impairment as of June 30, 2025 and determined that it was other-than-temporarily impaired. The Company estimated the fair value of its investment in PDP using the direct capitalization method of the income approach. The Company used the property's estimated net operating income, yearly growth rate, capital expenditure reserves and a capitalization rate as the primary significant unobservable inputs (Level 3). The estimated fair value is based upon assumptions that management believes are reasonable, and the impact of variations in these estimates or the underlying assumptions could be material. The fair value of the Company’s investment in PDP was determined to be $27.1 million. As of June 30, 2025, the Company recognized an other-than-temporary impairment charge of $5.3 million, which is recorded in share of gain from equity method investments in the consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive income. Note 5 “Investments and advances to equity method investments – PDP” to our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements contained in Item 1 of this Quarterly Report.
The accounting estimates related to impairments are susceptible to change, including estimating fair value which requires considerable judgment. For goodwill, management’s estimate of a reporting unit’s future financial results is sensitive to changes in assumptions, such as changes in stock prices, weighted-average cost of capital, terminal growth rates and industry multiples. Similarly, cash flow estimates utilized for purposes of evaluating long-lived assets and equity method investments (such as in our PDP joint venture) require us to make projections and assumptions for many years into the future for pricing, demand, competition, operating costs, timing of operations, and other factors. We evaluate long-lived assets and equity method investments for impairment when events or changes in circumstances indicate, in management’s judgment, that the carrying value of such assets may not be recoverable (meaning, in the case of its equity method investment, that such investment has suffered other-than-temporary declines in value under ASC 323, Investments: Equity Method Investments and Joint Ventures). When a quantitative assessment is performed, we use estimates and assumptions in estimating our reporting units’, our long-lived assets’ and our equity method investment’s fair values that we believe are reasonable and appropriate at that time; however assumptions and estimates are inherently subject to significant business, economic, competitive and other risks that could materially affect the calculated fair values and the resulting conclusions regarding impairments, which could materially affect our results of operations and financial position.
We cannot guarantee that in future periods we will not be required to recognize additional impairment charges, whether in our other equity method investments, to the extent it is regained in the future, or other intangible assets, nor that we will be able to avoid a significant charge to earnings in our consolidated financial statements during the period in which an impairment is determined to exist. Impairments to our equity method investment in our PDP joint venture have materially and adversely affected our results of operations in the past, and could again in the future, as could reductions in the carrying value of any intangible assets or our other equity method investments.
Following the closure of Katmandu Park DR and the Tenerife Sale, our FBD business is in transition, and the repositioning and rebranding of FBD projects will be subject to timing, budgeting and other risks which could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, the ongoing need for capital expenditures to develop our FBD business could have a material adverse effect on us, including our financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.
In our FBD business, we may encounter difficulties in adapting our asset-efficient strategy or in developing and maintaining effective joint partnerships with our existing JV partners, Meliá and Raging Power, and/or with new joint venture partnerships. We expect our asset-efficient strategy to reduce our capital expenditures by harnessing the strengths and resources of current and future strategic partners, allowing us to focus on our core competencies of bringing incredible experiences to people. However, we may not be able to execute on such strategy effectively. For example, we may not be able to negotiate agreements with our existing joint venture partners or with new joint venture partners on terms that are acceptable to us or at all, and our ability to successfully operate an asset-efficient model exposes us to different risks than we face with an asset-heavy model, as we will be increasingly subject to the risks inherent in third-party infrastructure over which we would have limited control. Further, our efforts to reduce our existing capital expenditures may not be successful. For example, while we believe the closure of Katmandu Park DR to visitors was in the best interest of the Sierra Parima joint venture with Meliá because the closure eliminates potential ongoing operational losses at the Katmandu Park DR, and while we believe the Tenerife Sale was similarly in our best interests, there may be unexpected consequences of such closure and sale that negatively impact our business or that of our joint venture partner, whereby such unexpected consequences could be the basis for a dispute with our joint venture partner.
Further, even with an asset-efficient business model, our FBD business may still be subject to traditional risks associated with resort and theme park development, acquisition, expansion, repositioning and rebranding, including, among others:
•construction delays or cost overruns that may increase project costs;
•receipt of zoning and other required governmental permits and authorizations;
•increased costs due to competition for labor, including employees and subcontractors, skilled in emerging technology;
•strikes or other labor issues;