Multimedia Games, Inc.
HOST: Ms. Julia Spencer
DATE: April 19, 2002

OPERATOR: Good morning and welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the Multimedia Games Investor Information conference call. At this time, I would like to inform you that this conference is being recorded for rebroadcast and that all participants are in a listen-only mode. At the request of the company, we will open the conference up for questions and answers after the presentation.

I will now turn the conference over to Ms. Julia Spencer. Please go ahead, ma'am.

MS. SPENCER: Good morning, everyone, and welcome to Multimedia Games' Investor Information call. Before we get started I'd like to read a short statement.

These comments, including any statements predicated upon or preceded by the words "potential," "believe," "expect," and "should" are considered "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of federal and state securities laws. Such statements are subject to a number of uncertainties that could cause the actual results to differ materially from those expected, including, but not limited to those described under "Item 1, Description of Business - Risk Factors," contained in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2001, which are incorporated herein by this reference. I'd like to now turn the conference over to Mr. Clifton Lind, our president and COO. Clifton?

MR. LIND: Thank you, Julia. First let me express my sincere appreciation to our many friends and customers in Indian country. Since word first circulated earlier this week about the advisory opinion issued by the Deputy General Counsel of the NIGC, we have been flooded with calls of tribal support for any action that we might take as long as our company responds to this new challenge to Native Americans' congressionally granted sovereign right to conduct legal Class II gaming operations.

Obviously, based on the findings of our past judicial activities in support of the tribes, and as evidenced by this more recent lawsuit, Multimedia Games strongly believes that the National Indian Gaming Commission's Advisory Opinion is incorrect. Tribal gaming commissioners as well as our outside legal counsel have issued opinions that MegaNanza™ games that are covered by this lawsuit are Class II games, and we continue to believe that they are correct and we are correct. Pursuing regulatory and if necessary judicial action to clarify Class II issues is a normal part of our strategic and tactical business activities.

Had we been successful with our good faith efforts over the past year with the NIGC concerning the Class II designation of the games in question, we would not have been forced to pursue this legal action. MGAM is a market- and a customer-driven company and the NIGC's action will not interrupt our efforts to respond to our clients needs or to other market opportunities. We are well prepared to deal with the uncertainties of the Class II gaming regulatory environment and we believe that we are more uniquely qualified to address these issues than most of our competitors. We have new products that we believe will be more than adequate to continue to provide our tribal customers the level of profitability that they have come to expect from our games. And we believe that we can deploy these games in a matter of hours if the market condition or regulatory circumstances make it advantageous for us to do so.

We would like to thank the many public servants of the NIGC who work diligently on behalf of the Native American tribes and we hope to resolve this issue quickly and all of us get back to more important business in promoting Class II gaming for the benefit of our sovereign partners.

I'd to now turn this over to our Chairman and CEO, Gordon Graves.

MR. GRAVES: Thanks, Clifton. Obviously this has been a stressful time for us and it's been a real sad week for us. Many of you all have complained to me in the past about why in every public speech and every filing we make that we have to talk on and on and on about the regulatory risk of our business, and I feel that same way sometimes. But I guess it's because we dwell on these risk issues a lot. I think it was Andy Grove that said that "only the paranoid survive," and I think in our case that's especially true. We do have to dwell on the risks in order to have a proper contingency plan or plans and obviously that's a key part of our business.

We're very disappointed in the NIGC, but we're really not too very surprised. It's really easy to get to the point that you look at any government body or a bureaucracy as you would a live person and that just doesn't work very well. A bureaucracy, of course, doesn't have a soul and it doesn't have a heart. It does have a personality, and it's normally some type of multiparty personality.

I just got through reading a book called The Founding Brothers, about how the party system among the founders of America - how those party systems developed and what happened and all those dynamics. And these multiparty personalities are made up of different groups with differences in philosophies and objectives.

I look at the NIGC and I think we look at the NIGC in kind of simplistic way, as a two-party organization, that's made up of the Native American party and the Justice Department party. And I'm disappointed that it seems that those parties have gotten a little too personal at the NIGC. (indiscernible) be very healthy and that's unfortunate, but we'll get over that. It takes a long time for any new agency to mature and the NIGC seems to be taking an extra long time. They've got a little bit of an identity problem. The NIGC sometimes - it'll get where it's effective one of these days, be as effective as I think the Nevada Gaming Commission is. But first they're going to have to recognize that they're not the same as the Nevada Gaming Control Board. The control boards have responsibilities and functions that are really the responsibility of the tribal gaming authorities.

Obviously, it's disappointing that it's taking so long for this to happen, but that's just the case. I said this has been a sad week, mostly it's been a sad for us because the shareholders, you all out there, have had to put up with this roller coaster ride as a result of what I see is pretty much a senseless act. We were well prepared for this, the contingency, and our team has executed that contingency plan very, very well. I'm very impressed with what Clifton - our team has done a great job in execution here and it's been impressive.

The lawsuit that we filed yesterday should give us some short-term protection and eventually lead to more clarification of the game classification process. The Deputy General Counsel - I'll say the DGC in this conference call - her letter to MGAM was included in an 8-K we filed yesterday, if anybody wants to look at it.

We find the timing of her letter very strange. The NIGC is currently in the middle of a rule change process regarding this very subject of classifying games. And so it seems very inappropriate for the DGC to come out with an opinion at this time. It's important I think to note that the letter wasn't an official letter and it doesn't have any weight and it's certainly not going to be very helpful in guiding the tribes. I don't know of anybody out there in Indian Country that puts a lot of confidence in the DGC's opinions or takes them very seriously. I think most people believe she's a very, very strong member of the Justice Department party branch that I talked about and it's hard for me to see that the letter accomplished very much except impact our public offering. There is the fact that the Chairman is getting ready to leave, and perhaps it had to do with the fact that he's getting ready to leave so fast. But it's going to be interesting if the lawsuit gets to that point and there is a discovery process to find out really what prompted the letter.

I think we believe at best that the DGC's letter is not as complete as it could have been. It's a little sloppy. In many respects it's inconsistent with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act Statute as well with the case law that was established in a lot of different court cases and opinions. It appears to me that her opinion was pretty unencumbered by any legal research. It's based on the meaning of the word "when" in the context of how the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act defines bingo. And there's a lot of case law out there that supports our position that the word "when" in the statute definition doesn't necessarily have any temporal or time meaning.

As most of you know this is not the first time we've gone to court against the federal government to defend our customers and our own rights regarding electronic bingo. In 1997, the Department of Justice challenged our Class II bingo game, MegaMania®, and they said it was a Class III game. And during that episode the DGC changed their position on the issue of MegaMania's legality a number of times.

