CONDENSED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited)

NOTE 1 — ORGANIZATION

Organization. MGM Resorts International (the “Company”) is a Delaware corporation. As of June 30, 2011, approximately 27% of the outstanding shares of the Company’s common stock were owned by Tracinda Corporation, a Nevada corporation wholly owned by Kirk Kerkorian. Tracinda Corporation has significant influence with respect to the election of directors and other matters, but it does not have the power to solely determine these matters. MGM Resorts International acts largely as a holding company and, through wholly owned subsidiaries, owns and/or operates casino resorts.

The Company owns and operates the following casino resorts in Las Vegas, Nevada: Bellagio, MGM Grand Las Vegas, The Mirage, Mandalay Bay, Luxor, New York-New York, Monte Carlo, Excalibur, and Circus Circus Las Vegas. Operations at MGM Grand Las Vegas include management of The Signature at MGM Grand Las Vegas, a condominium-hotel consisting of three towers. Other Nevada operations include Circus Circus Reno, Gold Strike in Jean, and Railroad Pass in Henderson. The Company and its local partners own and operate MGM Grand Detroit in Detroit, Michigan. The Company owns and operates two resorts in Mississippi: Beau Rivage in Biloxi and Gold Strike Tunica. The Company also owns Shadow Creek, an exclusive world-class golf course located approximately ten miles north of its Las Vegas Strip resorts, Primm Valley Golf Club at the California/Nevada state line and Fallen Oak golf course in Saucier, Mississippi.

The Company owns 51% and has a controlling interest in MGM China Holdings Limited (“MGM China”), which owns MGM Grand Paradise, S.A. (“MGM Grand Paradise”), the Macau company that owns the MGM Macau resort and casino and the related gaming subconcession and land concession. MGM Macau is a five-star integrated resort located on the Macau Peninsula, with a 587-room hotel, over 1,000 slot machines and 427 table games. See Note 3 for additional information related to MGM China.

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

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

MGM Hospitality seeks to leverage the Company’s management expertise and well-recognized brands through strategic partnerships and international expansion opportunities. The Company has entered into management agreements for hotels in the Middle East, North Africa, India and China.

Borgata. The Company has a 50% economic interest in Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa (“Borgata”) located on Renaissance Pointe in the Marina area of Atlantic City, New Jersey. Boyd Gaming Corporation (“Boyd”) owns the other 50% of Borgata and also operates the resort. The Company’s interest is held in trust and currently offered for sale pursuant to the Company’s settlement agreement with New Jersey Department of Gaming Enforcement (“DGE”). In March 2010, the New Jersey Casino Control Commission (“CCC”) approved the Company’s settlement agreement with the DGE pursuant to which the Company placed its 50% ownership interest in Borgata and related leased land in Atlantic City into a divestiture trust. The settlement agreement was amended on July 22, 2011 with the approval of the CCC on August 8, 2011. Following the transfer of these interests into trust, the Company ceased to be regulated by the CCC or the DGE, except as otherwise provided by the trust agreement and the settlement agreement. Boyd’s 50% interest is not affected by the settlement.

4

Table of Contents

The terms of the settlement, as amended, mandate the sale of the trust property by March 2014, which represents an 18-month extension compared to the original settlement. During the period ending in March 2013, which also represents an 18-month extension compared to the original settlement, the Company has the right to direct the trustee to sell the trust property, subject to approval of the CCC. If a sale is not concluded by that time, the trustee is responsible for selling the trust property during the following 12-month period. The Company continues to negotiate with certain parties that have expressed interest in the asset, but can provide no assurance that a transaction will be completed. Prior to the consummation of the sale, the divestiture trust will retain any cash flows received in respect of the trust property, but will pay property taxes and other costs attributable to the trust property. The Company is the sole economic beneficiary of the trust and will be permitted to reapply for a New Jersey gaming license beginning 30 months after the completion of the sale of the trust assets. As of June 30, 2011, the trust had $188 million of cash and investments, of which $150 million is held in U.S. treasury securities with maturities greater than 90 days but less than one year, and is recorded within “Prepaid expenses and other.”

