XML 34 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.24.2
Commitments and Contingencies
 6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2024
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.
The Company has been involved in a series of related litigated matters stemming from claims that it 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 gaming terminals 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 an exclusive location agreement with Accel. In late August and early September 2012, each of the Defendant Establishments signed a separate location agreement with the Company, purporting to grant the Company the exclusive right to operate gaming terminals 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 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 Accel 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 judgments 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 gaming terminals 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 gaming terminal 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 the Company’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, has 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 Rowell and other parties related to Rowell’s breaches of his non-compete agreement with Accel. The Company alleged that Rowell and a competitor were working together to interfere with the Company’s customer relationships. On November 7, 2019, 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. On July 18, 2024, the Company and Rowell entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay Rowell $0.1 million in exchange for a mutual release of the Company's claims against Rowell and Rowell's claims against the Company. The litigation involving Action Gaming, J&J, and the other parties, as described above, remains pending.
On July 2, 2019, Illinois Gaming Investors, LLC filed a lawsuit against the Company. The lawsuit alleges that a current employee 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 sought to fine the Company in the amount of $5 million. On July 6, 2023, the IGB and the Company entered into a settlement agreement for $1.1 million of which $1.0 million is the fine for the alleged conduct and $0.1 million is for reimbursement of administrative and investigative costs. The amount was paid in the third quarter of 2023. As a result of the settlement agreement, the Company has agreed to review similar initiatives with the IGB before implementing a new program or making any public announcements, require additional annual training of its employees, and provide additional compliance disclosures to the IGB.
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 sought damages for breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as well as unjust enrichment. On June 22, 2022, Gold Rush filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against the Company. The lawsuit alleged that the Company tortiously interfered with Gold Rush’s business activities and engaged in misconduct with respect to the Gold Rush convertible notes. 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 the Company’s conversion of the convertible notes. Discovery ensued on these lawsuits but both suits were dismissed with prejudice as a result of the previously mentioned settlement between the Company and Gold Rush on the convertible notes. The Company also withdrew its petition to judicially review the IGB's decision. For more information, see Note 4.
On March 25, 2022, Midwest Electronics Gaming LLC (“Midwest”) filed an administrative review action against the Illinois Gaming Board, 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. The Company filed a motion to dismiss Midwest’s amended complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part.
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 and for the remaining months of 2022. The Company continued to negotiate with and voluntarily make the appropriate payments to the municipality during 2023 and 2024.
In February 2023, an Illinois municipality issued an order against the Company for the alleged failure to pay a terminal operator tax (“TO Tax”) for the privilege of operating gaming terminals within the municipality. The TO Tax was adopted by the municipality on June 8, 2021, but there was no enforcement of this tax until the Company was issued a notice of hearing in February 2023. In April 2023, the Company, along with numerous other terminal operators, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois contesting the validity and enforceability of the TO Tax and won a temporary restraining order to stay the order. Currently, the matter remains pending as a result of a motion to consolidate and to finalize the assignment of the judge.
The results for the six months ended June 30, 2024 and June 30, 2023 included a loss of $0.2 million and $1.2 million, respectively, related to these matters and is included within general and administrative expenses in the condensed consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive income.