UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

FORM 10-Q/A

 

(Mark One)

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

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

Commission File Number 000-51064

 

GREAT WOLF RESORTS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		51-0510250 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
122 West Washington Avenue Madison, Wisconsin 53703 (Address of principal executive offices)		53703 (Zip Code)

(608) 661-4700
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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 þ      No o

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

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

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

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

The number of shares outstanding of the issuer’s common stock was 31,297,046 as of November 5, 2009.

 

 

     Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. is filing this Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 to reflect the restatement of its condensed consolidated financial statements, the notes thereto, and related disclosures.

     In connection with the year-end closing process, our Audit Committee, in consultation with its management, determined that it was necessary to restate previously issued financial statements because of errors that occurred during the computation of the valuation allowance on certain deferred tax assets recorded as of September 30, 2009. To correct the errors, we have made adjustments (the Adjustments) to restate the previously issued financial statements as of and for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2009.

     The Adjustments had the effect of decreasing our deferred tax liability by $5.2 million as of September 30, 2009, and decreasing our previously-reported net loss by $5.2 million for the three and nine month periods, respectively, ended September 30, 2009. The Adjustments are described in the table in Note 10 to the condensed consolidated financial statements.

      This Form 10-Q/A has not been updated except as required to reflect the effects of the restatement. This amendment and restatement includes changes to Part I, Items 1, 2 and 4. Except as identified in the prior sentence, no other items included in the original Form 10-Q have been amended, and such items remain in effect as of the filing date of the original Form 10-Q.

Great Wolf Resorts, Inc.

Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A
For the Quarter Ended September 30, 2009

INDEX

		Page
		No.
PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Item 1. Financial Statements (unaudited)			3
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2009 (restated) and December 31, 2008			3
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009 (restated) and 2008			4
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 (restated) and 2008			5
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements			6
Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations			22
Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk			42
Item 4. Controls and Procedures			43
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1. Legal Proceedings			44
Item 1A. Risk Factors			44
Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds			44
Item 3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities			44
Item 5. Other Information			44
Item 6. Exhibits			44
Signature			46
EX-31.1
EX-31.2
EX-32.1
EX-32.2

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1.		FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

GREAT WOLF RESORTS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Dollars in thousands, except share and per share amounts)

		September 30,				December 31,
		2009				2008
		(Unaudited)
		(As restated)
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents		$	27,994			$	14,231
Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $109 and $114			2,709				2,167
Accounts receivable — unconsolidated affiliates, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $0 and $1,201			1,923				925
Inventory			5,301				4,265
Other current assets			12,056				3,055
Total current assets			49,983				24,643
Property and equipment, net			687,983				716,173
Investments in and advances to unconsolidated affiliates			29,327				43,855
Other assets			28,148				31,561
Other intangible assets			23,829				23,829
Total assets		$	819,270			$	840,061
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Current liabilities:
Current portion of long-term debt		$	14,638			$	81,464
Accounts payable			5,157				23,217
Accounts payable — unconsolidated affiliates			3				622
Accrued expenses			23,041				22,565
Accrued expenses — unconsolidated affiliates			—				1,184
Advance deposits			7,961				7,498
Gift certificates payable			3,921				5,416
Total current liabilities			54,721				141,966
Mortgage debt			446,042				333,259
Other long-term debt			92,270				92,328
Deferred tax liability			666				—
Deferred compensation liability			776				568
Total liabilities			594,475				568,121
Commitments and contingencies
Stockholders’ equity:
Common stock, $0.01 par value; 250,000,000 shares authorized; 31,298,546 and 30,982,646 shares issued and outstanding			313				310
Additional paid-in-capital			400,767				399,641
Preferred stock, $0.01 par value, 10,000,000 shares authorized, no shares issued or outstanding			—				—
Accumulated deficit			(176,085	)			(127,811	)
Deferred compensation			(200	)			(200	)
Total stockholders’ equity			224,795				271,940
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity		$	819,270			$	840,061

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

GREAT WOLF RESORTS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
AND COMPREHENSIVE LOSS
(Unaudited; dollars in thousands, except share and per share data)

		Three months ended								Nine months ended
		September 30,								September 30,
		2009				2008				2009				2008
		(As restated)								(As restated)
Revenues:
Rooms		$	46,214			$	40,994			$	122,869			$	115,801
Food and beverage			11,877				10,088				33,084				30,751
Other hotel operations			11,333				9,759				30,458				28,439
Management and other fees			626				863				1,617				2,292
Management and other fees — affiliates			1,202				1,767				3,636				4,363
			71,252				63,471				191,664				181,646
Other revenue from managed properties — affiliates			3,966				5,942				14,486				14,993
Other revenue from managed properties			1,609				—				1,609				—
Total revenues			76,827				69,413				207,759				196,639
Operating expenses by department:
Rooms			6,332				5,407				17,309				15,827
Food and beverage			9,226				8,176				25,506				24,311
Other			8,926				7,832				24,618				22,573
Other operating expenses:
Selling, general and administrative			14,911				11,637				46,542				41,729
Property operating costs			8,201				8,642				29,657				28,556
Depreciation and amortization			15,136				11,995				42,352				34,755
Loss on disposition of property			11				19				202				19
Asset impairment loss			24,000				—				24,000				—
			86,743				53,708				210,186				167,770
Other expenses from managed properties — affiliates			3,966				5,942				14,486				14,993
Other expenses from managed properties			1,609				—				1,609				—
Total operating expenses			92,318				59,650				226,281				182,763
Net operating (loss) income			(15,491	)			9,763				(18,522	)			13,876
Gain on sale of unconsolidated affiliate			(962	)			—				(962	)			—
Investment income — affiliates			(310	)			(625	)			(1,030	)			(1,629	)
Interest income			(131	)			(279	)			(467	)			(1,178	)
Interest expense			9,671				6,808				24,715				20,599
(Loss) income before income taxes and equity in unconsolidated affiliates			(23,759	)			3,859				(40,778	)			(3,916	)
Income tax expense (benefit)			13,163				1,755				6,380				(1,282	)
Equity in loss (income) of unconsolidated affiliates, net of tax			1				(67	)			1,116				1,612
Net (loss) income		$	(36,923	)		$	2,171			$	(48,274	)		$	(4,246	)
Other comprehensive (loss) income, net of tax:
Unrealized gain on interest rate swaps			—				(271	)			—				(220	)
Comprehensive (loss) income		$	(36,923	)		$	2,442			$	(48,274	)		$	(4,026	)
Net (loss) income per share-basic		$	(1.18	)		$	0.07			$	(1.55	)		$	(0.14	)
Net (loss) income per share-diluted		$	(1.18	)		$	0.07			$	(1.55	)		$	(0.14	)
Weighted average common shares outstanding:
Basic			31,291,004				30,840,691				31,179,049				30,793,822
Diluted			31,291,004				30,840,691				31,179,049				30,793,822

See accompanying notes to the condensed consolidated financial statements.

GREAT WOLF RESORTS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited; dollars in thousands)

		Nine months ended
		September 30,
		2009				2008
		(As  restated)
Operating activities:
Net loss		$	(48,274	)		$	(4,246	)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash provided by operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization			42,352				34,755
Bad debt expense			642				65
Non-cash employee compensation and professional fees expense			829				(7	)
Loss on disposition of property			202				19
Asset impairment loss			24,000				—
Gain on sale of unconsolidated affiliate			(962	)			—
Equity in losses of unconsolidated affiliates			965				2,620
Deferred tax expense (benefit)			6,535				(2,290	)
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable and other assets			(7,711	)			(3,855	)
Accounts payable, accrued expenses and other liabilities			(4,522	)			204
Net cash provided by operating activities			14,056				27,265
Investing activities:
Capital expenditures for property and equipment			(48,206	)			(98,811	)
Loan repayment from unconsolidated affiliates			8,833				2,500
Investments in unconsolidated affiliates			(303	)			(9,823	)
Proceeds from sale of interest in unconsolidated affiliate			6,000				—
Investment in development			978				(2,288	)
Proceeds from sale of assets			66				—
Decrease in restricted cash			161				58
Increase in escrows			(1,866	)			(607	)
Net cash used in investing activities			(34,337	)			(108,971	)
Financing activities:
Principal payments on long-term debt			(5,151	)			(56,667	)
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt			51,051				149,663
Payment of loan costs			(11,856	)			(4,003	)
Net cash provided by financing activities			34,044				88,993
Net increase in cash and cash equivalents			13,763				7,287
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period			14,231				18,597
Cash and cash equivalents, end of period		$	27,994			$	25,884
Supplemental Cash Flow Information:
Cash paid for interest, net of capitalized interest		$	24,254			$	20,381
Cash paid for income taxes, net of refunds		$	379			$	365
Non-cash items:
Construction in process accruals		$	15			$	10,180

See accompanying notes to the condensed consolidated financial statements.