As a result of the Company’s ownership interest in Borgata being placed into a trust, the Company no longer has significant influence over Borgata; therefore, the Company discontinued the equity method of accounting for Borgata at the point the assets were placed in the trust in March 2010, and accounts for its investment in Borgata under the cost method of accounting. The carrying value of the investment related to Borgata is included in “Other long-term assets, net.” Earnings and losses that relate to the investment that were previously accrued remain as a part of the carrying amount of the investment. Distributions received by the trust that do not exceed the Company’s share of earnings are recognized currently in earnings. However, distributions received by the trust that exceed the Company’s share of earnings for such periods are applied to reduce the carrying amount of its investment. The Company consolidates the trust as it is the sole economic beneficiary. The trust did not receive distributions from Borgata during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011. In the second quarter of 2010, the trust received distributions from the joint venture of $15 million, of which $6 million was recorded as a reduction of the carrying value and $9 million was recorded as “Other, net” non-operating income.

NOTE 2 — BASIS OF PRESENTATION AND SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Basis of presentation. As permitted by the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles have been condensed or omitted. These consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the Company’s 2010 annual consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements contain all adjustments – which include only normal recurring adjustments – necessary to present fairly the Company’s financial position as of June 30, 2011 and the results of its operations and cash flows for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010. The results of operations for such periods are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year.

As further discussed in Note 3, the Company began consolidating the results of MGM China on June 3, 2011 and ceased recording the results of MGM Macau as an equity method investment.

Certain reclassifications, which have no effect on previously reported net income, have been made to the 2010 financial statements to conform to the 2011 presentation. The Company reclassified hotel resort fees to rooms revenue from other revenue. The total amounts reclassified to rooms revenue for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010 were $16 million and $28 million, respectively. Pursuant to the guidance in the recently issued AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide Gaming , the Company also reclassified certain amounts paid under slot participation agreements from a reduction in casino revenue to casino expense. Slot participation fees were $8 million and $16 million in the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, respectively, and $10 million and $18 million in the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, respectively.

Investments in and advances to unconsolidated affiliates. The Company has investments in unconsolidated affiliates accounted for under the equity method. Under the equity method, carrying value is adjusted for the Company’s share of the investees’ earnings and losses, as well as capital contributions to and distributions from these companies. Distributions in excess of equity method earnings are recognized as a return of investment and recorded as investing cash inflows in the accompanying consolidated statements of cash flows. The Company classifies operating income and losses as well as gains and impairments related to

5

Table of Contents

its investments in unconsolidated affiliates as a component of operating income or loss, as the Company’s investments in such unconsolidated affiliates are an extension of the Company’s core business operations.

The Company evaluates its investments in unconsolidated affiliates for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value of its investment may have experienced an “other-than-temporary” decline in value. If such conditions exist, the Company compares the estimated fair value of the investment to its carrying value to determine if an impairment is indicated and determines whether the impairment is “other-than-temporary” based on its assessment of all relevant factors, including consideration of the Company’s intent and ability to retain its investment. The Company estimates fair value using a discounted cash flow analysis based on estimated future results of the investee and market indicators of terminal year capitalization rates.

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

When assessing the impairment of its investment in CityCenter at June 30, 2010, the Company estimated fair value utilizing “Level 3” inputs. See Note 4 for additional discussion. At June 30, 2011, the fair value of the Company’s treasury securities held by the Borgata trust was $150 million, measured using “Level 1” inputs. See Note 1. The Company’s $300 million 4.25% convertible senior notes due 2015 were recorded at fair value on the issue date, measured using “Level 1” inputs. See Note 7 for further discussion of the convertible senior note issuance.

