entered into management agreements for hotels in the Middle East, North Africa, India and, through its joint venture with Diaoyutai State Guesthouse, the People’s Republic of China. MGM Hospitality opened its first resort, MGM Grand Sanya on Hainan Island, in the People’s Republic of China in early 2012.

Borgata. The Company has a 50% economic interest in Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa (“Borgata”) located on Renaissance Pointe in the Marina area of Atlantic City, New Jersey. Boyd Gaming Corporation owns the other 50% of Borgata and also operates the resort. The Company’s interest is held in trust and was offered for sale pursuant to its amended settlement agreement with the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement and approved by the New Jersey Casino Control Commission (“CCC”). The terms of the amended settlement agreement previously mandated the sale by March 2014. The Company had the right to direct the sale through March 2013 (the “divesture period”), subject to approval of the CCC, and the trustee was responsible for selling the trust property during the following 12-month period (the “terminal sale period”). On February 13, 2013, the settlement agreement was further amended to allow the Company to re-apply to the CCC for licensure in New Jersey and to defer expiration of these periods pending the outcome of the licensure process. The Company has submitted its licensure request to the CCC and there can be no assurances that such request will be approved or with respect to the timing of the licensure process. If the CCC denies the Company’s licensure request, then the divesture period will immediately end, and the terminal sale period will immediately begin, which will result in the Company’s Borgata interest being disposed of by the trustee pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement.

The Company consolidates the trust because it is the sole economic beneficiary and accounts for its interest in Borgata under the cost method. The Company reviews its investment carrying value whenever indicators of impairment exist. As of June 30, 2013, the trust had $118 million of cash and investments, of which $105 million is held in U.S. treasury securities with maturities greater than three months but less than one year, and is recorded within “Prepaid expenses and other.” During the three and six months ended June 30, 2013, $14 million and $18 million, respectively, and for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012, $3 million and $26 million, respectively, was withdrawn from the trust account for the payment of property taxes and interest on the Company’s senior credit facility, as authorized in accordance with the terms of the trust agreement.

5

Table of Contents

Basis of presentation. As permitted by the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) have been condensed or omitted. These consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the Company’s 2012 annual consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements contain all adjustments – which include only normal recurring adjustments – necessary to present fairly the Company’s interim financial statements. The results for such periods are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year.

Fair value measurements. Fair value measurements affect the Company’s accounting and impairment assessments of its long-lived assets, investments in unconsolidated affiliates, cost method investments, assets acquired and liabilities assumed in an acquisition, goodwill and other intangible assets. Fair value measurements also affect the Company’s accounting for certain of its financial assets and liabilities. Fair value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date and is measured according to a hierarchy that includes: Level 1 inputs, such as quoted prices in an active market; Level 2 inputs, which are observable inputs for similar assets; or Level 3 inputs, which are unobservable inputs.

Income tax provision. The Company recognizes deferred tax assets, net of applicable reserves, related to net operating loss carryforwards and certain temporary differences with a future tax benefit to the extent that realization of such benefit is more likely than not. Otherwise, a valuation allowance is applied. Given the negative impact of the U.S. economy on the results of operations in the past several years, the Company no longer relies on projected future domestic operating income in assessing the realization of its domestic deferred tax assets and now relies only on the future reversal of existing domestic taxable temporary differences. As of June 30, 2013, the scheduled future reversal of existing U.S. federal deductible temporary differences exceeds the scheduled future reversal of existing U.S. federal taxable temporary differences. The Company recorded a valuation allowance for U.S. federal deferred tax assets in order to account for this excess, which resulted in an increase in provision for income taxes of $17 million and $26 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2013, respectively.

Income generated from gaming operations of MGM Grand Paradise is exempted from Macau’s 12% complementary tax for the five-year period ending December 31, 2016 pursuant to approval from the Macau government granted on September 22, 2011. The approval granted in 2011 represented the second five-year exemption period granted to MGM Grand Paradise. The Company measures the net deferred tax liability of MGM Grand Paradise under the assumption that it will receive an additional five-year exemption beyond 2016. Such assumption is based upon the granting of a third five-year exemption to a competitor of MGM Grand Paradise. The Company believes MGM Grand Paradise should also be entitled to a third five-year exemption in order to ensure non-discriminatory treatment among gaming concessionaires and sub-concessionaires, a requirement under Macanese law. The net deferred tax liability of MGM Grand Paradise was re-measured during the first quarter of 2013 due to the extension of the amortization period of the Macau gaming concession in connection with the effectiveness of the Cotai land concession. This resulted in an increase in the net deferred tax liability and a corresponding increase in provision for income taxes of $65 million. While non-gaming operations remain subject to the complementary tax, MGM Grand Paradise has tax net operating losses from non-gaming operations that are fully offset by a valuation allowance.

