Litigation	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation	Litigation The Company is involved in various legal proceedings, including those discussed below. We record an accrual for legal contingencies when it is both probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount or range of the loss can be reasonably estimated (although, as discussed below, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of the accrued liability). We evaluate our accruals for legal contingencies at least quarterly and, as appropriate, establish new accruals or adjust existing accruals to reflect (1) the facts and circumstances known to us at the time, including information regarding negotiations, settlements, rulings and other relevant events and developments, (2) the advice and analyses of counsel and (3) the assumptions and judgment of management. Legal costs associated with our legal proceedings are expensed as incurred. We had accrued liabilities of $13.8 million and $47.3 million for all of our legal matters that were contingencies as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively. Substantially all of our legal contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and, therefore, determining the likelihood of a loss and/or the measurement of any loss involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Consequently, the ultimate outcomes of our legal contingencies could result in losses in excess of amounts we have accrued. We may be unable to estimate a range of possible losses for some matters pending against the Company or its subsidiaries, even when the amount of damages claimed against the Company or its subsidiaries is stated because, among other things: (1) the claimed amount may be exaggerated or unsupported; (2) the claim may be based on a novel legal theory or involve a large number of parties; (3) there may be uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class; (4) there may be uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (5) the matter may not have progressed sufficiently through discovery or there may be significant factual or legal issues to be resolved or developed; and/or (6) there may be uncertainty as to the enforceability of legal judgments and outcomes in certain jurisdictions. Other matters have progressed sufficiently that we are able to estimate a range of possible loss. For those legal contingencies disclosed below as to which a loss is reasonably possible, whether in excess of a related accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, and for which we are able to estimate a range of possible loss, the current estimated range is up to approximately $13.1 million in excess of the accrued liabilities (if any) related to those legal contingencies. This aggregate range represents management’s estimate of additional possible loss in excess of the accrued liabilities (if any) with respect to these matters based on currently available information, including any damages claimed by the plaintiffs, and is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions and inherent uncertainties. For example, at the time of making an estimate, management may have only preliminary, incomplete, or inaccurate information about the facts underlying a claim; its assumptions about the future rulings of the court or other tribunal on significant issues, or the behavior and incentives of adverse parties, regulators, indemnitors or co‑defendants, may prove to be wrong; and the outcomes it is attempting to predict are often not amenable to the use of statistical or other quantitative analytical tools. In addition, from time to time an outcome may occur that management had not accounted for in its estimate because it had considered that outcome to be remote. Furthermore, as noted above, the aggregate range does not include any matters for which the Company is not able to estimate a range of possible loss. Accordingly, the estimated aggregate range of possible loss does not represent our maximum loss exposure. Any such losses could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The legal proceedings underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate. Colombia Litigation Our subsidiary, SGI, owned a minority interest in Wintech de Colombia S.A., or Wintech (now liquidated), which formerly operated the Colombian national lottery under a contract with Empresa Colombiana de Recursos para la Salud, S.A. (together with its successors, "Ecosalud"), an agency of the Colombian government. The contract provided for a penalty against Wintech, SGI and the other shareholders of Wintech of up to $5.0 million if certain levels of lottery sales were not achieved. In addition, SGI delivered to Ecosalud a $4.0 million surety bond as a further guarantee of performance under the contract. Wintech started the instant lottery in Colombia but, due to difficulties beyond its control, including, among other factors, social and political unrest in Colombia, frequently interrupted telephone service and power outages, and competition from another lottery being operated in a province of Colombia that we believe was in violation of Wintech’s exclusive license from Ecosalud, the projected sales level was not met for the year ended June 30, 1993. In 1993, Ecosalud issued a resolution declaring that the contract was in default. In 1994, Ecosalud issued a liquidation resolution asserting claims for compensation and damages against Wintech, SGI and other shareholders of Wintech for, among other things, realization of the full amount of the penalty, plus interest, and the amount of the bond. SGI filed separate actions opposing each resolution with the Tribunal Contencioso of Cundinamarca in Colombia (the "Tribunal"), which upheld both resolutions. SGI appealed each decision to the Council of State. In May 2012, the Council of State upheld the contract default resolution, which decision was notified to us in August 2012. In October 2013, the Council of State upheld the liquidation resolution, which decision was notified to us in December 2013. In July 1996, Ecosalud filed a lawsuit against SGI in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia asserting many of the same claims asserted in the Colombia proceedings, including breach of contract, and seeking damages. In March 1997, the District Court dismissed Ecosalud’s claims. Ecosalud appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision in 1998. In June 1999, Ecosalud filed a collection proceeding against SGI to enforce the liquidation resolution and recover the claimed damages. In May 2013, the Tribunal denied SGI’s merit defenses to the collection proceeding and issued an order of payment of approximately 90 billion Colombian pesos (approximately $35.2 million based on the current exchange rate) plus default interest (potentially accrued since 1994). SGI has filed an appeal to the Council of State, which appeal has stayed the