Gaming promoters. A significant portion of the high-end (“VIP”) gaming volume at MGM Macau is generated through the use of gaming promoters, also known as junket operators. These operators introduce high-end gaming players to MGM Macau, assist these customers with travel arrangements, and extend gaming credit to these players. VIP gaming at MGM Macau is conducted by the use of special purpose nonnegotiable gaming chips called “rolling chips.” Gaming promoters purchase these rolling chips from MGM Macau and in turn they sell these chips to their players. The rolling chips allow MGM Macau to track the amount of wagering conducted by each gaming promoters’ clients in order to determine VIP gaming play. In exchange for the gaming promoters’ services, MGM Macau pays them either through rolling chip turnover-based commissions or through revenue-sharing arrangements. The estimated portion of the gaming promoter payments that represent amounts passed through to VIP customers is recorded net against casino revenue, and the estimated portion retained by the gaming promoter for its compensation is recorded to casino expense.

Currency translation. The Company translates the financial statements of foreign subsidiaries that are not denominated in US dollars. Balance sheet accounts are translated at the exchange rate in effect at each balance sheet date. Income statement accounts are translated at the average rate of exchange prevailing during the period. Translation adjustments resulting from this process are charged or credited to other comprehensive income (loss).

Recently issued accounting standards. Certain amendments to Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 820, “Fair Value Measurements,” become effective for the Company for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2011. Such amendments include a consistent definition of fair value, enhanced disclosure requirements for “Level 3” fair value adjustments and other changes to required disclosures. The Company does not expect this amendment to have a material affect on its financial statements and will comply with the disclosure enhancements of this amendment when the amendment is effective.

In addition, ASC 220, “Comprehensive Income,” was amended in June 2011 and will become effective for the Company for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2011, including retrospective adjustment. Such amendments allow the Company two options for the presentation of comprehensive income. Under either option, the Company is required to present each component of net income along with total net income, each component of other comprehensive income along with a total for other comprehensive income, and a total amount for comprehensive income. As a result of the amendment, the option to present the components of other comprehensive income as part of the statement of changes in stockholders’ equity is eliminated. The Company does not expect this amendment to have a material affect on its financial statements and will comply with the disclosure enhancements of this amendment when the amendment is effective.

6

Table of Contents

NOTE 3 — MGM CHINA ACQUISITION

On June 3, 2011, the Company and Ms. Ho, Pansy Catilina Chiu King (“Ms. Pansy Ho”) completed a reorganization of the capital structure of MGM China and the initial public offering of 760 million shares of MGM China on The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (the “IPO”), representing 20% of the post issuance capital stock of MGM China, at an offer price of HKD 15.34 per share. Pursuant to this reorganization, the Company, through a wholly owned subsidiary, acquired an additional 1% of the overall capital stock of MGM China for HKD 15.34 per share, or approximately $75 million, and thereby became the indirect owner of 51% of MGM China. Following the IPO, Ms. Pansy Ho sold an additional 59 million shares of MGM China pursuant to the underwriters’ overallotment option.

Through the acquisition of its additional 1% interest of MGM China, the Company obtained a controlling interest and was required to consolidate MGM China as of June 3, 2011. Prior to the IPO, the Company held a 50% interest in MGM Grand Paradise, which was accounted for under the equity method as discussed in Note 4. The acquisition of the controlling financial interest was accounted for as a business combination and the Company recognized 100% of the assets, liabilities, and noncontrolling interests of MGM China at fair value at the date of acquisition. The fair value of the equity interests of MGM China was determined by the IPO transaction price and equaled approximately $7.5 billion. The carrying value of the Company’s equity method investment was significantly less than its share of the fair value of MGM China at the acquisition date, resulting in a $3.5 billion gain on the acquisition. Under the acquisition method, the fair value was allocated to the assets acquired, liabilities assumed and noncontrolling interests recorded in the transaction. The allocation of fair value for substantially all of the assets and liabilities is preliminary and may be adjusted up to one year after the acquisition date. The following table sets forth the preliminary allocation at June 3, 2011 (in thousands):

As discussed above, the Company recognized the identifiable intangible assets of MGM China at fair value. The gaming subconcession and land concession had historical cost bases which were being amortized by MGM Macau. The customer relationship intangible assets did not have historical cost bases at MGM Macau. The estimated fair values of the intangible assets acquired were primarily determined using the income approach based on significant inputs that were not observable. The gaming subconcession was valued using an excess earnings model based on estimated future cash flows of MGM Macau. All of the recognized intangible assets were determined to have finite lives and are being amortized over their estimated useful lives as discussed below.