During the first quarter of 2013, the Company settled all issues under appeal in connection with the IRS audits of the Company’s consolidated federal income tax returns and the Company’s cost method investee returns for the 2003 and 2004 tax years. Unrecognized tax benefits were reduced by $28 million and provision for income taxes was reduced by $38 million, including the impact of the settlement on the valuation allowance, as a result of this settlement.

Investments in and advances to unconsolidated affiliates consisted of the following:

6

Table of Contents

The Company recorded its share of the results of operations of unconsolidated affiliates as follows:

Non-operating expense from unconsolidated affiliates for the quarter ended June 30, 2013 includes $17 million related to statutory interest recorded by CityCenter related to estimated amounts owed in connection with the CityCenter construction litigation. The six months ended June 30, 2012 included $4 million related to the Company’s share of CityCenter’s loss on refinancing of long-term debt.

Grand Victoria

At June 30, 2013, the Company reviewed the carrying value of its Grand Victoria investment for impairment due to a higher than anticipated decline in operating results and loss of market share as a result of the opening of a new river boat casino in the Illinois market, as well as a decrease in forecasted cash flows for 2013 through 2017 compared to the prior forecast. The Company used a blended discounted cash flow analysis and guideline public company method to determine the estimated fair value from a market participant’s viewpoint. Key assumptions included in the discounted cash flow analysis were estimates of future cash flows including outflows for capital expenditures, a long-term growth rate of 2% and a discount rate of 11%. Key assumptions in the guideline public company method included business enterprise value multiples selected based on the range of multiples in the Company’s peer group. As a result of the analysis, the Company determined that it was necessary to record an other-than-temporary impairment charge of $37 million at June 30, 2013, based on an estimated fair value of $170 million for the Company’s 50% interest. The Company intends to, and believes it will be able to, retain its investment in Grand Victoria; however, due to the extent of the shortfall and the Company’s assessment of the uncertainty of fully recovering its investment, the Company has determined that the impairment was other-than-temporary. At June 30, 2012, the Company recorded an impairment charge of $85 million on its investment in Grand Victoria based on the then estimated fair value of $205 million for its 50% interest.

CityCenter

CityCenter summary financial information. Summarized balance sheet information of the CityCenter joint venture is as follows:

Summarized income statement information of the CityCenter joint venture is as follows:

7

Table of Contents

Long-term debt consisted of the following:

Debt due within one year of the June 30, 2013 balance sheet date is classified as long-term as the Company has both the intent and ability to refinance such amounts on a long-term basis under its senior credit facility.

Senior credit facility. At June 30, 2013, the Company’s senior credit facility consisted of $1.2 billion of revolving loans, a $1.04 billion term loan A facility and a $1.74 billion term loan B facility. The revolving and term loan A facilities bear interest at LIBOR plus an applicable rate determined by the Company’s credit rating (2.75% as of June 30, 2013). The term loan B facility was re-priced in May 2013 and bears interest at LIBOR plus 2.50%, with a LIBOR floor of 1.00%, a 75 basis point reduction compared to the prior rate. The revolving and term loan A facilities mature in December 2017 and the term loan B facility matures in December 2019. The term loan A and term loan B facilities are subject to scheduled amortization payments on the last day of each calendar quarter from and after March 31, 2013 in an amount equal to 0.25% of the original principal balance. The Company permanently repaid $14 million in the six months ended June 30, 2013 in accordance with the scheduled amortization. The Company had $1.16 billion of available borrowing capacity under its senior credit facility at June 30, 2013. At June 30, 2013, the interest rate on the term loan A was 2.95% and the interest rate on the term loan B was 3.50%.

The land and substantially all of the assets of MGM Grand Las Vegas, Bellagio and The Mirage secure up to $3.35 billion of obligations outstanding under the senior credit facility. In addition, the land and substantially all of the assets of New York-New York and Gold Strike Tunica secure the entire amount of the senior credit facility and the land and substantially all of the assets of MGM Grand Detroit secure its $450 million of obligations as a co-borrower under the senior credit facility. In addition, the senior credit facility is secured by a pledge of the equity or limited liability company interests of the subsidiaries that own the pledged properties.