GREAT WOLF RESORTS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited; dollars in thousands, except share and per share amounts)

1. ORGANIZATION

     The terms “Great Wolf Resorts®,” “us,” “we” and “our” are used in this report to refer to Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries.

Business Summary

     We are a family entertainment resort company. We are the largest licensor, owner, operator and developer in North America of drive-to family resorts featuring indoor waterparks and other family-oriented entertainment activities. Our resorts generally feature approximately 300 to 600 family suites that sleep from six to ten people and each includes a wet bar, microwave oven, refrigerator and dining and sitting area. We provide a full-service entertainment resort experience to our target customer base: families with children ranging in ages from 2 to 14 years old that live within a convenient driving distance of our resorts. We operate under our Great Wolf Lodge^® and Blue Harbor Resort^tm brand names.

     We earn revenues through the sale of rooms, which includes admission to our indoor waterpark, and other revenue-generating resort amenities. Each of our resorts features a combination of the following revenue-generating amenities: themed restaurants, ice cream shop and confectionery, full-service spa, game arcade, gift shop, miniature golf, interactive game attraction and meeting space. We also generate revenues from licensing arrangements, management fees and other fees with respect to our operation or development of properties owned in whole or in part by third parties.

     The following table presents an overview of our portfolio of resorts. As of September 30, 2009, we operate and/or license eleven Great Wolf Lodge resorts (our signature Northwoods-themed resorts), and one Blue Harbor Resort (a nautical-themed property).

																		Indoor
		Ownership								Number of				Number of				Entertainment
		Percentage				Opened				Guest Suites				Condo Units (1)				Area (2)
																		(Approx. ft2)
Wisconsin Dells, WI (3)			—				1997				308				77				102,000
Sandusky, OH (3)			—				2001				271				—				41,000
Traverse City, MI			100	%			2003				280				—				57,000
Kansas City, KS			100	%			2003				281				—				57,000
Sheboygan, WI			100	%			2004				182				64				54,000
Williamsburg, VA			100	%			2005				405				—				87,000
Pocono Mountains, PA			100	%			2005				401				—				101,000
Niagara Falls, ONT (4)			—				2006				406				—				104,000
Mason, OH			100	%			2006				401				—				105,000
Grapevine, TX (5)			100	%			2007				605				—				110,000
Grand Mound, WA (6)			49	%			2008				398				—				74,000
Concord, NC			100	%		March 2009					402				—				97,000

2. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

     General — We have prepared these unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements according to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Accordingly, we have omitted certain information and footnote disclosures that are normally included in annual financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The December 31, 2008 consolidated balance sheet data was derived from audited financial statements, but does not include all disclosures required by generally accepted accounting principles. These interim financial statements should be read in conjunction with the financial statements, accompanying notes and other information included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008.

     The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements reflect all adjustments, which are of a normal and recurring nature, necessary for a fair presentation of the financial condition and results of operations and cash flows for the periods presented. The preparation of financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires us to make estimates and assumptions. Such estimates and assumptions affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, as well as the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Our actual results could differ from those estimates. The results of operations for the interim periods are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the entire year.

     Certain 2008 amounts have been reclassified to conform to the 2009 presentation. A reclassification of accounts payable — unconsolidated affiliates which was initially included in accrued expenses — unconsolidated affiliates occurred in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as well as a reclassification of bad debt expense that was initially included in accounts receivable and other assets in the condensed consolidated statements of cash flow.

     Principles of Consolidation — Our consolidated financial statements include our accounts and the accounts of all of our majority-owned subsidiaries. As part of our consolidation process, we eliminate all significant intercompany balances and transactions.

     Investments In and Advances to Unconsolidated Affiliates — We use the equity method to account for our investment in our unconsolidated joint venture, as we do not have a controlling interest. Net income or loss is allocated between the partners in the joint ventures based on the hypothetical liquidation at book value method (HLBV). Under the HLBV

method, net income or loss is allocated between the partners based on the difference between each partner’s claim on the net assets of the partnership at the end and beginning of the period, after taking into account contributions and distributions. Each partner’s share of the net assets of the partnership is calculated as the amount that the partner would receive if the partnership were to liquidate all of its assets at net book value and distribute the resulting cash to creditors and partners in accordance with their respective priorities. Periodically we may make advances to our affiliates.

     Income Taxes — At the end of each interim reporting period, we estimate the effective tax rate expected to be applicable for the full fiscal year. The rate determined is used in providing for income taxes on a year-to-date basis.

     We recorded a valuation allowance of $23,265 during the period ended September 30, 2009, due to uncertainties related to our ability to utilize some of our deferred tax assets, primarily consisting of certain net operating loss carryforwards, before they expire. In the period ended September 30, 2009, we determined that due to current conditions in the credit markets, real estate markets and our current financial position, the tax planning strategy we previously expected to generate substantial taxable income was no longer feasible. The valuation allowance is based on our estimates of taxable income solely from the reversal of existing deferred tax liabilities and the period over which deferred tax assets reverse. In the event that actual results differ from these estimates or we adjust these estimates in a future period, we may need to increase or decrease our valuation allowance, which could materially impact our consolidated statement of operations.

     Fair Value of Financial Instruments —We include disclosures in the notes to our financial statements on the fair value of financial instruments whenever summarized financial information for interim reporting periods is presented. The carrying amounts related to cash and cash equivalents, other current assets, escrows, accounts payable, gift certificates payable and accrued expenses approximate fair value due to the relatively short maturities of such instruments.

     Comprehensive Income — We record the effective portion of the interest rate swap’s gain or loss to be initially reported as a component of other comprehensive income (loss) and subsequently reclassified into earnings when the forecasted transaction affects earnings. The ineffective portion of the gain or loss is reported in earnings immediately.

     Segments— We have two reportable segments:

	•		resort ownership/operation-revenues derived from our consolidated owned resorts; and
	•		resort third-party management/license-revenues derived from management, license and other related fees from unconsolidated managed resorts.

The following summarizes significant financial information regarding our segments:

														Totals per
		Resort Ownership/				Resort Third-Party								Financial
		Operation				Management/License				Other				Statements
Three months ended September 30, 2009
Revenues		$	69,424			$	7,403			$	—			$	76,827
Depreciation and amortization			(14,932	)			—				(204	)			(15,136	)
Asset impairment loss			(24,000	)			—				—				(24,000	)
Operating (loss) income			(17,757	)			1,828				438				(15,491	)
Gain on sale of unconsolidated affiliate			—				—				(962	)			(962	)
Investment income — affiliates			—				—				—				(310	)
Interest income			—				—				—				(131	)
Interest expense			—				—				—				9,671
Loss before income taxes and equity in income of unconsolidated affiliates			—				—				—			$	(23,759	)
Additions to long-lived assets			2,215				—				145			$	2,360

														Totals per
		Resort Ownership/				Resort Third-Party								Financial
		Operation				Management/License				Other				Statements
Nine months ended September 30, 2009
Revenues		$	186,411			$	21,348			$	—			$	207,759
Depreciation and amortization			(41,776	)			—				(576	)			(42,352	)
Asset impairment loss			(24,000	)			—				—				(24,000	)
Operating (loss) income			(21,416	)			5,253				(2,359	)			(18,522	)
Gain on sale of unconsolidated affiliate			—				—				(962	)			(962	)
Investment income — affiliates			—				—				—				(1,030	)
Interest income			—				—				—				(467	)
Interest expense			—				—				—				24,715
Loss before income taxes and equity in income of unconsolidated affiliates			—				—				—			$	(40,778	)
Additions to long-lived assets			47,834				—				372			$	48,206
Total assets			741,895				2,218				75,157			$	819,270

														Totals per
		Resort Ownership/				Resort Third-Party								Financial
		Operation				Management/License				Other				Statements
Three months ended September 30, 2008
Revenues		$	60,841			$	8,572			$	—			$	69,413
Depreciation and amortization			(11,796	)			—				(199	)			(11,995	)
Operating income (loss)			5,416				2,630				1,717				9,763
Investment income — affiliates			—				—				—				(625	)
Interest income			—				—				—				(279	)
Interest expense			—				—				—				6,808
Income (loss) before income taxes and equity in losses of unconsolidated affiliates			—				—				—			$	3,859
Additions to long-lived assets			43,285				—				254			$	43,539