Land concession. MGM Grand Paradise entered into a contract with the Macau government to use the land under MGM Macau commencing from April 6, 2006. The land use right has an initial term through April 6, 2031, with rights to renew for additional periods. The land concession intangible asset will be amortized over the remaining initial contractual term.

Gaming subconcession. Pursuant to the agreement dated June 19, 2004 between MGM Grand Paradise and Sociedade de Jogos de Macau, S.A. (“SJM”), a gaming subconcession was acquired by MGM Grand Paradise for the right to operate casino games of chance and other casino games for a period of 15 years commencing on April 20, 2005. The Company cannot provide

7

Table of Contents

any assurance that the gaming subconcession will be extended beyond the original terms of the agreement; however, management believes that the gaming subconcession will be extended, given that the land concession agreement with the government extends significantly beyond the gaming subconcession. In addition, the fair value of MGM China reflected in the IPO pricing suggests that market participants have assumed the gaming subconcession will be extended beyond its initial term. As such, the Company has determined that the gaming subconcession intangible asset should be amortized over the initial term of the land concession through April 2031.

Customer relationships. The Company recognized intangible assets related to gaming promoter relationships with an estimated value of $180 million and customer lists with an estimated value of $129 million, which will be amortized over their estimated useful lives of four years and five years, respectively.

Deferred taxes. The Company recorded a net deferred tax liability of $381 million for the acquisition of the controlling financial interest in MGM China and a corresponding increase to goodwill. The net deferred tax liability represents the excess of the financial reporting amounts of the net assets of MGM China over their respective bases under Macau tax law measured at the enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the periods such differences are expected to be realized, net of a valuation allowance of $72 million. The tax-effected components of the net deferred tax liability at June 3, 2011 are as follows (in thousands):

Income generated from gaming operations of MGM Grand Paradise is exempted from Macau’s 12% complementary tax for the five-year period ending December 31, 2011 pursuant to approval from the Macau government granted June 19, 2008. A request for an additional five-year exemption through December 31, 2016 is pending with the Macau government. Non-gaming operations remain subject to the complementary tax. MGM Grand Paradise has a complementary tax net operating loss carryforward of $490 million resulting from non-gaming operations that will expire if not utilized against non-gaming income in years 2011 through 2013.

MGM Grand Paradise’s exemption from the Macau 12% complementary tax on gaming profits does not apply to dividend distributions of such profits to MGM China, its sole shareholder. The complementary tax would be levied on MGM China at the time such profits are distributed. MGM Grand Paradise plans to submit a request to the Macau government to settle the complementary tax that would be due on such distributions by paying a flat annual fee regardless of the amount of distributable dividends. MGM China would not be subject to the complementary tax on such distributions if such an arrangement is put in place.

At June 3, 2011, the Company has an excess amount for financial reporting over the US tax basis of its investment in MGM China of $3.6 billion that management does not consider to be essentially permanent in duration. The Company expects this basis difference to resolve through repatriations of future MGM China earnings. The Company has not provided deferred taxes for such excess financial reporting basis because there would be sufficient foreign tax credits to offset all U.S. income tax that would result from the future repatriation of such earnings.

June consolidated results. Net revenue for the 28 days ending June 30, 2011 was $193 million, operating income was $19 million and net income was $16 million.

Pro forma information. The operating results for MGM China and its subsidiaries are included in the accompanying consolidated statements of income from the date of acquisition. The following unaudited pro forma consolidated financial information for the Company has been prepared assuming the Company’s

8

Table of Contents

acquisition of its controlling financial interest had occurred at the beginning of the periods presented and does not include the gain recognized by the Company:

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

Borgata

As discussed in Note 1, the Company discontinued the equity method of accounting for Borgata in March 2010 at the point the assets were placed in the trust, and accounts for its rights under the trust arrangement under the cost method of accounting.