The senior credit facility contains customary representations and warranties and customary affirmative and negative covenants. In addition, the senior credit facility requires the Company and its restricted subsidiaries to maintain a minimum trailing four-quarter EBITDA and limits the ability of the Company and its restricted subsidiaries to make capital expenditures. As of June 30, 2013, the Company and its restricted subsidiaries are required to maintain a minimum EBITDA (as defined) of $1.0 billion. The minimum EBITDA increases to $1.05 billion for September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2013, with periodic increases thereafter. EBITDA for the trailing twelve months ended June 30, 2013 calculated in accordance with the terms of the senior credit facility was $1.2 billion. The Company and its restricted subsidiaries are within the limit of $500 million of capital expenditures for the calendar year 2013.

The senior credit facility provides for customary events of default, including, without limitation, (i) payment defaults, (ii) covenant defaults, (iii) cross-defaults to certain other indebtedness in excess of specified amounts, (iv) certain events of bankruptcy and insolvency, (v) judgment defaults in excess of specified amounts, (vi) the failure of any loan document by a significant party to be in full force and effect and such circumstance, in the reasonable judgment of the required lenders, is materially adverse to the lenders, or (vii) the security documents cease to create a valid and perfected first priority lien on any material portion of the collateral. In addition, the senior credit facility provides that a cessation of business due to revocation, suspension or loss of any gaming license affecting a specified amount of its revenues or assets, will constitute an event of default.

MGM China credit facility. The MGM China credit facility consists of approximately $550 million of term loans and an approximately $1.45 billion revolving credit facility due October 2017. The credit facility is subject to scheduled amortization payments beginning in 2016. The outstanding balance at June 30, 2013 was comprised solely of term

8

Table of Contents

loans. The interest rate on the facility fluctuates annually based on HIBOR plus a margin, which was set at 2.5% until April 2013 and ranges between 1.75% and 2.5% thereafter based on MGM China’s leverage ratio. The margin was 1.75% at June 30, 2013. MGM China is a joint and several co-borrower with MGM Grand Paradise. MGM Grand Paradise’s interest in the Cotai land use right agreement will become collateral under the MGM China credit facility upon finalization of the appropriate government approvals. The material subsidiaries of MGM China continue to guarantee the facilities, and MGM China, MGM Grand Paradise and their guarantor subsidiaries have granted a security interest in substantially all of their assets to secure the amended facilities. The credit facility will be used for general corporate purposes and for the development of the Cotai project.

The MGM China credit facility agreement contains customary representations and warranties, events of default, affirmative covenants and negative covenants, which impose restrictions on, among other things, the ability of MGM China and its subsidiaries to make investments, pay dividends and sell assets, and to incur additional debt and additional liens. MGM China is also required to maintain compliance with a maximum consolidated total leverage ratio of 4.50 to 1.00 prior to the first anniversary of the MGM Cotai opening date and 4.00 to 1.00 thereafter, in addition to a minimum interest coverage ratio of 2.50 to 1.00. MGM China was in compliance with its credit facility covenants at June 30, 2013.

Senior notes. The Company repaid its $462 million 6.75% senior notes in April 2013 at maturity.

Fair value of long-term debt. The estimated fair value of the Company’s long-term debt at June 30, 2013 was $13.9 billion. At December 31, 2012, the estimated fair value of the Company’s long-term debt was $14.3 billion. Fair value was estimated using quoted market prices for the Company’s senior notes, senior subordinated notes and senior credit facility. Carrying value of the MGM China credit facility approximates fair value.

CityCenter construction litigation. In March 2010, Perini Building Company, Inc. (“Perini”), general contractor for CityCenter, filed a lawsuit in the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, State of Nevada, against MGM MIRAGE Design Group (a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company which was the original party to the Perini construction agreement) and certain direct or indirect subsidiaries of CityCenter Holdings, LLC (the “CityCenter Owners”). Perini asserted that CityCenter was substantially completed, but the defendants failed to pay Perini approximately $490 million allegedly due and owing under the construction agreement for labor, equipment and materials expended on CityCenter. The complaint further charged the defendants with failure to provide timely and complete design documents, late delivery to Perini of design changes, mismanagement of the change order process, obstruction of Perini’s ability to complete the Harmon component, and fraudulent inducement of Perini to compromise significant amounts due for its general conditions. The complaint advanced claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel, and fraud and intentional misrepresentation. Perini seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.