														Totals per
		Resort Ownership/				Resort Third-Party								Financial
		Operation				Management/License				Other				Statements
Nine months ended September 30, 2008
Revenues		$	174,991			$	21,648			$	—			$	196,639
Depreciation and amortization			(34,171	)			—				(584	)			(34,755	)
Operating income (loss)			9,977				6,655				(2,756	)			13,876
Investment income — affiliates			—				—				—				(1,629	)
Interest income			—				—				—				(1,178	)
Interest expense			—				—				—				20,599
Loss before income taxes and equity in losses of unconsolidated affiliates			—				—				—			$	(3,916	)
Additions to long-lived assets			98,019				—				792			$	98,811
Total assets			730,802				1,999				133,435			$	866,236

     The Other items in the table above represent corporate-level activities that do not constitute a reportable segment. Total assets at the corporate level primarily consist of cash, our investments in and advances to affiliates, and intangible assets.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements —

     In April 2009, the FASB issued guidance on how to determine whether there has been a significant decrease in the volume and level of activity for an asset or liability when compared with normal market activity for the asset or liability. In such situations, an entity may conclude that transactions or quoted prices may not be determinative of fair value, and may adjust the transactions or quoted prices to arrive at the fair value of the asset or liability. This guidance is effective for interim and annual reporting periods ending after June 15, 2009, and shall be applied prospectively. The adoption of this guidance, as of September 30, 2009, did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

     In April 2009, the FASB issued guidance which requires disclosures about fair value of financial instruments in interim financial information for periods ending after June 15, 2009. The adoption of this guidance as of September 30, 2009, did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

     In June 2009, the FASB issued guidance which changes how a reporting entity determines when an entity that is insufficiently capitalized or is not controlled through voting (or similar rights) should be consolidated. The determination of whether a reporting entity is required to consolidate another entity is based on, among other things, the other entity’s purpose and design and the reporting entity’s ability to direct the activities of the other entity that most significantly impact the other entity’s economic performance. The guidance will require a reporting entity to provide additional disclosures about its involvement with variable interest entities and any significant changes in risk exposure due to that involvement. A reporting entity will be required to disclose how its involvement with a variable interest entity affects the reporting entity’s financial statements. The adoption of this guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2009, and interim periods within those fiscal years. We are currently evaluating the impact of this guidance on our consolidated financial statements.

     In June 2009, the FASB issued guidance on codification and the hierarchy of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The Codification superseded all non-SEC accounting and reporting standards. All other nongrandfathered non-SEC accounting literature not included in the Codification will become nonauthoritative. The guidance is effective for interim quarterly periods beginning July 1, 2009. This adoption of this guidance, as of September 30, 2009, did not have an impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In August 2009, the FASB issued guidance on measuring liabilities as fair value which provides clarification on measuring liabilities at fair value when a quoted price in an active market is not available. The guidance is effective for the first reporting period beginning after issuance. The adoption of this guidance, as of September 30, 2009, did not have an impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In October 2009, the FASB issued guidance for revenue recognition with multiple deliverables. This guidance eliminates the residual method under the current guidance and replaces it with the “relative selling price” method when allocating revenue in a multiple deliverable arrangement. The selling price for each deliverable shall be determined using vendor specific objective evidence of selling price, if it exists, otherwise third-party evidence of selling price shall be used. If neither exists for a deliverable, the vendor shall use its best estimate of the selling price for that deliverable. After adoption, this guidance will also require expanded qualitative and quantitative disclosures. The guidance is effective for revenue arrangements entered into or materially modified in fiscal years beginning on or after June 15, 2010, although early adoption is permitted. We are currently evaluating the impact of this guidance on our consolidated financial statements.

3. INVESTMENT IN AFFILIATES

  CNL Joint Venture

     On August 6, 2009, we sold our 30.26% joint venture interest to CNL for $6,000. We recognized a $962 gain on this sale.

     Summary financial data for this joint venture is as follows:

		Period				Three								Nine
		July 1 through				months ended				Period January 1				months ended
		August 5,				September 30,				through August 5,				September 30,
Operating data:		2009				2008				2009				2008
Revenue		$	5,100			$	10,120			$	19,750			$	26,488
Operating expenses		$	(4,383	)		$	(10,793	)		$	(24,213	)		$	(31,978	)
Net income (loss)		$	717			$	(673	)		$	(4,463	)		$	(5,490	)

     We had a receivable from the joint venture of $1,465 as of December 31, 2008. At December 31, 2008, we reserved $1,201 against this receivable. We had a payable to the joint venture of $1,225 as of December 31, 2008.

  Grand Mound Joint Venture

     Summary financial data for this joint venture is as follows:

		September 30,				December 31,
		2009				2008
Balance sheet data:
Total assets		$	148,162			$	152,215
Total liabilities		$	114,135			$	118,636

		Three months ended								Nine months ended
		September 30,								September 30,
		2009				2008				2009				2008
Operating data:
Revenue		$	11,170			$	12,253			$	31,303			$	25,544
Operating expenses		$	(9,165	)		$	(9,579	)		$	(26,467	)		$	(23,861	)
Net income (loss)		$	634			$	463			$	448			$	(3,171	)

     We have a receivable from the joint venture of $1,923 and $661 that relates primarily to accrued preferred equity returns as of September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively. We have a payable to the joint venture of $2 and $581 as of September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively.

4. SHARE-BASED COMPENSATION

     We recognized share-based compensation expense of $360, and $828, net of estimated forfeitures, for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009, respectively. The total income tax (benefit) expense recognized related to share-based compensation was $56 and $129 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009, respectively.

     We recognize compensation expense on grants of share-based compensation awards on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period of each award recipient. As of September 30, 2009, total unrecognized compensation cost related to share-based compensation awards was $2,187, which we expect to recognize over a weighted average period of approximately 3.0 years.

     The Great Wolf Resorts 2004 Incentive Stock Plan (the Plan) authorizes us to grant up to 3,380,740 stock options, stock appreciation rights or shares of our common stock to employees and directors. At September 30, 2009, there were 1,117,149 shares available for future grants under the Plan.

     We anticipate having to issue new shares of our common stock for stock option exercises.

Stock Options

     We have granted non-qualified stock options to purchase our common stock under the Plan with exercise prices equal to the fair market value of the common stock on the grant dates. The exercise price for certain options granted under the plans may be paid in cash, shares of common stock or a combination of cash and shares. Stock options expire ten years from the grant date and vest ratably over three years.

     We recorded stock option expense of $8 and $22 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009, respectively. There were no stock options granted during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009 or 2008. We recorded stock option expense of $8 and $104 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008, respectively.

A summary of stock option activity during the nine months ended September 30, 2009, is:

										Weighted Average
						Weighted Average				Remaining
		Shares				Exercise Price				Contractual Life
Number of shares under option:
Outstanding at beginning of period			475,000			$	17.59
Granted			—
Exercised			—
Forfeited			(21,500	)		$	18.12
Outstanding at end of period			453,500			$	17.57			5.34 years
Exercisable at end of period			448,500			$	17.62			5.25 years

There was no intrinsic value of our outstanding or exercisable stock options at September 30, 2009 or 2008.

Market Condition Share Awards

     Certain officers are eligible to receive shares of our common stock in payment of market condition share awards granted to them.

     We granted 541,863 and 84,748 market condition share awards during the nine months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively. We recorded share-based compensation expense of $82 and $285 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009, respectively, related to these grants. We recorded negative share-based compensation expense of $(129) and $(161) for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008, respectively. Included in the 2008 amounts were reversals of expense related to the resignation of two senior officers in 2008, as the service condition of these shares was not met.

Of the 2009 market condition shares granted:

•

541,863 were based on our common stock’s performance in 2009 relative to a stock index, as designated by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. These shares vest ratably over a three-year period, 2009-2011. The per share fair value of these market condition shares was $1.26 as of the grant date.

The fair value of these market condition shares was determined using a Monte Carlo simulation and the following assumptions:

Dividend yield			—
Weighted average, risk free interest rate			0.62	%
Expected stock price volatility			96.51	%
Expected stock price volatility (small-cap stock index)			37.89	%

We used an expected dividend yield of 0% as we do not currently pay a dividend and do not contemplate paying a dividend in the foreseeable future. The weighted average, risk free interest rate was based on the one-year T-bill rate. Our expected stock price volatility was estimated using daily returns data of our stock for a two-year period ending on the grant date. The expected stock price volatility for the small cap stock index was estimated using daily returns data for a two-year period ending on the grant date.

Of the 2008 market condition shares awards granted:

•

84,748 were based on our common stock’s performance in 2008 relative to a stock index, as designated by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. These shares vest ratably over a three-year period, 2008-2010. The per share fair value of these market condition shares was $1.63 as of the grant date.