Silver Legacy

Silver Legacy has approximately $143 million of outstanding senior notes due in March 2012. Silver Legacy is exploring various alternatives for refinancing or restructuring its obligations under the notes. There can be no assurance, however, that it will be able to refinance or restructure the notes on acceptable terms, or at all. If Silver Legacy is unable to refinance or restructure its obligations with respect to the mortgage notes, the holders of the notes will be entitled to exercise the remedies provided in the indenture governing the notes, including foreclosing on the assets securing the mortgage notes.

9

Table of Contents

MGM Macau

MGM China.  As discussed in Note 3, the Company obtained a controlling financial interest in MGM China as of June 3, 2011 and therefore was required to consolidate MGM China beginning on that date. Prior thereto, the Company’s investment in MGM Grand Paradise was accounted for under the equity method.

Distributions. The Company did not receive distributions from MGM Macau during the three months ending June 30, 2011. The Company received a distribution of approximately $31 million from MGM Macau in the first quarter of 2011. The Company recognized this distribution as a cash inflow from operating activities in the accompanying consolidated statement of cash flows. No distributions were received from MGM Macau during the three and six months ending June 30, 2010.

CityCenter

January 2011 debt restructuring transactions. In January 2011, CityCenter completed a series of transactions including the issuance of $900 million in aggregate principal amount of 7.625% senior secured first lien notes due 2016 and $600 million in aggregate principal amount of 10.75%/11.50% senior secured second lien PIK toggle notes due 2017 in a private placement. The interest rate on the second lien notes is 10.75% for interest paid in cash, and 11.50% if CityCenter pays interest in the form of additional debt. CityCenter received net proceeds from the offering of the notes of $1.46 billion after initial purchaser’s discounts and commissions but before other offering expenses.

Effective concurrently with the notes offering, CityCenter’s senior credit facility was amended and restated which extended the maturity of $500 million of the $1.85 billion outstanding loans until January 21, 2015. The restated senior credit facility does not include a revolving loan component. All borrowings under the senior credit facility in excess of $500 million were repaid using the proceeds of the first lien notes and the second lien notes. In addition, net proceeds from the note offerings, together with equity contributions of $73 million from the members, were used to fund the interest escrow account of $159 million for the benefit of the holders of the first lien notes and the lenders under the restated senior credit facility. The restated senior credit facility is secured, on a pari passu basis with the first lien notes, by a first priority lien on substantially all of CityCenter’s assets and those of its subsidiaries, except that any proceeds generated by the sale of Crystals outside of bankruptcy or foreclosure proceedings will be paid first to the lenders under the restated senior credit facility. CityCenter recorded a loss on the debt modification of $24 million in the first quarter of 2011 related to the above transactions.

Completion guarantee. The Company entered into an amended completion and cost overrun guarantee in connection with CityCenter’s restated senior credit facility agreement and issuance of $1.5 billion of senior secured first lien notes and senior secured second lien notes, as discussed in Note 8.

Investment impairment. At June 30, 2010, the Company reviewed its CityCenter investment for impairment using revised operating forecasts developed by CityCenter management late in the second quarter. Based on the then current and forecasted market conditions and because CityCenter’s results of operations through June 30, 2010 were below previous forecasts, and the revised operating forecasts were lower than previous forecasts, management concluded it should review the carrying value of its investment. The Company’s discounted cash flow analysis for CityCenter included future cash inflows from operations, including residential sales, and estimated future cash outflows for capital expenditures. The analysis used an 11% discount rate and a long term growth rate of 4% related to forecasted cash flows for CityCenter’s operating assets. Based on its analysis, the Company determined that the carrying value of its investment exceeded its fair value and therefore an impairment was indicated. The Company intends to and believes it will be able to retain its investment in CityCenter; however, due to the extent of the shortfall and the Company’s assessment of the uncertainty of fully recovering its investment, the Company determined that the impairment was “other-than-temporary” and recorded an impairment charge of $1.12 billion included in “Property transactions, net.”

Residential inventory impairment. Upon substantial completion of construction of the Mandarin Oriental residential inventory in the first quarter of 2010 and the Veer residential inventory in the second quarter of 2010, CityCenter is required to carry its residential inventory at the lower of its carrying value or fair value less costs to sell. Fair value of the residential inventory is determined using a discounted cash flow analysis based on management’s current expectations of future cash flows. The key inputs in the discounted cash flow analysis include estimated sales prices of units currently under contract and new unit sales, the absorption rate over the sell-out period, and the discount rate.