payment order. SGI believes it has various defenses, including on the merits, against Ecosalud’s claims. Although we believe these claims will not result in a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows, it is not feasible to predict the final outcome, and there can be no assurance that these claims will not ultimately be resolved adversely to us or result in material liability. SNAI Litigation On April 16, 2012, certain VLTs operated by SNAI S.p.a. ("SNAI") in Italy and supplied by Barcrest erroneously printed what appeared to be winning jackpot and other tickets with a face amount in excess of €400.0 million. SNAI has stated, and system data confirms, that no jackpots were actually won on that day. The terminals have been deactivated by the Italian regulatory authority. Following the incident, we understand that the Italian regulatory authority revoked the certification of the version of the gaming system that Barcrest provided to SNAI and fined SNAI €1.5 million, but determined to not revoke SNAI’s concession to operate VLTs in Italy. In October 2012, SNAI filed a lawsuit in the Court of First Instance of Rome in Italy against Barcrest and Global Draw, our subsidiary which acquired Barcrest from IGT‑UK Group Limited, a subsidiary of International Gaming Technology ("IGT"), claiming liability based on breach of contract and tort. The lawsuit sought to terminate SNAI’s agreement with Barcrest and damages arising from the deactivation of the terminals, including among other things, lost profits, expenses and costs, potential awards to players who have sought to enforce what appeared to be winning jackpot and other tickets, compensation for lost profits sought by managers of the gaming locations where SNAI VLTs supplied by Barcrest were installed, damages to commercial reputation and any future damages arising from SNAI’s potential loss of its concession or inability to obtain a new concession. In June 2013, Barcrest and Global Draw filed a counterclaim based on SNAI’s alleged breach of contract. In September 2013, Global Draw brought an action against IGT‑UK Group Limited and IGT in the High Court of Justice (Commercial Court) in London, England seeking relief under the indemnification and warranty provisions contained in the agreement pursuant to which Barcrest was acquired from IGT‑UK Group, including in connection with the April 2012 incident and a number of ancillary matters. In November 2013, IGT‑UK Group Limited filed a defense in which it denied Global Draw’s claims and counterclaimed based on Global Draw’s alleged breach of contract in connection with another ancillary matter. In September 2014, Global Draw’s motion for summary judgment was granted in respect of one of the ancillary matters but denied in respect of the April 2012 incident. Accordingly, the parties are scheduled to proceed to trial relating to the April 2012 incident and the other remaining issues in May 2015. In February 2015, we entered into a settlement agreement with SNAI that provides, among other things, for us to make a €25.0 million upfront payment to SNAI and to indemnify SNAI against certain potential future losses which payment was made in February 2015. In connection with the settlement, the parties’ pending claims in the Court of First Instance of Rome were dismissed on February 19, 2015. We are continuing to pursue recovery from third party sources in connection with this matter, including IGT and our insurance carriers; however, there can be no assurance that any amounts will ultimately be recovered. On March 16, 2015, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London filed a complaint against the Company, Barcrest and Global Draw seeking a declaratory judgment that such underwriters do not owe insurance coverage for the matters that are the subject of the settlement agreement with SNAI. WMS Acquisition Litigation Complaints challenging the WMS acquisition were filed in early 2013 in the Delaware Court of Chancery, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois and the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois. The actions are putative class actions filed on behalf of WMS stockholders. The complaints generally allege that the WMS directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration and approval of the acquisition and in connection with their public disclosures concerning the acquisition. The complaints allege that other defendants, including WMS, Scientific Games Corporation and certain affiliates of Scientific Games Corporation, aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The plaintiffs sought equitable relief, including to enjoin the acquisition, to rescind the acquisition if not enjoined, damages, attorneys’ fees and other costs. The Delaware actions have been consolidated under the caption In re WMS Stockholders Litigation (C.A. No. 8279‑VCP). The plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware actions submitted to the Delaware Court of Chancery a letter advising that they had conferred with the plaintiffs in the Illinois actions and agreed to stay the consolidated Delaware action. The Lake County, Illinois actions were transferred to Cook County. All of the Illinois actions were consolidated in Cook County with Gardner v. WMS Industries Inc., et al. (No. 2013 CH 3540). In April 2013, the plaintiffs in the Gardner action filed a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the WMS stockholder vote on the acquisition. Following that, in April 2013, lead counsel in the Gardner action, on behalf of counsel for plaintiffs in all actions in Delaware and Illinois, agreed to withdraw the motion for preliminary injunction and not to seek to enjoin the WMS stockholder vote in return for WMS’ agreement to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the acquisition. In January 2014, the plaintiffs in the Illinois action filed an amended complaint seeking damages for the alleged breach of fiduciary duties by the individual defendants and the alleged aiding and abetting of those breaches by WMS and Scientific Games Corporation. In February 2014, WMS and Scientific Games Corporation filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. In September 2014, the plaintiffs’ claims in the Illinois action were dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiffs in the Illinois action have filed a claim for attorneys' fees of $0.9 million, which we have opposed. In February 2015, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action moved to intervene in the Gardner action for the purpose of participating in the motion for attorneys' fees and in March 2015, the Illinois Court granted the motion. In March 2015, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action submitted a motion for voluntary dismissal of the consolidated Delaware actions. The Court granted the motion and the matter was dismissed. Bally Acquisition Litigation Complaints