It seemed like the Justice Department's wishes and whims played a pretty unimportant role in some of those changes, but eight different judges in four separate federal courts eventually agreed with us. And we thought that the law about whether a game was Class I or Class II or Class III - that that clarification was pretty much put behind us. We've tried to design our games, including MegaNanza, based on those court decisions.

I think that it's going to be a long time until this case is settled. During that time, I think one thing to keep in mind is that a lot of people don't realize that there's a very important canon - the law that says that when there is an uncertainty or an ambiguity in the law, having to do with Indian law, that the Indians prevail or should prevail or the courts must rule in favor of the tribes - is that canon. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't other considerations, but it's real, real important I think to remember, even in the unlikely event that the court only agrees with us in part here, or even if they don't agree at all with this particular game.

First we'll deploy a new off-the-shelf game we've got that eliminates the objection that [the DGC] expressed in her opinion. And, second, we'll be able to use that court opinion as a guide to modify all of our existing games in developing our new games. So I think we'll eventually work what I call the Justice Department party into a corner that will be kind of hard for them to get out of.

Years ago the NIGC asked that any new electronic bingo game should be submitted to them for their review even though it was not clear that their opinion was necessary as long as the tribal gaming regulators approved the game. And tribal regulators do a much better job I think of that than the NIGC's capable of doing because one reason is because - well, one reason is because tribal employees I think work a lot harder and are more dedicated. I think that has to do with the size of the government and the constituency that they represent. In addition, tribal regulators spend more than $150 million per year on these types of regulatory issues, whereas the NIGC has a total budget of about $8 million.

I don't know of any of our competitors that submit their new games to the NIGC for review. As a result of the advice we had got from a number of our customers, as long as this litigation is in court, we don't plan to show our new games to the NIGC except in those special cases where the law might require it. But right now we're not required by any law to have any communication with the NIGC explaining how our game works.

In addition, in the past, Clifton and the team have tried to kind of steer clear and stay out of some jurisdictions where there might be political pressure placed on the NIGC if we put in MegaNanza. And I think a lot of those restrictions and restraints are gone now.

Years ago, about 1984, I was CEO of a public company called Syntech. And we had a contract at that time with the New York Lottery. And the Attorney General of New York, Bob Abrams, at that time declared that the vending terminal that we were using as part of our video lottery gaming system was a slot machine and so we had to shut that down. And all my advisors at that time that I talked to seemed to say "Don't sue, don't sue, don't sue on this." Well, I eventually lost the company over it. That bureaucracy that you've got to deal with, it's just the nature of the beast. It strung us along until we lost about $20 million and we eventually had to sell out the company to IGT. Since that time I've been with different organizations that have gone to court on the question of gaming legality five different times and we've won every time.

We've got a regulatory expert lawyer, Frank Miller, and a litigator gaming expert, Tony Graham, both who are lawyers and both who have been on this MegaNanza project since we first got started, when we first put pencil to paper. Tony was at one time the U.S. Attorney in Tulsa where we filed this suit. He was a judge in Tulsa. He's highly respected in the court system there and in the community in general.

MGAM is a major employer and a taxpayer in Tulsa. Tony was the leading member of the team that represented us in four previous court cases on game definition. He's an integral part of our team and we know each other like brothers and trust each other. So it's an unusual situation where our litigator is somebody that's been with us a long time. If Tony says the game is Class II, I feel certain and I think we all feel certain it's Class II. It's kind of like when Einstein's wife was asked if she believed the theory of relativity was true and she said, well, it's Albert says it's true, [so] it's true and I think we kind of feel that way [too].

I think now that we've got the attention of a court that's looking at this issue, the risk for MGAM on a regulatory basis is a lot less right now than it was a week ago. As Clifton said, we've talked to all our tribal customers on the MegaNanza issue now and I don't know of a single one, Clifton, I don't think a single one plans to back off from running MegaNanza at this time. And I don't think there's a single tribe that's cancelled a single order, and in fact we've ordered more MegaNanza machines since the letter came out.

So the letter and the lawsuit are not expected to cause a ripple in our net cash flow. And the bottom line impact of the letter I think actually will cause an increase in our annual earnings per share this year because we're not going to have the dilution that we would have had if this [secondary] offering had gone on through. But that's another subject, and we plan to discuss that at some length on Monday at 11 a.m. New York time when we have another conference call on our earnings. We hope everybody attends that conference. The telephone number for that I think is 800-997-8642 I believe. Is that right, Julia?

MS. SPENCER: Yes, it is. But it's at 11 Central Time, so -

MR. GRAVES: 11 Central Time, I'm so sorry. Clifton, Craig, you all have anything you want to add?

MR. LIND: Yeah. Gordon, this is Clifton. Let me just say that as Gordon mentioned earlier it's been inspiring to see the way that the team has responded, Gary Loebig, Tom Le Gassick and his sales and marketing team have just done an extraordinary job. Brendan O'Connor and his technology team have done an extraordinary job and as always Skip Lannert, who in control of the entire Class II product line, has been an inspiring leader during this week.

The team has done an extraordinary job and it's been great for Gordon and me to work with them, and we can't express how much enthusiasm there is internally as well as externally from customers wanting to join in at the appropriate time if this continues to be a fight that we take through the courts.

So again as Gordon said, we're sorry personally about the impact this has had on our shareholders. We hope that our actions will convince the marketplace that we have not faltered from our strategic business plan or the execution of the tactical plan that's in place for the next 18 months. And we continue to be excited about the future of this company and have an exciting, team of quality people that are helping your company not only work through this, but work into the new markets that we're going to be entering in the future.

So it's been an inspiration to me that we've not had to spend one ounce of energy on trying to motivate this staff. They have laid into this voluntarily and enthusiastically and it certainly made Gordon's and my life not only easier and less stressful this week, but it's made our lives more exciting and we're more appreciative than ever of the staff. And as Gordon said and I've said to start this program, we can't tell you how much we appreciate the moral support of our customers and hope that this attack on the sovereign right of our customers to regulate Class II gaming is brought to a quick conclusion, so the tribal gaming operators can get back to focusing on producing more revenue for the various tribal needs.

Craig, is there anything you would like to add? Gordon, back to you. But I think we're ready to go to questions and answers not concerning earnings because we don't want to take away anything from the conference call or press release on Monday. But if anyone wants to have questions and answers specifically on the issue at hand, Gordon, I think we're ready to take them.

MR. GRAVES: Yeah. I'd like to add we'd like to stay here today and make sure we stay until everybody's got an answer to every question.

