XML 35 R24.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.22.2.2
Commitments and Contingencies
 9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies Commitments and Contingencies
Lawsuits and claims are filed against the Company from time to time in the ordinary course of business, including related to employee matters, employment of professionals and non-compete clauses and agreements. Other than settled matters explained as follows, these actions are in various stages, and no judgments or decisions have been rendered. Management, after reviewing matters with legal counsel, believes that the outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.
Accel has been involved in a series of related litigated matters stemming from claims that Accel wrongly contracted with 10 different licensed establishments (the “Defendant Establishments”) in 2012 in violation of the contractual rights held by J&J Ventures Gaming, LLC (“J&J”), as further described below.
On August 21, 2012, one of the Company’s operating subsidiaries entered into certain agreements with Jason Rowell (“Rowell”), a member of Action Gaming LLC (“Action Gaming”), which was an unlicensed terminal operator that had exclusive rights to place and operate video gaming terminals (“VGTs”) within a number of establishments, including the Defendant Establishments. Under agreements with Rowell, the Company agreed to pay him for each licensed establishment which decided to enter into exclusive location agreements with the Company. In late August and early September 2012, each of the Defendant Establishments signed separate location agreements with the Company, purporting to grant it the exclusive right to operate VGTs in those establishments. Separately, on August 24, 2012, Action Gaming sold and assigned its rights to all its location agreements to J&J, including its exclusive rights with the Defendant Establishments (the “J&J Assigned Agreements”). At the time of the assignment of such rights to J&J, the Defendant Establishments were not yet licensed by the Illinois Gaming Board (“IGB”).
Action Gaming, J&J, and other parties, collectively, the Plaintiffs, filed a complaint against the Company, Rowell, and other parties in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (the “Circuit Court”), on August 31, 2012, as amended on November 1, 2012, December 19, 2012, and October 3, 2013, alleging, among other things, that the Company aided and abetted Rowell in breaches of his fiduciary duties and contractual obligations with Action Gaming and tortiously interfered with Action Gaming’s contracts with Rowell and agreements assigned to J&J. The complaint seeks damages and injunctive and equitable relief. On January 24, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as further described below. On May 14, 2018,
the Circuit Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss and granted a stay to the case, pending a ruling from the IGB on the validity of the J&J Assigned Agreements.
From 2013 to 2015, the Plaintiffs filed additional claims, including J&J Ventures Gaming, LLC et al. v. Wild, Inc. (“Wild”), in various circuit courts seeking declaratory judgements with a number of establishments, including each of the Defendant Establishments, requesting declarations that, among other things, J&J held the exclusive right to operate VGTs at each of the Defendant Establishments as a result of the J&J Assigned Agreements. The Company was granted leave to intervene in all of the declaratory judgments. The circuit courts found that the J&J Assigned Agreements were valid because each of the underlying location agreements were between an unlicensed establishment and an unlicensed terminal operator, and therefore did not constitute use agreements that were otherwise precluded from assignment under the IGB’s regulations. Upon the Company’s appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District (the “District Court”), vacated the circuit courts’ judgments and dismissed the appeals, holding that the IGB had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter that formed the basis of the parties’ claims, and declined to consider the merits of the parties’ disputes. On September 22, 2016, and after the IGB intervened, the Supreme Court of Illinois issued a judgment in Wild, affirming the District Court’s decision vacating the circuit courts’ judgments for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismissing the appeals, determining that the IGB has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the validity and enforceability of VGT use agreements.
Between May 2017 and September 2017, both the Company and J&J filed petitions with the IGB seeking adjudication of the rights of the parties and the validity of the use agreements. Those petitions were recently adjudicated by the IGB, largely in Accel’s favor, and J&J has filed a new lawsuit to challenge the IGB’s rulings. The Company does not have a present estimate regarding the potential damages, if any, that could potentially be awarded in this litigation and, accordingly, have established no reserves relating to such matters. There are also petitions pending with the IGB which could lead to the Company obtaining new locations.
On October 7, 2019, the Company filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against Jason Rowell and other parties related to Mr. Rowell’s breaches of his non-compete agreement with the Company. The Company alleged that Mr. Rowell and a competitor were working together to interfere with the Company’s customer relationships. On November 7, 2019, Mr. Rowell filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against the Company alleging that he had not received certain equity interests in the Company to which he was allegedly entitled under his agreement. The Company has answered the complaint and asserted a counterclaim, and intends to defend itself against the allegations. Mr. Rowell's claims and the Company's claims are both being litigated in this lawsuit, while the original lawsuit remains pending against the other defendants.
On July 2, 2019, Illinois Gaming Investors, LLC filed a lawsuit against the Company. The lawsuit alleges that a current employee of the Company violated his non-competition agreement with Illinois Gaming Investors, LLC, and together with the Company, wrongfully solicited prohibited licensed video gaming locations. The parties settled this dispute in April 2022.
On December 18, 2020, the Company received a disciplinary complaint from the IGB alleging violations of the Video Gaming Act and the IGB’s Adopted Rules for Video Gaming. The disciplinary complaint seeks to fine the Company in the amount of $5 million. The Company filed its initial answer to the IGB’s complaint on January 11, 2021. On July 22, 2022, both parties filed motions for summary judgement.
On March 9, 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against Gold Rush relating to the Gold Rush convertible notes. The complaint seeks damages for breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as well as unjust enrichment. The lawsuit is publicly available. On June 22, 2022, Gold Rush filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against the Company. The lawsuit alleges that the Company tortiously interfered with Gold Rush’s business activities and engaged in misconduct with respect to the Gold Rush convertible notes. The complaint seeks declaratory judgment and damages related to the allegations. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations in the complaint and denies any allegations of wrongdoing. For more information on the Gold Rush convertible notes, see Note 4.
On March 25, 2022, Midwest Electronics Gaming LLC (“Midwest”) filed an administrative review action against the IGB, the Company and J&J in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois seeking administrative review of decisions of the IGB ruling in favor of the Company and J&J and against Midwest regarding the validity of certain use agreements covering locations currently serviced by Midwest. No monetary damages are sought against the Company.
On April 22, 2022, the Company filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois to judicially review the IGB's decision to deny the requested transfer of Gold Rush common stock in respect of its conversion of the convertible notes.
In July 2022, an enforcement action was brought against the Company by an Illinois municipality related to an alleged violation of an ordinance requiring the collection of an additional tax, the enforceability of which is currently being contested by the Illinois Gaming Machine Operators Association. Rather than litigate the alleged violation, the Company pled no contest and paid an initial penalty to the municipality in October 2022. The Company will pay a similar penalty each month for the remaining months of 2022.
Given the status of the legal proceedings discussed above, the Company has determined that a legal liability was probable and recorded a loss of $1.2 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2022, of which $1.0 million is included within other expenses, net and $0.2 million is included within general and administrative expenses in the condensed consolidated statement of operations and other comprehensive income. The Company paid legal settlements totaling $1.6 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2022 related to these legal proceedings, which includes $1.0 million of the previously mentioned loss.