The fair value of these market condition shares was determined using a Monte Carlo simulation and the following assumptions:

Dividend yield			—
Weighted average, risk free interest rate			2.05	%
Expected stock price volatility			34.98	%
Expected stock price volatility (small-cap stock index)			20.08	%

We used an expected dividend yield of 0% as we did not pay a dividend and did not contemplate paying a dividend in the foreseeable future. The weighted average, risk free interest rate was based on the one-year T-bill rate. Our expected stock price volatility was estimated using daily returns data of our stock for a two-year period ending on the grant date. The expected stock price volatility for the small cap stock index was estimated using daily returns data for a two-year period ending on the grant date. Due to resignation of a senior officer in May 2008, 55,046 shares were forfeited.

The market condition for these shares was not met and therefore no shares related to this grant were issued.

Of the 2007 market condition shares awards granted:

•

81,293 were based on our common stock’s absolute performance during the three-year period 2007-2009. For shares that are earned, half of the shares vest on December 31, 2009, and the other half vest on December 31, 2010. The per share fair value of these market condition shares was $6.65.

The fair value of these market condition shares was determined using a Monte Carlo simulation and the following assumptions:

Dividend yield			—
Weighted average, risk free interest rate			4.73	%
Expected stock price volatility			42.13	%

We used an expected dividend yield of 0% as we do not currently pay a dividend and do not contemplate paying a dividend in the foreseeable future. The weighted average, risk free interest rate was based on the four-year T-bill rate. Our expected stock price volatility was estimated using daily returns data of our stock for a two-year period ending on the grant date. Due to the resignation of two senior officers in 2008, 58,628 shares were forfeited.

•

81,293 were based on our common stock’s performance in 2007-2010 relative to a stock index, as designated by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. For shares that are earned, half of the shares vest on December 31, 2009, and the other half vest on December 31, 2010. The per share fair value of these market condition shares was $8.24.

The fair value of these market condition shares was determined using a Monte Carlo simulation and the following assumptions:

Dividend yield			—
Weighted average, risk free interest rate			4.73	%
Expected stock price volatility			42.13	%
Expected stock price volatility (small-cap stock index)			16.64	%

We used an expected dividend yield of 0% as we did not pay a dividend and did not contemplate paying a dividend in the foreseeable future. The weighted average, risk free interest rate was based on the four-year T-bill rate. Our expected stock price volatility was estimated using daily returns data of our stock for a two-year period ending on the grant date. The expected stock price volatility for the small cap stock index was estimated using daily returns data for a two-year period ending on the grant date. Due to the resignation of two senior officers in 2008, 58,628 shares were forfeited.

Performance Share Awards

     Certain officers are eligible to receive shares of our common stock in payment of performance share awards granted to them in accordance with the terms thereof. We granted 180,622 and 37,386 performance shares during the nine months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively. Grantees of performance shares are eligible to receive shares of our common stock based on the achievement of certain individual and departmental performance goals during the calendar year. The per share fair value of performance shares granted during the nine months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, was $1.54 and $7.09, respectively, which represents the fair value of our common stock on the grant dates. We recorded share-based compensation expense of $46 and $138 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009, respectively. We recorded share-based compensation expense of $23 and $27 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008, respectively, related to these grants. Included in the 2008 amounts were reversals of expense related to the resignation of a senior officer in 2008, as the service condition of these shares was not met.

     Based on the achievement of certain individual and departmental performance goals, employees earned and were issued 18,084 performance shares in February 2009 related to 2008 grants and 20,843 performance shares in February 2008 related to 2007 grants. Since all shares originally granted were not earned, we recorded a reduction in expense of $2 and $10 during the nine months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively, related to the shares not earned.

Deferred Compensation Awards

     Pursuant to their employment arrangements, certain executives received bonuses upon completion of our initial public offering (IPO). Executives receiving bonus payments totaling $2,200 elected to defer those payments pursuant to our

deferred compensation plan. To satisfy this obligation, we contributed 129,412 shares of our common stock to the trust that holds the assets to pay obligations under our deferred compensation plan. The fair value of that stock at the date of contribution was $2,200. We recorded the fair value of the shares of common stock, at the date the shares were contributed to the trust, as a reduction of our stockholders’ equity. Also, we account for the change in fair value of the shares held in the trust as a charge to compensation cost. We recorded share-based compensation expense of $18 and $(334), for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009, respectively, related to these grants. We recorded negative share-based compensation expense of $92 and $796, for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008, respectively.

     In 2008, one of the executives who had deferred a bonus payment as discussed above resigned from our company. As a result, we have reclassified $2,000 previously recorded as deferred compensation to additional paid-in-capital.

Non-vested Shares

     We have granted non-vested shares to certain employees and our directors. Shares vest ratably over various periods up to five years from the grant date. We valued the non-vested shares at the closing market value of our common stock on the date of grant.

A summary of non-vested shares activity for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 is as follows:

						Weighted
						Average
						Grant Date
		Shares				Fair Value
Non-vested shares balance at beginning of period			300,249			$	9.29
Granted			331,179			$	2.88
Forfeited			(36,041	)		$	6.47
Vested			(80,123	)		$	9.64
Non-vested shares balance at end of period			515,264			$	5.41

     Our non-vested shares had an intrinsic value of $280 at September 30, 2009.

     We recorded share-based expense of $186 and $645 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009, respectively, related to these shares. We recorded share-based expense of $19 and $463 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008, respectively.

Vested Shares

     We have an annual short-term incentive plan for certain employees, which provides them the potential to earn cash bonus payments. For 2007 and 2008, certain of these employees had the option to elect to have some or all of their annual bonus compensation related to performance in those years paid in the form of shares of our common stock rather than cash. Employees making this election received shares having a market value equal to 125% of the cash they would have otherwise received. Shares issued in lieu of cash bonus payments are fully vested upon issuance.

	•		We issued 17,532 shares in February 2009 related to 2008 bonus amounts. We valued these shares at $32 based on the closing market value of our common stock on the date of the grant.
	•		We issued 265,908 shares in February 2008 related to 2007 bonus amounts. These shares were valued at $2,055 based on the closing market value of our common stock on the date of grant.

     In 2008 and 2009, our directors had the option to elect to have some or the entire cash portion of their annual fees paid in the form of shares of our common stock rather than cash. Directors making this election can receive shares having a market value equal to 125% of the cash they would otherwise receive. Shares issued in lieu of cash fee payments are fully vested upon issuance. We recorded non-cash professional fees expense of $20 and $74 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009, related to these elections to receive shares in lieu of cash. We issued 9,061 and 31,347 shares in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009, respectively. We recorded non-cash professional fees expense of $73 and $365 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008, respectively, related to these elections to receive shares in lieu of cash. We issued 20,069 and 72,293 shares in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008, respectively.

5. PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT

Property and equipment consist of the following:

		September 30,				December 31,
		2009				2008
Land and improvements		$	60,718			$	51,684
Building and improvements			427,524				353,537
Furniture, fixtures and equipment			340,323				315,577
Construction in process			626				117,063
			829,191				837,861
Less accumulated depreciation			(141,208	)			(121,688	)
Property and equipment, net		$	687,983			$	716,173

     Depreciation expense was $13,001 and $10,941 for the three months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively. Depreciation expense was $37,481 and $32,750 for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively.

     Because of triggering events that occurred in the three months ended September 30, 2009, related to our resort in Sheboygan, including changes in the expectation of how long we will hold this property, current period and historical operating losses and the deterioration in the current market conditions, we tested this resort to determine if further assessment for potential impairment was required. Based on this testing, we determined the carrying value of this resort was not recoverable. As a result, we recorded a $24,000 impairment charge to decrease the resort’s carrying value to its estimated fair value (net of estimated disposal costs) as of September 30, 2009. To determine the estimated fair value for purposes of calculating the impairment charge, we used a combination of historical and projected cash flows and other available market information, such as recent sales prices for similar assets. Although we believe our estimated fair value for the resort is reasonable, the actual fair value we ultimately realize from this resort could differ materially from this estimate. The impaired long-lived asset is included in our Resort Ownership/Operation segment.

6. LONG-TERM DEBT

     Long-term debt consists of the following:

		September 30,				December 31,
		2009				2008
Long-Term Debt:
Traverse City/Kansas City mortgage loan		$	69,145			$	70,211
Mason mortgage loan			74,800				76,800
Pocono Mountains mortgage loan			95,746				96,571
Williamsburg mortgage loan			63,500				64,625
Grapevine mortgage loan			78,709				78,709
Concord construction loan			78,549				27,594

		September 30,				December 31,
		2009				2008
Junior subordinated debentures			80,545				80,545
Other Debt:
City of Sheboygan bonds			8,527				8,493
City of Sheboygan loan			3,343				3,503
Other			86				—
			552,950				507,051
Less current portion of long-term debt			(14,638	)			(81,464	)
Total long-term debt		$	538,312			$	425,587

     Traverse City/Kansas City Mortgage Loan — This loan is secured by our Traverse City and Kansas City resorts. The loan bears interest at a fixed rate of 6.96%, is subject to a 25-year principal amortization schedule, and matures in January 2015. The loan has customary financial and operating debt compliance covenants. The loan also has customary restrictions on our ability to prepay the loan prior to maturity. We were in compliance with all covenants under this loan at September 30, 2009.