OPERATOR: Thank you. The question and answer session will begin now. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up the handset before pressing any numbers. Should you have a question, please press 1 followed by 4 on your pushbutton telephones. Should you wish to withdraw your question, please press 1 followed by 3. Your questions will be taken in the order they are received. Please standby for your first question. Thank you. Our first question comes from Daniel Davila. Please state your affiliation followed by your question.

MR. DAVILA: Hi, Hibernia SouthCoast Capital. Good morning, Gordon and Clifton.

MR. GRAVES: Hi. How are you today, Danny?

MR. DAVILA: I'm doing good, Gordon. Gordon, Clifton, I wonder if you guys, I mean over the past couple of days you guys might well imagine we've talked to I don't know, many, many people in the investment community and one of the things that concerned us was that there is a great deal of misinformation I think being spread with respect to exactly how many units this letter actually affects? I know you had said, Gordon, it was really for an older generation of game and really is a game that wasn't even being marketed anymore. I wonder if you could clear up some of that confusion for us?

MR. GRAVES: Yeah. Obviously there is some confusion in the way the letter was written in that it describes a game that we don't run anymore. But there is at one point in the letter she says something to the effect that she wants to cover anything that's in the whole family of MegaNanza. So specifically what she addressed there's not - the last time I knew, there were less than a hundred out there of those old, old games. We're looking at it, as it's probably eventually going to affect them all because in the last nine years, I guess it's been in the last five years, I'll bet you we've submitted ten different games to the NIGC for opinions, and they've only given us answers on three of them, and those were all negative. This was after MegaMania.

Since that time I've always submitted - they've only answered three of those and then those have been negative and those have been our largest money-makers. So I don't think there's much question that this bureaucratic entity - that you like to sometimes think it has a personality. Certainly the Justice Department arm, its strategy is to try to keep this whole issue of what's Class II and Class III as obscure as possible, so they can always come up with a reason why they see a game as Class III. So we're taking the approach that we're assuming that they're going to take the position that all of the MegaNanza series of games in which the ball draw takes place before the cards are sold are not legal. So if you take that broader approach it affects maybe not all of our machines, but 90 percent of them. Is that right, Clifton?

MR. LIND: Well, it certainly isn't 90 percent of the machines that are out there today. It would probably be closer to 80 percent of the machines that are out there today, Gordon.

MR. GRAVES: Okay.

MR. LIND: But if you take it in the broadest perspective that would be a fair estimate.

MR. DAVILA: For our purposes is it instructive to take it in the broadest sense or should we apply a more narrow point of view on this?

MR. GRAVES: I think you need to take it in the broader sense, but I think the real thing that you need to realize is that with this core protection there's not - we don't have much risk. And as the worst thing that happens is if we go through - it's going to take us a couple of years probably before this lawsuit is settled and as I've said, I've been through these types of things five times. And never have I been in a situation where we had any risk of having to shut down any games until the lawsuit was settled. And I certainly don't think that'll happen here, obviously you never know for sure, but I would be real surprised. I just don't think it's very likely. It's not really one of those things we worry about in other words. And even once we lose we've got another game on the shelf that gets rid of that problem we can put -

MR. DAVILA: Well, I guess that -

MR. GRAVES: - out there now, as before this chairman leaves we're likely to get an opinion the new game is a Class III. So you've really got to kind of work this bureaucracy into a position where you let the courts tell you and that's the reason we'll keep this game up and running for a long time as it is.

MR. DAVILA: Then is there a good chance that it might hasten the roll out of a new game which would then -

MR. GRAVES: No, sir. We will not roll out a new game until we get to the point that the court's made a decision.

MR. DAVILA: Okay. Well, thank you very much, gentlemen, I appreciate your time.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from Charlie Jobson. Please state your affiliation followed by your question.

MR. JOBSON: Hi, it's Charlie Jobson. Hi, guys.

MR. GRAVES: Hi.

MR. JOBSON: How similar technically is the new suit versus the old court cases that you won, the four court cases over the last several years?

MR. GRAVES: Well, I think the similarity is that in each case you really get down to the question, "Did Congress really mean that you could use electronic aids to run bingo games and those bingo games - that it had to meet those three simple rules?" That each player had a card, each card could be electronic, each card had symbols on it, and there was a drawing and the first person to match the symbols on the cards with the symbols drawn wins. And that anything else you can do is okay. And the courts have said that time and time again and this Justice Department branch of the party just doesn't seem to realize that that's what they really meant and the courts really mean it. And so in that way it's exactly the same. You know the very, very nitpicking detail that she says 'when', when has to mean it's simultaneous. That's the new point, but the general thing is the same. Does that answer your question?

MR. JOBSON: Yes, it does. Thank you.

MR. LIND: Gordon, I'd like to expand a little bit on Danny's question, if I may.

MR. GRAVES: Please.

MR. LIND: Danny, we had already announced and informed NIGC that we had a new family, if you will, of standard sequence games that we were in the process of marketing and we were going to be in the process of rolling out. About 27 days ago the NIGC published a new set of rules having to do with the facts -

MR. GRAVES: The proposed rules, right?

MR. LIND: - aids and also games similar to bingo -

MR. GRAVES: But it was a proposed rule.

MR. LIND: A proposed rule, and the comment period is open through Monday. And so we made the decision internally along with the support of our tribal customers that we were going to stop the marketing of these new games until we understood the new rules that may or may not go into effect or may or may not be modified, and after the dust settles on these new rules and after all of our tribal customers and the gaming staff has thoroughly analyzed the current litigation that we filed. By the way we're having a meeting of all of our customers next Wednesday at the NIGA meeting to discuss these issues in depth.

But anyway, after all that, I don't think Gordon meant to say that under no conditions would we roll out any new games over the next two years until this lawsuit is settled. We obviously are going to support all of the tribes and ourselves because we feel our integrity has been questioned over this issue. But as you know we try to roll out new games and new gaming systems on a very rapid basis and this will not bring a halt to our strategic deployment plan. But we're going to be very, very astute in deciding when we roll out the new games, and let the market conditions, competitive conditions [decide] and also the sort of settling-in of any new regulations that might go into effect and the fact that the entire commission is in the process of a change right now.

So I don't think Gordon meant to say that this lawsuit takes a year or two years, we absolutely won't roll out any new games. If any of our tribal customers requests us to do so or if we find it advantageous to take advantage of a market situation that opens up. Is that a fair -

MR. GRAVES: Yeah. I don't think that there will be any market advantage to take [out] the engine part, so I doubt that there will be any marketing advantage to go to this new thing. And obviously if some customer wants it, we'll give it to him, but we're not going to talk about the new game with the NIGC. We don't want to give the NIGC an opportunity to take a crack at the new game until this one is settled. I had thought we would go ahead and put the new game out there right away when this thing first happened and that was where I thought we were going. I got back and sat down with our staff after the first day they'd been on this thing, with Clifton and the guys, and they all said, "we don't want to put this thing right now, NIGC will just take a crack at us," and that was the right strategy. They'd thought through this better than I had and that's always comforting. But anyway if there's been some confusion, I hope that answers the confusion.