10

Table of Contents

CityCenter recorded a $53 million impairment charge in the second quarter of 2011. The Company recognized 50% of such impairment charge, resulting in a pre-tax charge of approximately $26 million. CityCenter recorded impairment charges of $57 million and $228 million in the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, respectively. The Company recognized 50% of such impairment charges, resulting in pre-tax charges of approximately $29 million and $114 million in the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2010, respectively.

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

Summary results of operations for CityCenter are provided below:

Net revenues related to residential operations were $6 million and $15 million in the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and $218 million and $298 million in the three and six months ended June 30, 2010.

11

Table of Contents

See Note 3 for additional information related to the goodwill and intangible assets recognized as part of the MGM China transaction.

As of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, long-term debt due within one year of the balance sheet date is classified as long-term because the Company has both the intent and ability to repay these amounts with

12

Table of Contents

available borrowings under the senior credit facility. The Company did not capitalize interest in the three and six months ending June 30, 2011 and 2010.

Senior credit facility. The Company’s senior credit facility matures in February 2014 and consists of approximately $1.8 billion in term loans and a $1.7 billion revolving loan. The Company had approximately $1.2 billion of available borrowing capacity under its senior credit facility at June 30, 2011. Substantially all of the assets of MGM Grand Detroit serve as collateral to secure its $450 million obligation outstanding as a co-borrower under the Company’s senior credit facility. In addition, substantially all of the assets of Gold Strike Tunica and certain land across from the Luxor serve as collateral to secure up to $300 million of obligations outstanding under the Company’s senior credit facility.

Interest on the senior credit facility is based on a LIBOR margin of 5.00%, with a LIBOR floor of 2.00%, and a base rate margin of 4.00%, with a base rate floor of 4.00%. The interest rate on outstanding borrowings under the senior credit facility at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 was 7.0%.

At June 30, 2011, the Company and its restricted subsidiaries were required under the senior credit facility to maintain a minimum trailing annual EBITDA (as defined in the agreement governing the Company’s senior credit facility) of $1.1 billion, which increases to $1.15 billion as of September 30, 2011 and to $1.2 billion as of December 31, 2011, with periodic increases thereafter. EBITDA for the trailing twelve months ended June 30, 2011 calculated in accordance with the terms of the senior credit facility was $1.25 billion. Additionally, the Company and its restricted subsidiaries are limited to $500 million of annual capital expenditures (as defined) during 2011 and were in compliance with the maximum capital expenditures covenants at June 30, 2011.

MGM Grand Paradise credit facility. MGM Grand Paradise’s credit facility is equivalent to approximately $551 million in term loans and a $40 million revolving loan at June 30, 2011 based on exchange rates at that date. Scheduled amortization on the term loan begins in July 2012 with a lump sum payment of $276 million upon final maturity in July 2015. The revolving loan may be redrawn, but is required to be repaid in full on the last date of the respective term loan, no later than July 2015. Interest on the term loan facility is based on HIBOR plus a margin ranging between 3% and 4.5%, based on MGM Grand Paradise’s adjusted leverage ratio, as defined in its credit facility agreement. Interest on the revolving facility can be denominated in either Hong Kong dollars or US dollars and is based on the same margin range, plus HIBOR or LIBOR, as appropriate. As of June 30, 2011, the credit facility is denominated entirely in Hong Kong dollars and interest is based on the margin range of 3%, plus HIBOR. Substantially all of the assets of MGM Grand Paradise serve as collateral for the MGM Grand Paradise credit facility, which is guaranteed by MGM China and certain of its direct and indirect subsidiaries.

At June 30, 2011, MGM Grand Paradise was required to maintain a specified adjusted leverage ratio, as defined, at the end of each quarter while the loans are outstanding. The adjusted leverage ratio is required to be no greater than 4.00 to 1.00 for each quarter during 2011 and no greater than 3.50 to 1.00 thereafter. In addition, MGM Grand Paradise is required to maintain a debt service coverage ratio, as defined of no less than 1.50 to 1.00 at each quarter end. At June 30, 2011, MGM Grand Paradise was in compliance with its adjusted leverage ratio and debt service coverage ratios.