In April 2010, Perini served an amended complaint in this case which joins as defendants many owners of CityCenter residential condominium units (the “Condo Owner Defendants”), added a count for foreclosure of Perini’s recorded master mechanic’s lien against the CityCenter property in the amount of approximately $491 million, and asserted the priority of this mechanic’s lien over the interests of the CityCenter Owners, the Condo Owner Defendants and CityCenter lenders in the CityCenter property.

The CityCenter Owners and the other defendants dispute Perini’s allegations, and contend that the defendants are entitled to substantial amounts from Perini, including offsets against amounts claimed to be owed to Perini and its subcontractors and damages based on breach of their contractual and other duties to CityCenter, duplicative payment requests, non-conforming work, lack of proof of alleged work performance, defective work related to the Harmon, property damage and Perini’s failure to perform its obligations to pay certain subcontractors and to prevent filing of liens against CityCenter. Parallel to the court litigation, CityCenter management conducted an extra-judicial program for settlement of CityCenter subcontractor claims. Prior to June 30, 2013, CityCenter resolved the claims of 215 first-tier Perini subcontractors (including the claims of any lower-tier subcontractors that might have claims through those first-tier subcontractors), with only seven remaining for further proceedings along with trial of Perini’s claims and CityCenter’s Harmon-related counterclaim and other claims by CityCenter against Perini and its parent guarantor, Tutor Perini. Subsequent to June 30, 2013, CityCenter reached settlement with four additional subcontractors; of the three remaining, two are implicated in the defective work at the Harmon. In August 2012, Perini recorded an amended notice of lien reducing its lien to approximately $191 million. In May 2013, Perini served an expert witness disclosure which asserted an increase in Perini’s claim for its work and materials on the CityCenter project, but Perini has not filed with the court an amended lien reflecting such additional amounts.

In November 2012, Perini filed a second amended complaint which, among other things, added claims against the CityCenter defendants of breach of contract – alleging that CityCenter’s Owner Controlled Insurance Program (“OCIP”) failed to provide adequate project insurance for Perini with broad coverages and high limits, and tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing – alleging improper administration by CityCenter of the OCIP and Builders Risk insurance programs.

Trial of all claims, including the Perini and remaining subcontractor lien claims against CityCenter, and CityCenter’s counterclaims against Perini and certain subcontractors for defective work at the Harmon has been set to commence on February 10, 2014.

9

Table of Contents

The CityCenter Owners and the other defendants will continue to vigorously assert and protect their interests in the Perini lawsuit. The Company believes it is reasonably possible that the CityCenter Owners and the other defendants could be liable for up to $178 million in connection with this lawsuit. Such amounts would be funded in part under the Company’s completion guarantee which is discussed below. The Company’s estimation of reasonably possible liability does not include any offset for amounts that may be recovered on its counterclaims against Perini and certain subcontractors for defective work at the Harmon.

CityCenter completion guarantee. In January 2011, the Company entered into an amended completion and cost overrun guarantee, which is collateralized by substantially all of the assets of Circus Circus Las Vegas, as well as certain undeveloped land adjacent to that property. The terms of the amended completion guarantee provide CityCenter the ability to utilize up to $124 million of subsequent net residential proceeds to fund construction costs, or to reimburse the Company for construction costs previously expended. As of June 30, 2013, CityCenter had received net residential proceeds in excess of the $124 million and is holding $112 million in a separate bank account representing the remaining condo proceeds available to fund completion guarantee obligations or be reimbursed to the Company. In accordance with CityCenter’s credit agreement and bond indentures such amounts can only be used to fund construction lien obligations or reimbursed to the Company once the Perini litigation is settled.

As of June 30, 2013, the Company has funded $704 million under the completion guarantee and has accrued a liability of $59 million which includes estimated litigation costs related to the resolution of disputes with contractors concerning the final construction costs and estimated amounts to be paid to contractors through the legal process related to the Perini litigation. The Company believes it is reasonably possible it could be liable for an additional $20 million in excess of the amount it has accrued. The Company’s estimated obligation has been offset by $112 million of condominium proceeds received by CityCenter, which are available to fund construction lien claims upon the resolution of the Perini litigation. Also, the Company’s accrual reflects certain estimated offsets to the amounts claimed by the contractors. Moreover, the Company has not accrued for any contingent payments to CityCenter related to the Harmon component, which will not be completed using the building as it now stands.