MR. JOBSON: And, Gordon, if I've still got the floor, so your software engine that you've got right now is able to technically overcome the NIGC's objective and have a pretty much simultaneous ball drop.

MR. GRAVES: Let me say when I said engine, I was talking about the game outcome determination process, what we sometimes refer to as the random number generator, the video instant ticket draw process or the bingo game ball draw. That's what I meant by the engine. Now if you look at the software engine, our software allows us to make that change really fast, so we could implement that new game. Clifton, can you do it in 24 hours?

MR. LIND: Certainly the architecture of our system, Gordon, with the independence of the engine from the rest of the modules, including the player station module. gives us the ability to download that software in a matter of minutes and change out the engine that's driving the random process.

However, from a practical standpoint, Gordon, as you know, we take an entire marketing team in whenever we change out a game to make sure that the players understand the new rules of the games. Under normal situations, it would be a matter of days or one or two weeks to completely roll out and educate, but in a situation where we were just interested about getting a new engine in, as you know, we can do that in a matter of minutes.

MR. GRAVES: Obviously if the display of the outcome of the game remains the same and just the random number generator is changed, the customer won't see any change. So as far as the customer is concerned, he won't really even recognize it's a different engine that's driving it, hopefully. So you can do that real fast.

MR. LIND: Yeah. Except as you know, we have on the shelf a variety of games that use a variety of different spot patterns on the bingo card in a variety of different configurations of bingo cards. So it is possible that the bingo card portion of the screen, not the entertaining graphics, would change slightly and that's what I was referring to as far as educating the player.

MR. GRAVES: Well, you're always willing to go out and spend too much money on -

MR. JOBSON: Okay. Last question. What were the odds of some kind of follow up action by the Department of Justice will be forthcoming as a result of the NIGC advisory opinion?

MR. GRAVES: Well, that's something that we always worry about, especially since that's what happened to us back in 1997. And it's one reason that we filed this suit so rapidly. It gives us a lot of comfort to have a federal judge watching over what transpires here, because you never know when some rogue U.S. attorney might do something crazy. But this situation is a lot different in that it was back in '97. The raid at that time was almost entirely the result of one U.S. attorney in Tulsa, who ended up getting fired over this type of action - not only us, but other people as well. And we've got another administration now and a new US attorney. It's interesting to me that Republicans have always been a lot better for Native Americans in my experience than the Democrats. As a long-time Democrat I'm ashamed to have to say that, but that's the case.

Indian gaming being played at well-regulated facilities is just not a very high priority of enforcement matter with this administration. A lot of people have a lot of different opinions of [John] Ashcroft, but he's a man of integrity, I think. And so I think as result of filing the lawsuits, we've got part of the government in court, and that hadn't been the case before. And I don't believe that the government will take any kind of severe action like that without the court having some control over the matter.

MR. JOBSON: Okay. Thank you very much.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from David Ehlers. Please state your affiliation followed by your question.

MR. EHLERS: Yes. Las Vegas Investment Advisors. Good morning, Gordon.

MR. GRAVES: Hello there, David.

MR. EHLERS: I've got three questions. I think the market and stock is clearly worried about the possibility of some kind of an NIGC shutdown, something of that nature or an NIGC raid of MGAM or the casinos playing MGAM facilities. What's your - one of the investors said to me yesterday the market's saying that MGAM's going to be shut down. I said I don't know about that, but I'd like to get MGAM's opinion.

MR. GRAVES: Yeah, I can. The short answer is no, not for a long time. It would require - this is an unofficial opinion we've got. It was just said to Clifton Lind at MGAM; there was no letter that's been addressed to any tribe. First, it would require an official opinion from the commissioners. And I doubt that with the present relationship between the commissioners, I doubt that they can get that done, certainly not for a long time.

MR. EHLERS: I would take a joint action by the commission and a two out of three vote.

MR. GRAVES: I believe that is correct. Then the second thing is that even if they decided they wanted to put out an official letter, then they'd have to decide whether they'd want to put out an enforcement action letter. And if they decide to do that, then the tribes have another 30 days to respond. And with this court case going that's an excellent opportunity for the tribes to go to the court and say we were already talking about this issue over here. And so the odds they'd shut it down is just, for a long, long time is just next to nothing.

Now I don't know what - it'd have to be something altogether new that would happen before there's really any risk of that. Even if they decide they'd like to shut it down, the NIGC doesn't have the ability to shut down anything. They have to go to the FBI and with this lawsuit in place, I just don't think the federal government is going to do anything rash.

MR. EHLERS: Okay. My third question is what's a reasonable expectation once this gets into court - what are the steps or how long is this liable to last? Is there any prior precedent to suggest where we might be here?

MR. GRAVES: Yeah. I think there's quite a bit. Clifton, you want to answer that?

MR. LIND: David, if I understand your question, how long do we expect this would take to go through the legal process?

MR. EHLERS: Yes, sir.

MR. LIND: Well, of course as you know, Dave, only the judge is in control of the rhythm and the pace of a lawsuit. And a judge could find this to be something that he or she chooses to expedite or it could be something that he or she feels should take an amount of time. One thing that will happen is that of course now that we filed this, the government gets a longer period of time to answer than you or I would as individual or corporate citizens. So normally, the government will have 60 days to respond to this, and after the judge receives the government's response to this, they will obviously review our complaint and the government's response to that and establish the rhythm for the case. I'm sure that we will be asking for immediate relief from the impact of this apparent opinion, and we would like to move this ahead very quickly. The government typically in these cases takes a lot of time because they will have to add this to their litigation docket and assign lawyers at the Justice Department to review it and to pursue it and to take care of the pleading for it.

So, if there's not some summary judgment rendered in 60 to 90 days, it might take up a to a year for it to get through the district court level. And then most likely whatever happens at the district court level like in the MegaMania lawsuit where the government lost in both the district court actions, they appealed it up to the circuit action and the circuit action could take anywhere from six months to another year longer depending on the priority that the circuit judges put to this case.

So unless there is a summary judgment in the next 60 to 90 days one way or another, which then could, of course could itself be appealed. It's like this is a one to two-year process before it gets through the circuit court level, Dave.

MR. EHLERS: Okay. Let me just ask you one more. This time, is there any evidence to believe that the lady that wrote this opinion may have discussed her opinion or feelings with investors prior to publishing this opinion?