Convertible notes. In June 2011, the Company sold $300 million in aggregate principal amount of the Company’s 4.25% convertible senior notes due 2015 (the “Notes”) on terms that were consistent with those governing the Company’s existing convertible senior notes due 2015 for a purchase price of 103.805% of the principal amount to an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Ms. Pansy Ho in a transaction exempt from registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The Notes are convertible at an initial conversion rate, subject to adjustment under certain circumstances, of approximately 53.83 shares of the Company’s common stock per $1,000 principal amount of the Notes. The Company received approximately $311 million in proceeds related to this transaction.

The initial agreement to sell the Notes occurred in April 2011, and the Notes were not sold until June 2011. The agreement to issue the Notes at a later date based on the fixed terms described above constituted a derivative instrument. At issuance, the fair value of the derivative instrument was equal to the difference between the fair value of the Notes and the Notes’ issuance price. The Notes were recorded at fair value determined by the trading price (105.872%) of the Company’s existing convertible notes on the date of issuance of the Notes, with the difference recorded as a premium to be recognized over the term of the Notes. The Company recorded a loss of $6 million related to the change in fair value of the derivative in “Other, net” non-operating income (expense) during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011.

Senior and senior secured notes. In February 2011, the Company repaid the $325 million of outstanding principal amount of its 8.375% senior subordinated notes due 2011 at maturity.

Substantially all of the assets of New York-New York serve as collateral for the Company’s 13% senior secured notes due 2013, substantially all of the assets of Bellagio and The Mirage serve as collateral for the Company’s 10.375% senior secured notes due 2014 and the 11.125% senior secured notes due 2017, and substantially all of the assets of MGM Grand serve as collateral for the Company’s 9.00% senior secured notes due 2020. Upon the issuance of the 10.375%, 11.125% and 9.00% notes, the holders of the Company’s 13% senior secured notes due 2013 obtained an equal and ratable lien in all collateral securing these notes.

Fair value of long-term debt. The estimated fair value of the Company’s long-term debt at June 30, 2011 was approximately $13.2 billion. Fair value was estimated using quoted market prices for the

13

Table of Contents

Company’s senior notes, senior subordinated notes and senior credit facility. Carrying value of the MGM Grand Paradise credit facility approximates fair value. At December 31, 2010, the estimated fair value of the Company’s long-term debt was approximately $12.4 billion, and was based on quoted market prices.

NOTE 8 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

CityCenter completion guarantee. In January 2011, the Company entered into an amended completion and cost overrun guarantee in connection with CityCenter’s restated senior credit facility agreement and issuance of $1.5 billion of senior secured first lien notes and senior secured second lien toggle notes, as previously discussed. Consistent with the terms of the previous completion guarantee, the terms of the amended completion guarantee provide for the ability to utilize the then remaining $124 million of net residential proceeds to fund construction costs, or to reimburse the Company for construction costs previously expended, though the timing of receipt of such proceeds is uncertain. The completion guarantee is collateralized by substantially all of the assets of Circus Circus Las Vegas, as well as certain undeveloped land adjacent to that property.