Harmon demolition. In response to a request by the Clark County Building Division (the “Building Division”), CityCenter engaged an engineer to conduct an analysis, based on all available information, as to the structural stability of the Harmon under building-code-specified load combinations. On July 11, 2011, that engineer submitted the results of his analysis of the Harmon tower and podium in its current as-built condition. The engineer opined, among other things, that “[i]n a code-level earthquake, using either the permitted or current code specified loads, it is likely that critical structural members in the tower will fail and become incapable of supporting gravity loads, leading to a partial or complete collapse of the tower. There is missing or misplaced reinforcing steel in columns, beams, shear walls, and transfer walls throughout the structure of the tower below the twenty-first floor.” Based on this engineering opinion, the Building Division requested a plan of action from CityCenter. CityCenter informed the Building Division that it decided to abate the potential for structural collapse of the Harmon in the event of a code-level earthquake by demolishing the building, and enclosed a plan of action for demolition by implosion prepared by LVI Environmental Services of Nevada, Inc (“LVI”). CityCenter also advised that prior to undertaking the demolition plan of action, it would seek relief from a standing order of the district court judge presiding over the Perini litigation that prohibits alteration or destruction of the building without court approval. In addition, CityCenter supplied the foundational data for the engineering conclusions stated in the July 11, 2011 letter declaring the Harmon’s structural instability in the event of a code-level earthquake. On November 22, 2011, the Building Division required that CityCenter submit a plan to abate the code deficiencies discovered in the Harmon tower.

In December 2011, CityCenter resubmitted to the Building Division the plan of abatement action prepared by LVI which was first submitted on August 15, 2011, and met with the Building Division about the requirements necessary to obtain demolition permits and approvals. As discussed above, the timing of the demolition of the Harmon is subject to rulings in the Perini litigation.

The district court presiding over the Perini litigation had previously granted CityCenter’s motion to demolish the Harmon, but stayed the demolition to allow CityCenter an opportunity to conduct additional Phase 4 destructive testing at the Harmon following the court’s order prohibiting CityCenter’s structural engineering expert from extrapolating the results of pre-Phase 4 testing to untested portions of the building.

In May 2013 CityCenter completed additional Phase 4 destructive testing of 468 structural elements at the Harmon, analysis of which data confirmed the existence of a wide variety of construction defects throughout the Harmon tower. In his June 2013 expert report CityCenter’s structural engineer opined that the additional test results and extrapolation thereof to untested portions of the building show that after a service-level earthquake (typically defined as an earthquake with a 50% chance of occurring in 30 years), the Harmon can be expected to sustain extensive damage and failure of many structural elements, and in a large earthquake, such as a building code-level earthquake, critical elements of the Harmon are likely to fail and lead to a partial or complete collapse of the tower. In April 2013 Perini’s structural engineering expert John A. Martin & Associates (“JAMA”) had sent a letter to the Clark County Building Division which declared in part that JAMA no longer believes that the Harmon Tower can be repaired to a code compliant structure, which condition JAMA attributed to CityCenter’s building testing. On July 18, 2013 CityCenter filed a renewed motion with the district court for permission to demolish the Harmon. That motion has been set for hearing on August 30, 2013.

The Company does not believe it would be responsible for funding under the completion guarantee any additional remediation efforts that might be required with respect to the Harmon; however, the Company’s view is based on a number of developing factors, including with respect to on-going litigation with CityCenter’s contractors, actions by local officials and other developments related to the CityCenter venture, all of which are subject to change. CityCenter’s revolving credit facility provides that certain demolition or repair expenses may be funded only from (i) member

10

Table of Contents

contributions designated for demolition of the Harmon, (ii) the proceeds of certain specified extraordinary receipts (which include any proceeds from the Perini litigation) or (iii) cash or cash equivalents in an amount not to exceed $30 million in the aggregate. Based on current estimates, which are subject to change, the Company believes the demolition of the Harmon would cost approximately $30 million.