MR. LIND: I have no idea. (indiscernible)

MR. GRAVES: Let me answer that if I can. Whenever you're in a lawsuit, it's real easy to say we can't answer that question because we're in a lawsuit. But I think maybe it's more accurate to say that any lawsuit you get into has a real - the strategic questions sometimes make it unwise to answer any question or just to be in good form it's better. And I think that this is a place where it's better not to respond, Dave.

MR. EHLERS: Okay. I understand. I understand. Thank you, gentlemen.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from Leonardo Musso. Please state your affiliation, followed by your question.

MR. MUSSO: Hello. I'm a stockholder and have been since June of last year and I [want to] say good morning to you people.

MR. GRAVES: Thank you.

MR. MUSSO: I have a question about this ruling. Am I correct in assuming that it actually has no effect on MGAM's business? And that had it been a positive ruling that it still wouldn't have affected your business perhaps six months down the road?

MR. GRAVES: Except in our capital-raising capability - I think that's accurate.

MR. MUSSO: So that's a given -

MR. GRAVES: Yeah.

MR. MUSSO: - by putting the stock offering on the shelf that's -

MR. GRAVES: That'll slow down some projects perhaps. I think we don't believe that any of those projects that we have been planning where we are negotiating with the tribes, I don't think there's any negotiation going on that we're going to have to stop because we don't have the capital, but it'll impact our cost to get that capital.

MR. MUSSO: Well, it seems to me that you have sufficient cash flow to carry on your business.

MR. GRAVES: Oh, yeah. Our basic business, you know, our goal is always installing 200 units a month. That basic business is not going to be affected one bit. Some of these larger projects that we've been looking at are going to be a little harder to get done because some of them will take more cash than we've got in the bank and that we're generating. But our basic business, the model that all of you as investors probably use, it's not going to be affected. Clifton, you want to add something to that?

MR. LIND: As you're aware, in the year we just completed, our net free cash flow exceeded $20 million. Our EBITDA was very large and there is nothing in this action that's going to change that. We're totally self-funding. We've got a large cash reserve and more than enough adequate cash to take care of our normal business and to do some of the many opportunities that we have just from internal sources. And we have a number of external funding sources that are available to us and certainly we do not feel that the alternatives that we presumed before we converted this to a shelf registration have gone away at all. It's just that the timing of it is inopportune right now. So we do not see cash or the inability for us to raise funding, whether it be debt or additional equity to have been dramatically impacted by this. But as Gordon pointed out, the cost of it probably has been impacted.

MR. GRAVES: Let me add another thing - just incidentally - that Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns have both been class acts in this whole process.

MR. MUSSO: I'm jumping in here I believe. So I can say that I am correct in assuming that this letter has absolutely no effect whatsoever on your business, your basic business, I'm not talking about a secondary?

MR. LIND: This is Clifton speaking, Gordon, and if I may, I think that would be an overly broad statement. Certainly because of the fact that tribal governments are political in nature, and there are always elections in the process or underway, and that tribal council members are not uniformly behind tribal gaming individuals, the tribal commission, they have different views. I mean it would be overly broad to say this didn't have an impact, because at some tribes there will be some questions raised because of this letter over whether or not one individual or another supported a game that has turned out to be a questionable game.

As we've said before, in those situations where it does become an issue, however, we have the stable of alternate gaming engines to offer to any tribe where it might be a political necessity to even replace existing machines from an engine standpoint with a different gaming engine, or on any additional games that are added to the facility [where] they might want an additional engine. I mean the fact is that we plan every quarter to roll out a new gaming engine or system. And we obsolete our own systems by design and by strategy, to stay ahead of our competitors. Therefore, the decision that the team made to slow down the roll out of new engines both because of the pending rule that has been put out there for comment, and because of this letter we received on Monday is a change to our normal business strategy, rolling out these new systems very rapidly.

So the fact is I think it would be overly broad to say that this had no impact in Indian country, and from our standpoint it has delayed the roll out of new systems. But of course, we will respond to our tribal customers' requests, and if they request a different gaming engine be installed on their system overnight we will do that.

So, I think the impact on this is so much less than at the time we had the MegaMania case sprung on us. MegaMania was the only game we were running. We had no alternative engines, and so that raid caused us to move extremely quickly to develop other engines and deploy other engines. We can take a more strategic leisurely approach to that now because we have on the shelf a stable of alternatives, [so] that if anyone is concerned about this letter in Indian Country, we can respond to it.

But as Gordon said earlier, this letter was addressed to Multimedia Games, and me as the president of Multimedia Games. This has been copied to the regional staff of the NIGC, and we assume, passed on to the tribes. We know that it's been passed down to some tribes, but the fact is that no official - the NIGC has no authority over us. Their relationship is with the tribes.

And so, until they give some guidance to the tribes on what they should do about this, there is a no official notice that the tribes have to respond to. That is one of the reasons this lawsuit was independently brought by Multimedia Games. The tribes have not been impacted by this at all because they have not received any call to action one way or the other. They have volunteered - so many of our customers have called us just this morning and said they would like to be part of the original action, but they understand it's better for us if they didn't, but they're ready to file briefs on our behalf - that we think there's going to be a great response from the tribes in the appropriate manner and so I just - but your first statement was a little bit overly broad for me to be comfortable with.

MR. GRAVES: Well, let me comment on that.

MR. LIND: Gordon, I expected nothing less.

MR. GRAVES: Somebody said the other day - Clifton and I by the way, we fight like cats and dogs, as you can imagine. Somebody said that if two guys don't disagree then you don't need one of them. But when we get into a situation like this is I think when we work the best together. And if you take that into consideration, it offsets a lot of those types of things that happen in this environment even with the customers' response. The last time this happened to us that we had to go to court, we got a whole flurry of orders we weren't expecting. So if you stand at 30,000 feet and say, "Up at that level has our business changed any?" I think the answer is probably "No." But with us down here in the trenches, we've gone through an emotional process as you all have out there. And so it's kind of hard for us to look at it from 30,000 feet. But I think from that level, there probably hasn't been any change.

MR. MUSSO: Well, thank you. I did not expect such an extensive answer.

MR. LIND: And you can choose the answer you wanted.

MR. MUSSO: Well, I have a few more questions if I may.

MR. GRAVES: Sure.

MR. MUSSO: Has this letter caused you to change your earnings guidance for the year?

MR. GRAVES: That's a question for Monday, and all I can say is I think you'll be happy with the answer.

MR. MUSSO: Okay. I thought so. Another question is I know that in some time in the past you had authorized or the Board of Directors had authorized the purchase of stock for treasury. Is that still effective or have you supported the stock?