     Mason Mortgage Loan — This loan is secured by our Mason resort. On July 31, 2009 the loan maturity was extended to July 1, 2011. We incurred loan fees of $1,145 related to the extension of this loan. The loan bears interest at a floating rate of 30 day LIBOR plus a spread of 425 basis points with an interest rate floor of 6.50% (effective rate of 6.50% as of September 30, 2009). The LIBOR benchmark changes to 90 day LIBOR on December 1, 2009. The loan requires principal amortization payments of $1,000 per quarter in 2009 and $2,000 per quarter thereafter. This loan has customary financial and operating debt compliance covenants associated with an individual mortgaged property, including a minimum tangible net worth provision for Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. The loan has no restrictions on the repayment of loan principal and has exit fees that can be paid upon full repayment of the loan or at maturity. In addition, we have provided the Mason mortgage lenders with a $30,000 corporate guaranty and cross-collateralization on our Grapevine resort. The corporate guaranty and cross-collateralization on the Grapevine property will remain in place until we make a $30,000 principal reduction of the Mason loan over the remaining term of the loan. Should there be certain liquidity-producing events, including the sale of majority-owned equity interest in any of our existing properties or the refinance of a mortgage loan on an existing property, we will be required to use 50 percent of the net proceeds towards the $30,000 mandatory principal reduction. We were in compliance with all covenants under this loan at September 30, 2009.

     In conjunction with the extension of this loan in January 2009, we were required to provide interest rate protection on a portion of the loan amount through the loan’s then-maturity date in November 2009. Therefore, we executed an interest rate cap in the amount of $10 that caps the loan at 7.25% interest through November 2009. In conjunction with the extension of this loan in July 2009, we are required to execute an interest rate cap on or before November 30, 2009 through the loan’s maturity date. We have not executed this interest rate cap as of November 5, 2009.

     Pocono Mountains Mortgage Loan — This loan is secured by our Pocono Mountains resort. The loan bears interest at a fixed rate of 6.10% and matures in December 2016. The loan is currently subject to a 30-year principal amortization schedule. The loan has customary covenants associated with an individual mortgaged property. The loan also has customary restrictions on our ability to prepay the loan prior to maturity. We were in compliance with all covenants under this loan at September 30, 2009.

     Williamsburg Mortgage Loan — This loan is secured by our Williamsburg resort. The loan bears interest at a floating rate of 30-day LIBOR plus a spread of 350 basis points with a minimum rate of 6.25% per annum (effective rate of 6.25% as of September 30, 2009). This loan matures in August 2011 and has a one-year extension available at our option, assuming the property meets an operating performance threshold. The loan has no applicable prepayment fees. The loan has customary covenants associated with an individual mortgaged property. We were in compliance with all covenants under this loan at September 30, 2009.

     In conjunction with the closing of this loan, we were required to provide interest rate protection on a portion of the loan amount through the loan’s maturity date. Therefore, we executed an interest rate cap in the amount of $522 that caps the

loan at 8% interest through the loan’s maturity date. This interest rate cap was designated as an ineffective cash flow hedge. We mark the interest rate cap to market and record the change to interest expense.

     Grapevine Mortgage Loan — This loan is secured by our Grapevine resort. On July 31, 2009 the loan maturity was extended to July 1, 2011. We incurred loan fees of $1,415 related to the extension of this loan. The loan bears interest at a floating rate of 90 day LIBOR plus a spread of 400 basis points with an interest rate floor of 7.00% (effective rate of 7.0% as of September 30, 2009). The loan requires principal amortization payments of $800 per quarter until maturity. This loan has customary financial and operating debt compliance covenants associated with an individual mortgaged property, including a minimum tangible net worth provision for Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. The loan has no restrictions on the repayment of loan principal and has exit fees that must be paid upon full repayment of the loan or at maturity. We were in compliance with all covenants under this loan at September 30, 2009.

     In conjunction with the extension of this loan in July 2009, we were required to provide interest rate protection on a portion of the loan amount through the loan’s maturity date. Therefore, we executed an interest rate cap in the amount of $205 that caps the loan at 7% interest through December 2010. This interest rate cap was designated as an ineffective cash flow hedge. We mark the interest rate cap to market and record the change to interest expense.

     Concord Construction Loan — In April 2008 we closed on a $63,940 construction loan to fund a portion of the total costs of our Great Wolf Lodge resort under construction in Concord. The four-year loan was potentially expandable to a maximum principal amount of up to $79,900. The loan bears interest at a floating annual rate of LIBOR plus a spread of 310 basis points, with a minimum rate of 6.50% per annum (effective rate of 6.50% as of September 30, 2009). The loan requires interest only payments until the one-year anniversary of the conversion date of the property and then requires monthly principal payments based on a 25-year amortization schedule. This loan has customary financial and operating debt compliance covenants associated with an individual mortgaged property, including a minimum consolidated tangible net worth provision. We were in compliance with all covenants under this loan at September 30, 2009. In January 2009, the total commitments under this loan increased from $63,940 to $79,900. We incurred loan fees in connection with the increase of our loan commitments.

     Junior Subordinated Debentures — In March 2005 we completed a private offering of $50,000 of trust preferred securities (TPS) through Great Wolf Capital Trust I (Trust I), a Delaware statutory trust which is our subsidiary. The securities pay holders cumulative cash distributions at an annual rate which is fixed at 7.80% through March 2015 and then floats at LIBOR plus a spread of 310 basis points thereafter. The securities mature in March 2035 and are callable at no premium after March 2010. In addition, we invested $1,500 in Trust I’s common securities, representing 3% of the total capitalization of Trust I.

     Trust I used the proceeds of the offering and our investment to purchase from us $51,550 of our junior subordinated debentures with payment terms that mirror the distribution terms of the TPS. The costs of the TPS offering totaled $1,600, including $1,500 of underwriting commissions and expenses and $100 of costs incurred directly by Trust I. Trust I paid these costs utilizing an investment from us. These costs are being amortized over a 30-year period. The proceeds from our debenture sale, net of the costs of the TPS offering and our investment in Trust I, were $48,400. We used the net proceeds to retire a construction loan.

     In June 2007 we completed a private offering of $28,125 of TPS through Great Wolf Capital Trust III (Trust III), a Delaware statutory trust which is our subsidiary. The securities pay holders cumulative cash distributions at an annual rate which is fixed at 7.90% through June 2012 and then floats at LIBOR plus a spread of 300 basis points thereafter. The securities mature in June 2017 and are callable at no premium after June 2012. In addition, we invested $870 in the Trust’s common securities, representing 3% of the total capitalization of Trust III.

     Trust III used the proceeds of the offering and our investment to purchase from us $28,995 of our junior subordinated debentures with payment terms that mirror the distribution terms of the trust securities. The costs of the TPS offering totaled $932, including $870 of underwriting commissions and expenses and $62 of costs incurred directly by Trust III. Trust III paid these costs utilizing an investment from us. These costs are being amortized over a 10-year period. The proceeds from our debenture sales, net of the costs of the TPS offering and our investment in Trust III, were $27,193. We used the net proceeds for development costs.

     Issue trusts, like Trust I and Trust III (collectively, the Trusts), are generally variable interest. We have determined that we are not the primary beneficiary under the Trusts, and accordingly we do not include the financial statements of the Trusts in our consolidated financial statements.

     Based on the foregoing accounting authority, our consolidated financial statements present the debentures issued to the Trusts as long-term debt. Our investments in the Trusts are accounted as cost investments and are included in other assets on our consolidated balance sheet. For financial reporting purposes, we record interest expense on the corresponding debentures in our condensed consolidated statements of operations.

     City of Sheboygan Bonds — The City of Sheboygan (the City) bonds represent the face amount of bond anticipation notes (BANs) issued by the City in November 2003 in conjunction with the construction of the Blue Harbor Resort in Sheboygan, Wisconsin. In accordance with the provisions of, we have recognized as a liability the obligations for the BANs. We have an obligation to fund certain minimum guaranteed amounts of room tax payments to be made by the Blue Harbor Resort through 2028, which obligation is indirectly related to the payments by the City on the BANs.

     City of Sheboygan Loan — The City of Sheboygan loan amount represents a loan made by the City in 2004 in conjunction with the construction of the Blue Harbor Resort in Sheboygan, Wisconsin. The loan is noninterest bearing and matures in 2018. Our obligation to repay the loan will be satisfied by certain minimum guaranteed amounts of real and personal property tax payments to be made by the Blue Harbor Resort through 2018.