Sales and use tax on complimentary meals. In March 2008, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled, in a case involving another gaming company, that food and non-alcoholic beverages purchased for use in providing complimentary meals to customers and to employees were exempt from use tax. The Company had previously paid use tax on these items and had generally filed for refunds for the periods from January 2001 to February 2008 related to this matter, which refunds had not been paid. The Company claimed the exemption on sales and use tax returns for periods after February 2008 in light of this Nevada Supreme Court decision and had not accrued or paid any sales or use tax for those periods. In February 2012, the Nevada Department of Taxation asserted that customer complimentary meals and employee meals were subject to sales tax on a prospective basis commencing February 15, 2012. In July 2012, the Nevada Department of Taxation announced that sales taxes applicable to such meals would be due and payable without penalty or interest at the earlier of certain regulatory, judicial or legislative events or June 30, 2013. The Nevada Department of Taxation’s position stemmed from a Nevada Tax Commission decision concerning another gaming company which stated that complimentary meals provided to customers are subject to sales tax at the retail value of the meal and employee meals are subject to sales tax at the cost of the meal. The Clark County District Court subsequently issued a ruling in such case that held that complementary meals provided to customers were subject to sales tax, while meals provided to employees were not subject to sales tax. This decision had been appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court.

In June 2013, the Company and other similarly situated companies entered into a global settlement agreement with the Nevada Department of Taxation that, when combined with the contemporaneous passage of legislation governing the prospective treatment of complimentary meals (“AB 506”), resolved all matters concerning the prior and future taxability of such meals. AB 506 provides that complimentary meals provided to customers and employees after the effective date of the bill are not subject to either sales or use tax. Under the terms of the global settlement, the Company agreed to withdraw its refund requests and the Nevada Department of Tax agreed to drop its assertion that sales tax was due on such meals up to the effective date of AB 506. Since the Company did not previously accrue either the claims for refund of use taxes or any liability for sales taxes that the Nevada Department of Tax may have asserted prior to entering the global settlement agreement, there is no financial statement impact of entering into the settlement agreement.

Cotai land concession contract. MGM Grand Paradise’s land concession contract for an approximately 17.8 acre site in Cotai, Macau became effective on January 9, 2013 and has an initial term of 25 years. The land premium payable to the Macau government for the land concession contract is $161 million and is composed of a down payment and eight additional semi-annual payments. As of June 30, 2013, MGM China had paid $56 million as the initial down payment of the contract premium recorded within other long-term assets, net of amortization, discussed below. Including interest on the eight semi-annual payments, MGM China has $118 million remaining payable for the land concession contract. The Company accounts for the Cotai land concession contract as an operating lease. As such, the required upfront payments are amortized over the initial 25-year contract term. As of the three and six months ended June 30, 2013, the Company had amortized $2 million and $4 million, respectively, which is classified as preopening expense during the construction of the project. In addition, in connection with the effectiveness of the Cotai land concession, the Company extended the useful life of its Macau gaming concession and is amortizing it on a straight-line basis through the initial term of the Cotai land concession.

Other guarantees. The Company is party to various guarantee contracts in the normal course of business, which are generally supported by letters of credit issued by financial institutions. The Company’s senior credit facility limits the amount of letters of credit that can be issued to $500 million, and the amount of available borrowings under the senior credit facility is reduced by any outstanding letters of credit. At June 30, 2013, the Company had provided $35 million of total letters of credit. At June 30, 2013, MGM China had provided $39 million of guarantees under its credit facility.

Other litigation. The Company is party to various legal proceedings, most of which relate to routine matters incidental to its business. Management does not believe that the outcome of such proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

The weighted-average number of common and common equivalent shares used in the calculation of basic and diluted income (loss) per share consisted of the following:

11

Table of Contents

Noncontrolling interests. The noncontrolling interests in MGM China and other minor subsidiaries are presented as a separate component of stockholders’ equity in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets and the net income attributable to noncontrolling interests is presented on the Company’s consolidated statements of operations. For the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, distributions to noncontrolling interests were $259 million and $204 million, respectively, related primarily to MGM China dividends discussed below.

MGM China dividends. MGM China paid a $500 million special dividend in March 2013, of which $255 million remained within the consolidated entity and $245 million was distributed to noncontrolling interests. MGM China paid a $400 million special dividend in March 2012, of which $204 million remained within the consolidated entity and $196 million was distributed to noncontrolling interests.

On August 6, 2013, MGM China’s board of directors announced a dividend of $113 million, which will be paid to shareholders of record as of August 26, 2013 and distributed on or about September 2, 2013. The Company will receive $57 million, representing its 51% share of the dividend.

Supplemental equity information. The following table presents the Company’s changes in stockholders’ equity for the six months ended June 30, 2013: