COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

3 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

8. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

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 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 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. A trial date has not been set.

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. On October 6, 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.

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.

The Company has accrued liabilities related to these contingent liabilities, but such amounts, including the potential range of amounts that management believes is likely, are not material to the financial statements. While the matters described above are subject to inherent uncertainties, management believes that the ultimate resolution of such matters, individually or in aggregate, will not have a material effect on the financial statements.