     Future Maturities — Future principal requirements on long-term debt are as follows:

Through
September 30,
2010		$	14,638
2011			210,809
2012			79,532
2013			3,606
2014			3,892
Thereafter			240,473
Total		$	552,950

7.  FAIR VALUE OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

     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 (an exit price). GAAP outlines a valuation framework and creates a fair value hierarchy in order to increase the consistency and comparability of fair value measurements and the related disclosures. Certain assets and liabilities must be measured at fair value, and disclosures are required for items measured at fair value.

     We measure our financial instruments using inputs from the following three levels of the fair value hierarchy. The three levels are as follows:

Level 1 inputs are unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that we have the ability to access at the measurement date.

Level 2 inputs include quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active, inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability (that is, interest rates, yield curves, etc.), and inputs that are derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data by correlation or other means (market corroborated inputs).

Level 3 includes unobservable inputs that reflect our assumptions about the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability. We develop these inputs based on the best information available, including our own data.

     The following table summarizes the Company’s financial assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of September 30, 2009:

		Level 1		Level 2				Level 3		Total
Interest rate caps		$    —		$	(23	)		$    —		$	(23	)
Long-term debt		—			438,151			—			438,151
		$    —		$	438,174			$    —		$	438,174

     Level 2 assets consist of our interest rate caps and our long-term debt.  To determine the estimated fair value of our interest rate caps we use market information provided by the banks from whom the interest rate caps were purchased from.

     As of September 30, 2009, we estimate the total fair value of our long-term debt to be $114,662 less than its total carrying value due to the terms of the existing debt being different than those terms currently available to us for indebtedness with similar risks and remaining maturities.  These fair value estimates have not been comprehensively revalued for purposes of these consolidated financial statements since that date, and current estimates of fair values may differ significantly. 

The following table summarizes the valuation of financial instruments measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis in the statement of financial position at September 30, 2009:

		Level 1		Level 2		Level 3				Total
Property and Equipment		$         —		$         —			$  6,000				$  6,000

Property and equipment with a carrying amount of $30,000 were written down to their fair value of $6,000, resulting in an impairment charge of $24,000. To determine the estimated fair value for purposes of calculating the impairment charge related to our resort in Sheboygan, we used a combination of historical and projected cash flows and other available market information, such as recent sales prices for similar assets.

     The carrying amounts for cash and cash equivalents, other current assets, escrows, accounts payable, gift certificates payable and accrued expenses approximate fair value because of the short-term nature of these instruments.

8. COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

     For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008, we recorded comprehensive loss, net of tax, of approximately $271 and $220, respectively, related to gain on our interest rate swap. We had no similar amounts for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009.

9. EARNINGS PER SHARE

     We calculate our basic earnings per common share by dividing net loss available to common shareholders by the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding. Our diluted earnings per common share assume the issuance of common stock for all potentially dilutive stock equivalents outstanding using the treasury stock method. In periods in which we incur a net loss, we exclude potentially dilutive stock equivalents from the computation of diluted weighted average shares outstanding as the effect of those potentially dilutive items is anti-dilutive.

     The trust that holds the assets to pay obligations under our deferred compensation plan has 11,765 shares of our common stock. We treat those shares of common stock as treasury stock for purposes of our earnings per share computations and therefore we exclude them from our basic and diluted earnings per share calculations.

     Options to purchase 453,500 shares of common stock were not included in the computations of diluted earnings per share for the three months ended September 30, 2009, because the exercise prices of the options were greater than the average market price of the common shares during that period. There were 767,825 shares of common stock that were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share for the three months ended September 30, 2009, because the market and/or performance criteria related to these shares had not been met at September 30, 2009.

     Basic and diluted earnings per common share are as follows:

		Three months ended								Nine months ended
		September 30,								September 30,
		2009				2008				2009				2008
		(As restated)								(As restated)
Net (loss) income		$	(36,923	)		$	2,171			$	(48,274	)		$	(4,246	)
Weighted average common shares outstanding — basic			31,291,004				30,840,691				31,179,049				30,793,822
Weighted average common shares outstanding — diluted			31,291,004				30,840,691				31,179,049				30,793,822
Net loss per share — basic		$	(1.18	)		$	0.07			$	(1.55	)		$	(0.14	)
Net loss per share — diluted		$	(1.18	)		$	0.07			$	(1.55	)		$	(0.14	)

10. RESTATEMENT

     Subsequent to our issuance of our condensed consolidated financial statements for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009, we determined that certain spreadsheet errors were made during the computation of the valuation allowance on certain deferred tax assets recorded as of September 30, 2009. Due to the errors, we have made adjustments (the Adjustments) and the Audit Committee, in consultation with management, determined that is was necessary to restate the previously issued financial statements for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009.

     The Adjustments had the effect of decreasing our net deferred tax liability by $5,225 as of September 30, 2009, and decreasing our previously-reported income tax expense and net loss by $5,225 for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2009. A summary of the significant effects of the restatement is as follows:

		As Previously
		Reported				Adjustment				As Restated
September 30, 2009:
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet
Deferred tax liability		$	5,891			$	(5,225	)		$	666
Total liabilities			599,700				(5,225	)			594,475
Accumulated deficit			(181,310	)			5,225				(176,085	)
Total stockholders’ equity			219,570				5,225				224,795
Three Months Ended September 30, 2009
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations:
Income tax expense			18,267				(5,104	)			13,163
Equity in loss (income) of unconsolidated affiliates, net of tax			122				(121	)			1
Net loss			(42,148	)			5,225				(36,923	)
Comprehensive loss			(42,148	)			5,225				(36,923	)
Net loss per share-basic		$	(1.35	)		$	0.17			$	(1.18	)
Net loss per share-diluted		$	(1.35	)		$	0.17			$	(1.18	)
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2009
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations:
Income tax expense (benefit)			11,484				(5,104	)			6,380
Equity in loss of unconsolidated affiliates, net of tax			1,237				(121	)			1,116
Net loss			(53,499	)			5,225				(48,274	)
Comprehensive loss			(53,499	)			5,225				(48,274	)
Net loss per share-basic		$	(1.72	)		$	0.17			$	(1.55	)
Net loss per share-diluted		$	(1.72	)		$	0.17			$	(1.55	)
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows:
Net loss			(53,499	)			5,225				(48,274	)
Deferred tax expense (benefit)			11,760				(5,225	)			6,535

ITEM 2.		MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

     As described in Note 10 to the condensed consolidated financial statements, subsequent to the issuance of the condensed consolidated financial statements for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009, our Audit Committee, in consultation with its management, determined that it was necessary to restate our previously issued financial statements for the correction of errors in the computation of the valuation allowance on certain deferred tax assets recorded as of September 30, 2009. To correct the errors, we have made adjustments (the Adjustments) to restate the previously issued financial statements as of and for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2009. The Adjustments had the effect of decreasing our deferred tax liability by $5.2 million as of September 30, 2009, and decreasing our previously-reported net loss by $5.2 million for the three and nine month periods, respectively, ended September 30, 2009.

     The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes thereto appearing elsewhere in this report. We make statements in this section that are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. For a complete discussion of forward-looking statements, see the section in Item 1 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K entitled, “Forward-Looking Statements.” All dollar amounts in this discussion, except for per share data and operating statistics, are in thousands.

Overview

     The terms “Great Wolf Resorts,” “us,” “we” and “our” are used in this report to refer to Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries.

     Business. We are a family entertainment resort company that provides our guests with a high-quality vacation at an affordable price. We are the largest owner, operator and developer in North America of drive-to family resorts featuring indoor waterparks and other family-oriented entertainment activities. Our resorts generally feature 300 to 600 family suites that sleep from six to ten people and each includes a wet bar, microwave oven, refrigerator and dining and sitting area. We provide a full-service entertainment resort experience to our target customer base: families with children ranging in ages from 2 to 14 years old that live within a convenient driving distance of our resorts. We operate under our Great Wolf Lodge and Blue Harbor Resort brand names. Our resorts are open year-round and provide a consistent and comfortable environment where our guests can enjoy our various amenities and activities.

     We provide our guests with a self-contained vacation experience and focus on capturing a significant portion of their total vacation spending. We earn revenues through the sale of rooms, which includes admission to our indoor waterpark, and other revenue-generating resort amenities. Each of our resorts features a combination of the following revenue-generating amenities: themed restaurants and snack bars, ice cream shop and confectionery, full-service spa, kids spa, game arcade, gift shops, MagiQuest (an interactive game attraction), mini golf, gr8_space and meeting space. We also

generate revenues from licensing arrangements, management fees and other fees with respect to our operation or development of properties owned in whole or in part by third parties.

     The following table presents an overview of our portfolio of resorts. As of September 30, 2009, we operate and/or license eleven Great Wolf Lodge resorts (our signature Northwoods-themed resorts), and one Blue Harbor Resort (a nautical-themed property).

								Number				Number				Indoor
		Ownership						of				of				Entertainment
		Percentage				Opened		Guest Suites				Condo Units (1)				Area (2)
																(Approx. ft2)
Wisconsin Dells, WI (3)			—			1997			308				77				102,000
Sandusky, OH (3)			—			2001			271				—				41,000
Traverse City, MI			100	%		2003			280				—				57,000
Kansas City, KS			100	%		2003			281				—				57,000
Sheboygan, WI			100	%		2004			182				64				54,000
Williamsburg, VA			100	%		2005			405				—				87,000
Pocono Mountains, PA			100	%		2005			401				—				101,000
Niagara Falls, ONT (4)			—			2006			406				—				104,000
Mason, OH			100	%		2006			401				—				105,000
Grapevine, TX (5)			100	%		2007			605				—				110,000
Grand Mound, WA (6)			49	%		2008			398				—				74,000
Concord, NC			100	%		March 2009			402				—				97,000

     Industry Trends. We operate in the family entertainment resort segment of the travel and leisure industry. The concept of a family entertainment resort with an indoor waterpark was first introduced to the United States in Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin, and has evolved since 1987. In an effort to boost occupancy and daily rates, as well as capture off-season demand, hotel operators in the Wisconsin Dells market began expanding indoor pools and adding waterslides and other

water-based attractions to existing hotels and resorts. The success of these efforts prompted several local operators to build new, larger destination resorts based primarily on the concept.

     We believe that these properties, which typically are themed and include other resort features such as arcades, retail shops and full food and beverage service in addition to the indoor waterpark, have historically outperformed standard hotels in the market. We believe that the rate premiums and increased market share in the Wisconsin Dells for hotels and resorts with some form of an indoor waterpark can be attributed to several factors, including the ability to provide a year-round vacation destination without weather-related risks, the wide appeal of water-based recreation and the favorable trends in leisure travel discussed below.

     While no standard industry definition for a family entertainment resort featuring an indoor waterpark has developed, we generally consider resorts with at least 200 rooms featuring indoor waterparks larger than 25,000 square feet, as well as a variety of water slides and other water-based attractions, to be competitive with our resorts. A recent Hotel & Leisure Advisors, LLC (H&LA) survey indicates that there are 132 open indoor waterpark indoor waterpark resort properties in the United States and Canada. Of the total, 46 are considered “indoor waterpark destination resorts” offering more than 30,000 square feet of indoor waterpark space. Of these 46 properties, 11 are Great Wolf Resorts properties. The same survey indicated 13 openings of indoor waterpark resorts projected for 2009. The 2009 openings include only two indoor waterpark destination resorts, one of which is our property in Concord, North Carolina.

     We believe recent vacation trends favor drive-to family entertainment resorts featuring indoor waterparks, as the number of families choosing to take shorter, more frequent vacations that they can drive to have increased in recent years. We believe these trends will continue. We believe indoor waterpark resorts are generally less affected by changes in economic cycles, as drive-to destinations are generally less expensive and more convenient than destinations that require air travel.

     Outlook. We believe that no other operator or developer other than us has established a portfolio of family entertainment resorts that feature indoor waterparks. We intend to continue to expand our portfolio of resorts throughout the United States and to selectively seek licensing and management opportunities domestically and internationally. The resorts we plan to develop in the future require significant industry knowledge and substantial capital resources. Similar family entertainment resorts compete directly with several of our resorts.

     Our primary business objective is to increase long-term stockholder value. We believe we can increase stockholder value by executing our internal and external growth strategies. Our primary internal growth strategies are to: maximize total resort revenue; minimize costs by leveraging our economies of scale; and build upon our existing brand awareness and loyalty in order to compete more effectively. Our primary external growth strategies are to: capitalize on our first-mover advantage by being the first to operate family entertainment resorts featuring indoor waterparks in our selected target markets; focus on development and strategic growth opportunities by seeking to develop additional resorts by targeting licensing and joint venture opportunities; and continue to innovate by leveraging our in-house expertise, in conjunction with the knowledge and experience of our third-party suppliers and designers.

     In attempting to execute our internal and external growth strategies, we are subject to a variety of business challenges and risks. These include: development and licensing of properties; increases in costs of constructing, operating and maintaining our resorts; competition from other entertainment companies, both within and outside our industry segment; and external economic risks, including family vacation patterns and trends. We seek to meet these challenges by providing sufficient management oversight to site selection, development and resort operations; concentrating on growing and strengthening awareness of our brand and demand for our resorts; and maintaining our focus on safety.

     Our business model is highly dependent on consumer spending, and a vacation experience at one of our resorts is a discretionary expenditure for a family. Over the past two years, the slowing U.S. economy has led to a decrease in credit for consumers and a related decrease in consumer discretionary spending. This trend continued through the third quarter of 2009 as consumers experienced several negative economic impacts, including:

	•		severe turbulence in the banking and lending sectors, which has led to a general lessening of the availability of credit to consumers;
	•		an increased national unemployment rate;
	•		a continuing decline in the national average of home prices; and
	•		high volatility in the stock market that led to substantial declines in leading market averages and aggregate household savings from 2007 to 2009.

     These and other factors impact the amount of discretionary income for consumers and consumer sentiment toward discretionary purchases. As a result, these types of items could negatively impact consumer spending in future periods. While we believe the convenience, quality and overall affordability of a stay at one of our resorts continues to be an attractive alternative to other potential family vacations, a sustained decrease in overall consumer discretionary spending could have a material, adverse effect on our overall results. Also:

	•		We believe that our Traverse City and Sandusky resorts have been and will continue to be affected by especially adverse general economic circumstances in the Michigan/Northern Ohio region (such as bankruptcies of several major companies and/or large announced layoffs by major employers) and increased competition that has occurred in these markets over the past few years. The Michigan/Northern Ohio region includes cities that have historically been the Traverse City and Sandusky resorts’ largest origin of customers. We believe the adverse general economic circumstances in the region have negatively impacted overall discretionary consumer spending in that region over the past few years and may continue to do so going forward. Although we have taken steps to reduce our operating costs at these resorts, we believe the general regional economic downturn has and may continue to have an impact on the operating performance of our Traverse City and Sandusky resorts.
	•		The Wisconsin Dells property has been significantly impacted by the abundance of competing indoor waterpark resorts in that market. The Wisconsin Dells market has approximately 16 indoor waterpark resorts that compete with us. We believe this large number of competing properties in a relatively small tourist destination location has and will likely continue to have an impact on the operating performance of the Wisconsin Dells resort.
	•		We have experienced much lower-than-expected occupancy and lower-than-expected average daily room rates at our Sheboygan, Wisconsin property since its opening in 2004. We believe this operating weakness has been primarily attributable to the fact that the overall development of Sheboygan as a tourist destination continues to lag materially behind our initial expectations. We believe this has materially impacted and will likely continue to impact the consumer demand for our indoor waterpark resort in that market and the operations of the resort.
			Because of triggering events that occurred in the three months ended September 30, 2009, related to our resort in Sheboygan, including changes in the expectation of how long we will hold this property, current period and historical operating losses and the deterioration in the current market conditions, we tested this resort to determine if further assessment for potential impairment was required. Based on this testing, we determined the carrying value of this resort was not recoverable. As a result, we recorded a $24,000 impairment charge to decrease the resort’s carrying value to its estimated fair value (net of estimated disposal costs) as of September 30, 2009. To determine the estimated fair value for purposes of calculating the impairment charge, we used a combination of historical and projected cash flows and other available market information, such as recent sales prices for similar assets. Although we believe our estimated fair value for the resort is reasonable, the actual fair value we ultimately realize from this resort could differ materially from this estimate. The impaired long-lived asset is included in our Resort Ownership/Operation segment.
	•		Our Mason resort opened its first phase in December 2006 and has experienced lower-than-expected occupancy and lower-than-expected average daily room rates. We believe this is due, in part, to the opening of competitive properties in the region.

     Our external growth strategies are based primarily on developing additional indoor waterpark resorts (in conjunction with joint venture partners) or licensing our intellectual property and proprietary systems to others. Developing resorts of the size and scope of our family entertainment resorts generally requires obtaining financing for a significant portion of a project’s expected construction costs. The general tightening in U.S. lending markets has dramatically decreased the overall availability of construction financing.