MR. GRAVES: Well, we just announced yesterday or the day before that we were calling off the offering and making it a shelf registration. By law we couldn't, and I'm not sure by law when we could start and we have not been. Obviously when you're out selling stock you can't be buying stock because it's too easy to manipulate the price. And if we buy any stock - the Board has talked about buying back stock this round, but until we - it'll be a little bit before we make a final decision. And we certainly don't want to buy a stock for any other reason except the value. Obviously the rules that are set up in buying stock are pretty good at keeping anybody from impacting the price, but it's just something we hadn't made a decision on yet.

MR. MUSSO: Well, thank you. It certainly seems to be a value right now. I think that I had one other question, but it slipped my mind. So I'm going to -

MR. GRAVES: Well, we want to answer them all, so get back on when you think of it.

MR. MUSSO: All right. Thank you.

MR. GRAVES: You bet.

MR. MUSSO: Thank you. Our next question comes from Steve Neren. Please state your affiliation followed by your question.

MR. NEREN: Fahnestock and Company. Hi, Gordon. Hi, Clifton.

MR. GRAVES: Steve, how are you?

MR. NEREN: I'm okay. Dave answered one of my questions, but I'm the other one is that I'm curious what happens now when the NIGC comes to court and they're going to say we didn't do anything. This woman, Penny, issued an advisory opinion. Is it possible the courts may just say there's no reason for an injunction at the moment?

MR. LIND: Gordon, shall we let Tony answer that if he's on?

MR. GRAVES: You bet, that's a good idea.

MR. LIND: Tony?

MR. GRAHAM: Yes, sir.

MR. LIND: Tony, would you feel comfortable answering that? This is Tony Graham, chief litigator.

MR. NEREN: Hi, Tony.

MR. GRAHAM: Good morning to everyone. Let me respond this way. Certainly, the letter that was issued by the Deputy General Counsel (SIDE ONE ENDS) judgment says that that is a final enough action by a federal agency to give us the right to complain about that and seek a declaration that says that the letter is wrong and our games are in fact Class II and not Class III played on appropriate equipment. And we believe that that is sufficient enough standing to go in there in an effort to get such a declaration, even though the National Indian Gaming Commission has no direct power to come and do anything to Multimedia Games. They may well challenge the lawsuit by saying that is simply a letter by a Deputy General Counsel, it is not sufficient to give you the right to complain about it. It is not sufficient action and you have been damaged in no way because we haven't done anything to you. It doesn't give you the right to squawk, so to speak. They could take that position. There is a chance that the judge could say that therefore I don't have a real case or controversy. I don't have anything to rule on because they can't do anything bad to you, Multimedia, and they haven't threatened to do anything bad to any of the tribes or done anything bad to the tribes, assuming they haven't at that point and time. And let's say the lawsuit goes away because in essence they would have to take the position that the letter is not all that important and we aren't doing anything bad to anybody and we haven't said we're going to do anything bad to anybody. And if that's the case I'm not so sure that that's a bad result either.

MR. NEREN: I guess the only thing then you'd have to be concerned [about] would be that they might use that letter or - he [the Chairman] is outgoing now anyway I gather. No one knows how long he's still going to be office. But the point really is that if that happened, can they then turn around and send a letter to the tribes saying that you shouldn't use these machines because these are Class III not Class II? And I suppose if that's the case, then you could go back and do this again.

MR. GRAVES: Well, let me say, if a judge hears the government stand up and say there's no risk to these people and then a few days later they see that's not the case, the government's just not going to do that. That's just too - I mean a judge won't stand for it.

MR. NEREN: So in effect, now if the judge does not issue the injunction because they're saying there's no reason to, then you just go about your business anyway.

MR. GRAHAM: This is Tony Graham again, if I can address at least a portion of that question. You keep using the word injunction, the primary focus of this lawsuit is a declaration. It's called declaratory judgment action.

MR. NEREN: Maybe for a non-attorney you can explain that more.

MR. GRAHAM: Basically it's we're just asking the judge to declare. We're asking him to say, "I look at the merits of this game and this equipment and I declare it to be Class II."

There is also a request for injunction which would stop the NIGC from doing anything adverse to our interests, or in effect, our tribal clients' interest, assuming we win on the merits of the lawsuit, which would then say, "Now it's been judicially determined that this is appropriate Class II gaming." Then and only then we would ask the court under the current posture of the lawsuit to say I enjoin the National Indian Gaming Commission anywhere in the country from trying to take a contrary position, because we now have a judicial ruling that says that it's okay.

MR. GRAVES: Let me say something right here. Steve, I think this is one of those areas where with the strategic considerations we shouldn't talk too much about it. I think everybody [can] kind of think this through here. But we don't want to educate the attorneys that are going to be on the other side.

MR. NEREN: Right.

MR. GRAVES: I mean this is one of those areas where I think it's better to - I think everybody can figure it out here, but it's better not to, I don't think to talk too much from a strategic standpoint about this. Do you agree, Tony, or not?

MR. GRAHAM: Yeah. That's true. And I hadn't thought of -

MR. NEREN: Well, actually I think he answered the question, so it's okay.

MR. GRAHAM: I would add this other thing. Let's say at some time during the tenancy of this lawsuit if the NIGC does say anything threatening or something to one of the tribes, the immediate impact of that I expect would only be this from my perspective, we'd probably then have a co-plaintiff. We'd have a tribe right in there with us. But I don't know that that necessarily changes a lot of the lay of the land, but that would be my suspicion of what would happen if they started to do anything adverse to any of the tribes playing our games.

MR. NEREN: Just one comment. It's interesting how without doing very much they have caused such a problem.

MR. GRAHAM: I mean, actually an argument can be made that and I believe somebody's already said the fact that this letter was issued has no immediate impact in terms of it's not the government saying stop playing this game anywhere. That's not the effect of the letter. So at least from a very immediate standpoint it can be argued that it has no effect. But the effect of it is potentially a chilling effect on our customers. It has obviously had an immediate impact on the stock value, which we think is sufficient enough to get us into court and go in there and say we shouldn't have to live under this cloud even though the cloud has not stopped any of the gaming activity thus far.

MR. NEREN: Do you have any idea or I guess I should address this to Gordon whether the full commission has been given the option of voting on this? I guess I've heard -

MR. GRAVES: We gets lots of input from our attorneys and our lobbyist and some direct and some indirect and we've got a pretty good opinion, but again that's an area where probably -

MR. NEREN: Okay.