As of June 30, 2011, the Company has funded $619 million under the completion guarantee. The Company has recorded a receivable from CityCenter of $110 million related to these amounts, which represents amounts reimbursable to the Company from CityCenter from future residential proceeds. The Company has a remaining estimated net obligation under the completion guarantee of $18 million which includes estimated litigation costs related to the resolution of disputes with contractors as to the final construction costs and estimated amounts to be paid to contractors either through the joint venture’s extra-judicial settlement process or through the legal process related to the Perini litigation. The Company’s accrual also reflects certain estimated offsets to the amounts claimed by the contractors. CityCenter has reached, or expects to reach, settlement agreements with most of the construction subcontractors. However, significant disputes remain with the general contractor and certain subcontractors. Amounts claimed by such parties exceed amounts included in the Company’s completion guarantee accrual by approximately $200 million, as such amounts exceed the Company’s best estimate of its liability. Moreover, the Company has not accrued for any contingent payments to CityCenter related to the Harmon Hotel & Spa component, which is unlikely to be completed using the building as it now stands. The Clark County Building Division (“Building Division”) requested that CityCenter conduct an analysis, based on all available information, as to whether the current structure of the Harmon building complies with applicable building codes. On July 11, 2011 a consulting engineer engaged by CityCenter for this review submitted the results of his analysis of the Harmon tower and podium in its current as-built condition. The engineer opined, among other things, that “[i]n a code-level earthquake, using either the permitted or current code specified loads, it is likely that critical structural members in the tower will fail and become incapable of supporting gravity loads, leading to a partial or complete collapse of the tower. There is missing or misplaced reinforcing steel in columns, beams, shear walls, and transfer walls throughout the structure of the tower below the twenty-first floor.” In response to this opinion, the Building Division required CityCenter, no later than August 15, 2011, “to provide a plan of action that will abate the potential for structural collapse and protect impacted uses and occupancies.” Under the relevant building code provision, “abate” means repair, rehabilitation, demolition or removal of the subject building. CityCenter is preparing its response to the Building Division’s request. The Company does not believe it would be responsible for funding under the completion guarantee any additional remediation efforts that might be required with respect to the Harmon; however, the Company’s view is based on a number of developing factors, including with respect to on-going litigation with CityCenter’s contractors, actions by local officials and other developments related to the CityCenter venture, that are subject to change.

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

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

The CityCenter Owners and the other defendants dispute Perini’s allegations, and contend that the defendants are entitled to substantial amounts from Perini, including offsets against amounts claimed to be owed to Perini and its subcontractors and damages based on breach of their contractual and other duties to CityCenter, duplicative payment requests, non-conforming work, lack of proof of alleged work performance, defective work related to the Harmon Hotel & Spa component, property damage and Perini’s failure to perform its obligations to pay Project subcontractors and to prevent filing of liens against the Project. Parallel

14

Table of Contents

to the court litigation CityCenter management conducted an extra-judicial program for settlement of Project subcontractor claims. CityCenter has resolved the claims of the majority of the 223 first-tier subcontractors, with only several remaining for further proceedings along with trial of Perini’s claims and CityCenter’s Harmon-related counterclaim and other claims by CityCenter against Perini and its parent guarantor, Tutor Perini. In December 2010, Perini recorded an amended notice of lien reducing its lien to approximately $313 million.

The CityCenter Owners and the other defendants will continue to vigorously assert and protect their interests in the lawsuit. The Company believes that a loss with respect to Perini’s punitive damages claim is neither probable nor reasonably possible. Please refer to the disclosure above for further discussion on the Company’s completion guarantee obligation which may be impacted by the outcome of the above litigation and the joint venture’s extra-judicial settlement process.

Call center litigation . Lori Zaragoza v. MGM MIRAGE, Inc. and MGM Resorts International, Case No. BC 461912, Los Angeles County Superior Court, filed May 18, 2011. This putative class action complaint alleges that during the one year prior to the filing defendant’s call center reservation agents monitored and recorded consumer telephone calls for hotel room and other hospitality-related bookings, without prior notice to plaintiff and other California consumers in violation of various provisions of the California Penal Code. The plaintiff seeks certification of a class action, compensatory damages including consequential or statutory damages pursuant to California Penal Code §637.2, whichever is greater, injunctive relief, prejudgment interest and costs of suit. The case is in its early stages and the Company cannot reasonably estimate a possible range of loss at this time. The Company contests that the complaint has merit and will vigorously defend itself against the claims in this lawsuit.

Other guarantees. The Company is party to various guarantee contracts in the normal course of business, which are generally supported by letters of credit issued by financial institutions. The Company’s senior credit facility limits the amount of letters of credit that can be issued to $250 million, and the amount of available borrowings under the senior credit facility is reduced by any outstanding letters of credit. At June 30, 2011, the Company had provided $37 million of total letters of credit.

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