COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2012

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

13.   COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

The Company is obligated under several agreements to pay certain royalties on the sale or rental of gaming devices. Total royalty expense for the Company for the years ended June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010 was $20.8 million, $11.5 million and $8.3 million, respectively, and is included in the cost of gaming equipment and systems in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. In addition, the Company has obtained the rights to certain game themes and intellectual property that call for payment of royalties based on either fixed amounts or variable amounts based on game performance.

Litigation

The Company is subject to legal proceedings, claims and investigations in the ordinary course of business, including claims of alleged infringement of third-party patents and other intellectual property rights, indemnification claims, commercial, employment, regulatory and other matters. Liabilities related to such matters are recorded when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. All legal costs associated with litigation are expensed as incurred.

In February 2012, HBG filed requests for arbitration in the National and International Chamber of Arbitration of Milan, Italy, against the Company's Dutch and Italian subsidiaries ("Bally Netherlands" and "Bally Italy", respectively). HBG alleged breach of contract (i) by Bally Netherlands in connection with a contractual arrangement pursuant to which the Company agreed to supply certain gaming equipment and (ii) by Bally Italy in connection with financial assistance for HBG's acquisition of licenses to operate gaming equipment in certain Italian markets. The Company responded in March 2012 denying the allegations and seeking to dismiss HBG's claims. Bally Netherlands has asserted a counterclaim against HBG for breach of contract for failure to assist in altering its products to conform to regulatory requirements in the Italian market. The counterclaim seeks equitable relief compelling HBG to perform its contractual obligations as well as an undetermined amount of monetary damages. While it is possible the arbitration could result in damages against the Company, management has assessed the merits of HBG's claim for alleged damages of approximately € 114 million and believes a range of potential loss related to this claim is not estimable.

In April 2006, International Game Technology ("IGT") filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint asserted that the Company's Bally Power Bonusing products infringe patents held by IGT, and sought injunctive relief and damages in unspecified amounts. In April 2009, the district court issued an order finding that two of the Company's products, ACSC Power Winners and ACSC Power Reward, infringe some patent claims asserted by IGT, but not others. Both parties appealed. In October 2011, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, and the case will now be remanded back to the district court for discovery and trial on the issue of damages. In the meantime, the Company undertook technical changes to ensure non-infringement for the two products partially in question. Trial is scheduled to commence November 5, 2012.

In December 2004, IGT filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The complaint asserted that the Company's wheel-based games, its games with a reel in the top box and its iVIEW products infringed on patents held by IGT, and sought injunctive relief and damages in unspecified amounts. As part of the defense, the Company asserted counterclaims seeking damages and other relief against IGT, including claims that IGT's patents were invalid, unenforceable and not infringed, as well as several claims that IGT engaged in anti-competitive conduct in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. In October 2008, the court granted the Company's motions for summary judgment, ruling that IGT's two "wheel" patents and a touch-screen player-tracking patent were invalid; that even if the patents were valid, the Company's wheel-based games at issue would not infringe; and that certain of its iVIEW products do not infringe the two asserted player- tracking patents. The summary judgment determinations were upheld by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Upon remand, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of IGT on the remaining portion of the case regarding IGT's alleged antitrust violations and in favor of Bally on IGT's remaining claim that Bally infringed an IGT player tracking patent. An appeal of the summary judgment on Bally's antitrust claims against IGT is pending.

In October 2010, WMS Gaming Inc. ("WMS") filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Northern Illinois. The complaint asserted that several of the Company's products using iReel displays infringe two WMS patents and sought injunctive relief and damages in unspecified amounts. WMS later amended its complaint to assert three additional patents related to the use of a video screen in conjunction with a gaming machine using mechanical reels also infringe certain WMS patents. As part of its response, the Company asserted counterclaims seeking damages and other unspecified relief against WMS for violation of certain Company patents, including claims that the WMS patents are invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed. In November 2011, the Company and WMS entered into a settlement and license agreement to end the litigation. As part of the agreement, the Company obtained a license to the WMS and Aruze Transmissive Reels® gaming technology portfolio under confidential terms.

The Company is also a party to various claims and lawsuits relating to routine matters that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of its' business. Although, management does not currently believe that the outcome of such claims, including the matters discussed above, in the aggregate, will have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and management' s view of these matters may change in the future.

As of June 30, 2012, the Company accrued aggregate liabilities of $10.8 million in other current liabilities for its contingent legal matters. While the Company intends to defend all legal matters vigorously, adverse outcomes that the Company estimates are reasonable could possibly reach approximately $16.0 million in the aggregate beyond recorded amounts. Were unfavorable final outcomes to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the Company's financial statements for the period in which the effects become reasonably estimable.