MR. GRAVES: - strategically it's just probably better not to talk about it. But there's conflict within the NIGC I can say that. We all know there's conflict in there between these two parties. There's probably other issues that separate them. I'm not sure that it's the same group, but with the different issues. But as far as the game classification issue, quite frankly what's happened is when Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, at that time the Justice Department went up to the Hill and said don't let the Indians have electronic bingo. If you do, they'll have the equivalent of slot machines, and Congress ignored that and went ahead and passed it with that right in there, and since then the Justice Department and their party over in the NIGC seem to have been taking the position let's find some way of keeping the Indians from making any money in Class II.

The NIGC's number one responsibility that Congress gave them was to keep out corrupting influences and organized crime. I think the Justice Department, this is speculation on my part, I think that some of them down at the lower level in the civil servant level that are there administration after administration I think believe that the best way to keep corrupting influence out is to not let the tribes make any money, and therefore they won't attract any corrupting influences, where in fact it's really right the opposite. The more you put in these electronic games the better accounting you have and the less opportunity is for their people to come in and skim and cheat, et cetera. I don't know whether that answers your question.

MR. NEREN: Yes, it does. Thank you, Gordon.

OPERATOR: Thank you. The next question comes from David Scially. Please state your question.

MR. SCIALLY: Hi. West Highland Capital. Actually I have a couple of questions. I guess the first question would be with respect to the definition as you provided it Gordon, that the NIGC does not regulate the gaming, but the Tribal Gaming Authorities do.

MR. GRAVES: Well, I think a good way to look at it - who knows how it's going to turn out. I think some at the NIGC think they should have a lot more regulatory [oversight] and certainly the tribes think they should have less, and there's a mixed opinion on that. But I think it's going to turn out where it is kind of like the Gaming Commission in Nevada versus the Control board.

MR. SCIALLY: Okay. But the question I was going to ask -

MR. GRAVES: Yeah.

MR. SCIALLY: -are you aware of any tribal attorneys that have reviewed this matter and happen to agree with the NIGC's current letter or more specifically the attorney at the NIGC's opinion?

MR. GRAVES: Well, I don't know what you mean by tribal attorney. There are a couple of attorneys out there, neither of whom are tribal attorneys, tribal members.

MR. SCIALLY: Well, are they -

MR. GRAVES: And both who work for one of our competitors that have come out with an opinion to one or more tribes saying they think the game is Class II, and we've been in negotiations with those people and I think we've settled to the point - well, none of the tribes have listened to them, taken them seriously or shut us down, but involved. Clifton knows more detail about that than I do. Do you want to talk about that, Clifton.

MR. LIND: Again would you repeat the question?

(unrelated conversation)

MR. SCIALLY: I was asking whether or not at the company you were aware of any other attorneys working on behalf of a tribe, since Gordon had referred that the tribal gaming authority is more impactual than the actual NIGC.

MR. GRAVES: And I said that we have not had any tribal authority or tribal gaming commission that has asked us to take out the game that I know of.

MR. SCIALLY: Yeah. That's not the question though, Gordon.

MR. GRAVES: Yeah.

MR. SCIALLY: The question is whether or not any attorney has rendered an opinion -

MR. GRAVES: And I said that there was -

MR. LIND: There are five different versions of the MegaNanza games that are out there. At least two of those versions are the results of changes that either gaming commissions or gaming commission chairmen have asked us to make. One of the versions that is running in two halls is a version of the game that is in a test mode because the original version of the game, that we're not running any more, in the opinion of the gaming commission's attorney did not have the attributes that the game needed for him to in his opinion to classify it as a Class II game.

Therefore - the NIGC's self-government guidelines provide - we entered into an agreement for a six-month test with that particular tribe. That agreement is subject to a mutual confidentiality agreement, so I can't go into much detail. And we have fielded a new game that is running in that hall that the gaming commission is now in the process of evaluating to see if the new attributes we added remove the concerns.

So there certainly was an early version of MegaNanza, the first version that we had running, that a tribe's gaming commission had objections to, and issued and then withdrew an opinion that they thought the game was not a Class II game, and we're under confidentiality in a test on the new game that is running.

MR. SCIALLY: Okay. Well, that doesn't really answer my question, so I'll ask it a different way then. Are there any-

MR. LIND: I must not have understood your question because I certainly thought that answered it. Go ahead.

MR. SCIALLY: Are there any new offerings from competitors that have MegaNanza-like economics that another tribe would see this NIGC letter, and might say I'd rather go and install this other machine and deinstall a MegaNanza due to the potential negative impact of a negative NIGC ruling and potential civil penalties against my operations from the NIGC?

MR. GRAVES: Sure. Let me answer that. Sure that can happen, but we don't see it happening, but it could.

MR. SCIALLY: No. Well, I'm asking if you know of any?

MR. GRAVES: No. We know of none.

MR. SCIALLY: You know of no competitor that -

MR. GRAVES: I know of no competitor that has set of games that come anywhere close to ours, not even close.

MR. SCIALLY: Okay. And then I wanted to get some clarity -

MR. GRAVES: And let me say on that other thing - there's a couple of knuckleheads out there who have tried to come up with some argument why that first game we put out there wasn't Class II and I don't think it amounts to a hill of beans.

MR. SCIALLY: Okay. Well, I don't concern myself with knuckleheads, so I just was curious.

MR. GRAVES: Yeah.

MR. SCIALLY: So then specifically with respect to some of the earlier statements in here, I'm wondering why is it that you don't just instead of fighting, instead of litigation, why don't you just change the engine?

MR. GRAVES: Because there's too much evidence that is with the present power structure in the NIGC, too, too, much evidence that if we try to work with them we're going to get screwed.

MR. SCIALLY: Okay.

MR. GRAVES: You can't work with a bureaucratic organization in this type of an environment and keep from getting screwed. You've got to go to the courts to do it, I've gone through it time and time again. I've seen it, got screwed. It's just going to happen. You can't get around it. It's just the nature of the beast. It's not that anybody's evil or anything, it's just what's going to happen and you've got to go get the court system to support you.

There's nothing in this country that's nearly as powerful and as wonderful as our court system. It's fair. It's something unique that nobody - I don't know of any other country that has them. Maybe there probably are, but it's just the greatest thing about this country. And you go to those courts and I think you can feel pretty damn safe, you're in good hands, and you can't do that with the bureaucratic organization. It's a crying shame that you can't and when the NIGC gets to the point it's as mature as the Nevada Regulatory system, that probably won't be the case. I'm sure there's a lot of guys out there that do business in Nevada all the time that don't feel that way, but they feel that it's unfair sometimes and it probably is. But you just can't do it, you just can't, it just doesn't work. I wish it did, but it doesn't.