     Although the ultimate effect on our external growth strategy of the current credit environment is difficult to predict with certainty, we believe that the availability of construction financing to us and other investors has decreased significantly over the past two years. Also, we expect that the terms of construction financing may be less favorable than we have experienced historically. We believe that we and other investors may be able to continue to obtain construction financing sufficient to execute development strategies; however, the more difficult credit market environment is likely to continue at least through 2009, and possibly beyond.

     Revenue and Key Performance Indicators. We seek to generate positive cash flows and maximize our return on invested capital from each of our owned resorts. Our rooms revenue represents sales to guests of room nights at our resorts and is the largest contributor to our cash flows and profitability. Rooms revenue accounted for approximately 66% of our total consolidated resort revenue for the nine months ended September 30, 2009. We employ sales and marketing efforts to increase overall demand for rooms at our resorts. We seek to optimize the relationship between room rates and occupancies through the use of yield management techniques that attempt to project demand in order to selectively increase room rates during peak demand. These techniques are designed to assist us in managing our higher occupancy nights to achieve maximum rooms revenue and include such practices as:

	•		Monitoring our historical trends for occupancy and estimating our high occupancy nights;
	•		Offering the highest discounts to previous guests in off-peak periods to build customer loyalty and enhance our ability to charge higher rates in peak periods;
	•		Structuring rates to allow us to offer our previous guests the best rate while simultaneously working with a promotional partner or offering internet specials;
	•		Monitoring sales of room types daily to evaluate the effectiveness of offered discounts; and
	•		Offering specials on standard suites and yielding better rates on larger suites when standard suites sell out.

In addition, we seek to maximize the amount of time and money spent on-site by our guests by providing a variety of revenue-generating amenities.

     We have several key indicators that we use to evaluate the performance of our business. These indicators include the following:

	•		Occupancy;
	•		Average daily room rate, or ADR;
	•		Revenue per available room, or RevPAR;
	•		Total revenue per available room, or Total RevPAR;
	•		Total revenue per occupied room, or Total RevPOR; and

•

Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, or EBITDA.

     Occupancy, ADR and RevPAR are commonly used measures within the hospitality industry to evaluate hotel operations and are defined as follows:

	•		Occupancy is calculated by dividing total occupied rooms by total available rooms.
	•		ADR is calculated by dividing total rooms revenue by total occupied rooms.
	•		RevPAR is the product of occupancy and ADR.

     Total RevPAR and Total RevPOR are defined as follows:

	•		Total RevPAR is calculated by dividing total revenue by total available rooms.
	•		Total Rev POR is calculated by dividing total revenue by total occupied rooms.

     Occupancy allows us to measure the general overall demand for rooms at our resorts and the effectiveness of our sales and marketing strategies. ADR allows us to measure the effectiveness of our yield management strategies. While ADR and RevPAR only include rooms revenue, Total RevPOR and Total RevPAR include both rooms revenue and other revenue derived from food and beverage and other amenities at our resorts. We consider Total RevPOR and Total RevPAR to be key performance indicators for our business because we derive a significant portion of our revenue from food and beverage and other amenities. For the nine months ended September 30, 2009, approximately 34% of our total consolidated resort revenues consisted of non-rooms revenue.

     We use RevPAR and Total RevPAR to evaluate the blended effect that changes in occupancy, ADR and Total RevPOR have on our profitability. We focus on increasing ADR and Total RevPOR because we believe those increases can have the greatest positive impact on our profitability. In addition, we seek to maximize occupancy, as increases in occupancy generally lead to greater total revenues at our resorts, and we believe maintaining certain occupancy levels is key to covering our fixed costs. Increases in total revenues as a result of higher occupancy are, however, typically accompanied by additional incremental costs (including housekeeping services, utilities and room amenity costs). In contrast, increases in total revenues from higher ADR and Total RevPOR are typically accompanied by lower incremental costs and result generally, in a greater increase in profitability.

     We also use EBITDA as a measure of the operating performance of each of our resorts. EBITDA is a supplemental financial measure and is not defined by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (GAAP). See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” below for further discussion of our use of EBITDA and a reconciliation to net income.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

     This discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based on our condensed consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with GAAP. The preparation of these condensed consolidated financial statements requires management to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the unconsolidated financial statements, as well as revenue and expenses during the reporting periods. We evaluate our estimates and judgments on an ongoing basis. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other factors we believe are reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results could therefore differ materially from those estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

     For a description of our critical accounting policies and estimates, please refer to “Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates” section of our “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008. There have been no material changes in any of our accounting policies since December 31, 2008.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

     In April 2009, the FASB issued guidance on how to determine whether there has been a significant decrease in the volume and level of activity for an asset or liability when compared with normal market activity for the asset or liability. In such situations, an entity may conclude that transactions or quoted prices may not be determinative of fair value, and may adjust the transactions or quoted prices to arrive at the fair value of the asset or liability. This guidance is effective for interim and annual reporting periods ending after June 15, 2009, and shall be applied prospectively. The adoption of this guidance, as of September 30, 2009, did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

     In April 2009, the FASB issued guidance which requires disclosures about fair value of financial instruments in interim financial information for periods ending after June 15, 2009. The adoption of this guidance as of September 30, 2009, did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

     In June 2009, the FASB issued guidance which changes how a reporting entity determines when an entity that is insufficiently capitalized or is not controlled through voting (or similar rights) should be consolidated. The determination of whether a reporting entity is required to consolidate another entity is based on, among other things, the other entity’s purpose and design and the reporting entity’s ability to direct the activities of the other entity that most significantly impact the other entity’s economic performance. The guidance will require a reporting entity to provide additional disclosures about its involvement with variable interest entities and any significant changes in risk exposure due to that involvement. A reporting entity will be required to disclose how its involvement with a variable interest entity affects the reporting entity’s financial statements. The adoption of this guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2009, and interim periods within those fiscal years. We are currently evaluating the impact of this guidance on our consolidated financial statements.

In June 2009, the FASB issued guidance on codification and the hierarchy of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The Codification superseded all non-SEC accounting and reporting standards. All other nongrandfathered non-SEC accounting literature not included in the Codification will become nonauthoritative. The guidance is effective for interim quarterly periods beginning July 1, 2009. This adoption of this guidance, as of September 30, 2009, did not have an impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In August 2009, the FASB issued guidance on measuring liabilities as fair value which provides clarification on measuring liabilities at fair value when a quoted price in an active market is not available. The guidance is effective for the first reporting period beginning after issuance. The adoption of this guidance, as of September 30, 2009, did not have an impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In October 2009, the FASB issued guidance for revenue recognition with multiple deliverables. This guidance eliminates the residual method under the current guidance and replaces it with the “relative selling price” method when allocating revenue in a multiple deliverable arrangement. The selling price for each deliverable shall be determined using vendor specific objective evidence of selling price, if it exists, otherwise third-party evidence of selling price shall be used. If neither exists for a deliverable, the vendor shall use its best estimate of the selling price for that deliverable. After adoption, this guidance will also require expanded qualitative and quantitative disclosures. The guidance is effective for revenue arrangements entered into or materially modified in fiscal years beginning on or after June 15, 2010, although early adoption is permitted. We are currently evaluating the impact of this guidance on our consolidated financial statements.

Non-GAAP Financial Measures

     We use EBITDA as a measure of our operating performance. EBITDA is a supplemental non-GAAP financial measure. EBITDA is commonly defined as net income plus (a) net interest expense, (b) income taxes, and (c) depreciation and amortization.

     EBITDA as calculated by us is not necessarily comparable to similarly titled measures presented by other companies. In addition, EBITDA (a) does not represent net income or cash flows from operations as defined by GAAP; (b) is not necessarily indicative of cash available to fund our cash flow needs; and (c) should not be considered as an alternative to net income, operating income, cash flows from operating activities or our other financial information as determined under GAAP.

     We believe EBITDA is useful to an investor in evaluating our operating performance because:

	•		a significant portion of our assets consists of property and equipment that are depreciated over their remaining useful lives in accordance with GAAP. Because depreciation and amortization are non-cash items, we believe that presentation of EBITDA is a useful measure of our operating performance;
	•		it is widely used in the hospitality and entertainment industries to measure operating performance without regard to items such as depreciation and amortization; and
	•		we believe it helps investors meaningfully evaluate and compare the results of our operations from period to period by removing the impact of items directly resulting from our asset base, primarily depreciation and amortization, from our operating results.

     Our management uses EBITDA:

	•		as a measurement of operating performance because it assists us in comparing our operating performance on a consistent basis as it removes the impact of items directly resulting from our asset base, primarily depreciation and amortization, from our operating results;
	•		for planning purposes, including the preparation of our annual operating budget;
	•		as a valuation measure for evaluating our operating performance and our capacity to incur and service debt, fund capital expenditures and expand our business; and
	•		as one measure in determining the value of other acquisitions and dispositions.