MR. SCIALLY: Okay. Well, since the forum is [?] and would like to go to the judicial level for declaration, why did you only ask for a judicial declaration for two of the versions of MegaNanza, the Count Down Bingo and Two Step Bingo?

MR. GRAVES: I think that's probably one of those areas where we're just getting into too much strategic detail, [and] it's not worth talking about. I think the bottom line is those two versions - if we wanted to we could make it all those two versions, but I just don't think - we're getting to a point I just don't think we ought to talk about it too much. Clifton, do you want to say anything about that?

MR. LIND: Well, no. Those are the two versions of the games that are most richly featured and the ones that we have been marketing for the last 30 days because of their new game features that none of the competitors can match. And so we just wanted to make sure those were emphasized because it is likely that many of the tribes will want those new features that are in those games that will make them more popular with players. So we just wanted to emphasize what we think are going to be the most popular games when this actually gets into court, if it does.

MR. SCIALLY: Okay. Well, I'm still just trying to understand. So for legal reasons you don't want to talk about that.

MR. GRAVES: That is correct.

MR. SCIALLY: Historically have you - you had said that you found that you will fight them. But historically you had changed at one point.

MR. GRAVES: I don't want to talk about it any more.

MR. SCIALLY: Oh. I'm sorry.

MR. GRAVES: We're not going to talk about it any more.

MR. SCIALLY: Okay. Well, let me change it then.

MR. GRAVES: Okay.

MR. SCIALLY: You said earlier you said you've never had to pull a game out of a casino due to the question of Class II's?

MR. GRAVES: I didn't say.

MR. SCIALLY: Okay.

MR. GRAVES: I didn't say that.

MR. SCIALLY: Okay. Well, then one last question. Tony Graham, where are you practicing law these days?

MR. GRAVES: I don't want Tony to answer that.

MR. SCIALLY: Okay. Is there any question that you feel or any area of business that you'd like to discuss today that I can ask a question then?

MR. GRAVES: I doubt it.

MR. SCIALLY: Okay. Well, then thank you, Gordon.

MR. GRAVES: Uh-huh.

OPERATOR: Thank you. And our last question comes from Stan Kaplan. Please state your affiliation followed by your question.

MR. KAPLAN: Hello. I'm from Gro-Vest Inc. Good morning, or it's good afternoon in New York, Gordon and Clifton. How are you both?

MR. GRAVES: We're fine. Thank you.

MR. KAPLAN: Good. I think several of my questions have been answered while I've been waiting to get on, but the only one that is left is, Gordon, do you think the Department of Justice will raid you again as it did back several years ago?

MR. GRAVES: The short answer is no.

MR. KAPLAN: Okay. That's quick. And again on the length of time for a decision, I guess there's no way of knowing, of pinning it down a little closer, Clifton, as to what you think, or Tony, of what you think has happened?

MR. LIND: Well, if Tony thinks he can do a better job than that let Tony put a better bracket around it. Tony.

MR. GRAHAM: Yes. This is Tony.

MR. LIND: The question is I put a pretty broad bracket around the length of time it could take for this to go through the court system. Can you refine that any or do you think it needs to be refined?

MR. GRAHAM: Well, I wish I could refine it. If I were a lawyer who could predict what judges were going to do and when they were going to do it in each and every instance I'd be quite a lawyer. Judges are governed by lots of things, how energetic they are, how much is on their docket, things of that nature. So I think the prediction that was given earlier is going to be as good a prediction as is possible. I wish I could refine it more, but I can't and these things are just in the control of lifetime appointed judges and they do it as they do it.

MR. KAPLAN: Okay. Thank you very much.

MR. GRAVES: Again thank you all so much.

OPERATOR: I'm sorry, sir, I do have one more question coming again from Leonardo Musso.

MR. GRAVES: All right. Please go ahead with your question, sir.

MR. MUSSO: I'm sorry to prevent the end of this conference, but I have one last question.

MR. GRAVES: Okay.

MR. MUSSO: I would like to know if it's bad form to ask who your competitors are and their relative size in relation to MGAM?

MR. GRAVES: No. I don't think so. Clifton, do you want to answer that?

MR. LIND: We have a number of small competitors, only one of which provides linked interactive games. That competitor is owned by a very fine and honorable Indian Tribe, the Miami Modock Tribe. And they operate their games under the corporate style of World Link and the trademark of Rocket Bingo. They have a version of different games running including a knock-off of our current games. None of the other competitors that are out there offer linked interactive games and so you cut a pretty broad swath when you ask us to name them. Let me say that -

MR. MUSSO: It's not necessary to name them, I was just curious as to whether they were publicly owned or large corporations.

MR. GRAVES: Publicly owned and there's no large corporation. They're all pretty darn small. I would doubt - Clifton, are there any of them out there that does more - well what's your guess at the most revenue they do?

MR. LIND: Gordon, as you know we have one competitor who is in Oklahoma, but his primary business is not in Oklahoma, but in other jurisdictions and it's a private corporation, I have no way of knowing what their revenue is. But let me just say -

MR. GRAVES: I think there's one competitor out there that has about a thousand machines, where we've got what 7,000?

MR. LIND: Yes.

MR. MUSSO: Okay. To end this -

MR. GRAVES: I was talking about Class II. Now in Class III we've got Sierra Design Group and they're - they've got a lot of Class III machines out there in Washington State. They've got probably 4,500.

MR. MUSSO: Huh. Well, that's only one state. Well, to end this, can I state or can I ask that MGAM is actually the pre-eminent company in this field and a virtual monopoly?

MR. LIND: No. I think you can say that we are the market leader in this field and have the vast majority of the market of interactive linked games. There's no question about that. But I certainly would not recommend that you refer to it as a monopoly. There are a lot of smaller companies that are good competitors out there and have good relationships with the Native American tribes, and they will always have part of the business and we think it's healthy for us as well as the Native American customers for there to be a good spirit of competition out there in this marketplace. It helps all of us be better.

MR. MUSSO: Well, thank you very much.

OPERATOR: If there are no further questions, I will turn the conference back to the moderator to conclude.

MS. SPENCER: Thank you all for joining us and we will see you on Monday. We're having our earnings conference call on Monday, April 22nd. It's 11 a.m. Central, that's 12 noon Eastern Time and the dial in number is the same, 800-997-8642. Ask for the Multimedia call or you can refer to our press release for the numbers. Thank you all for joining us. We'll see you Monday.

OPERATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, a rebroadcast of this call will be available approximately one hour from now. To access this rebroadcast, you may dial into 1-800-428-6051 with a pass code ID number of 239706. You may also dial 973-709-2089 for international users and you may enter the say pass code of 239706. That concludes our conference for today. Thank you all for participating and have a nice day. All parties may disconnect now.

BACK