challenging the Bally acquisition were filed in August 2014 in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada. The actions are putative class actions filed on behalf of the public stockholders of Bally and name as defendants Bally, its directors, Scientific Games Corporation and certain of its affiliates. The complaints generally allege that the Bally directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration and approval of the acquisition and that we aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The plaintiffs seek equitable relief, including to enjoin the acquisition, to rescind the acquisition if not enjoined, damages, attorneys’ fees and other costs. All of the actions have been consolidated under the caption In re Bally Technologies, Inc. Shareholders Litigation (C.A. No. A‑14‑ 705012‑B) (the "Nevada Action"). In October 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for limited expedited discovery in connection with an anticipated motion to enjoin the proposed transaction. Following that, in October 2014, Bally and its directors filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint and Scientific Games Corporation and its affiliates filed a motion to dismiss the count of the consolidated complaint alleging wrongdoing by Scientific Games Corporation and its affiliates. Following that, the plaintiffs withdrew their motion for expedited discovery and the parties entered into preliminary settlement discussions. On October 17, 2014, following arm’s‑length negotiations, the parties to the Nevada Action entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") under which they agreed in principle to settle all of the claims asserted in the Nevada Action on a class‑wide basis, subject to certain conditions, including confirmatory discovery by the plaintiffs in the Nevada Action and preliminary and final approval of the Nevada court, which will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. Bally, Scientific Games and the other named defendants entered into the MOU solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, and vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny, the claims alleged in the Nevada Action. The MOU provided that Bally would make certain supplemental disclosures about the transaction in a definitive proxy statement, which it did on October 20, 2014. On November 18, 2014, Bally's stockholders approved the Bally acquisition and the Bally acquisition was consummated on November 21, 2014. After entering into the MOU, the plaintiffs completed confirmatory discovery and concluded that the settlement contemplated by the MOU is fair, reasonable and adequate and is in the best interests of the Bally public stockholders. On April 23, 2015, all parties to the Nevada Action entered into a definitive stipulation and agreement of compromise, settlement and release, providing for all claims that were or could be asserted in the Nevada Action to be dismissed with prejudice on a classwide basis in accordance with the terms of the MOU, subject to court approval. On April 28, 2015, plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the settlement, class certification and notice to class members. The Nevada court has scheduled a hearing on June 2, 2015, to consider that motion. If plaintiffs' motion is granted, defendants will provide notice of the proposed settlement to persons who held shares of Bally stock between August 1, 2014 and November 21, 2014, inclusive, and the court will schedule a hearing at a future date where objections, if any, to the proposed settlement will be heard. There can be no assurance that the Nevada court will approve the settlement. In such event, the proposed settlement will be null and void and of no force and effect. Payments made in connection with the settlement, which are subject to court approval, are not expected to be material. Oregon State Lottery Matter On December 31, 2014, a representative of a purported class of persons alleged to have been financially harmed by relying on the "auto hold" feature of various manufacturers' video lottery terminals played in Oregon, filed suit in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon, against the Oregon State Lottery and various manufacturers, including WMS Gaming Inc. The suit alleges that the auto hold feature of video poker games is perceived by players as providing the best possible playing strategy that will maximize the odds of the player winning, when such auto hold feature does not maximize the players' odds of winning. The plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $134.0 million in monetary damages. In February 2015, WMS Gaming Inc. and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss. On April 21, 2015, the court granted the Oregon State Lottery’s motion to dismiss stating the plaintiff had not satisfied the Oregon Tort Claims Act. As a result of the dismissal, the court indicated that all claims against WMS Gaming Inc. are moot. The plaintiffs have 30 days after entry of judgment to file a notice of appeal.

Litigation

The Company is involved in various legal proceedings, including those discussed below. We record an accrual for legal contingencies when it is both probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount or range of the loss can be reasonably estimated (although, as discussed below, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of the accrued liability). We evaluate our accruals for legal contingencies at least quarterly and, as appropriate, establish new accruals or adjust existing accruals to reflect (1) the facts and circumstances known to us at the time, including information regarding negotiations, settlements, rulings and other relevant events and developments, (2) the advice and analyses of counsel and (3) the assumptions and judgment of management. Legal costs associated with our legal proceedings are expensed as incurred. We had accrued liabilities of $13.8 million and $47.3 million for all of our legal matters that were contingencies as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively.

Substantially all of our legal contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and, therefore, determining the likelihood of a loss and/or the measurement of any loss involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Consequently, the ultimate outcomes of our legal contingencies could result in losses in excess of amounts we have accrued. We may be unable to estimate a range of possible losses for some matters pending against the Company or its subsidiaries, even when the amount of damages claimed against the Company or its subsidiaries is stated because, among other things: (1) the claimed amount may be exaggerated or unsupported; (2) the claim may be based on a novel legal theory or involve a large number of parties; (3) there may be uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class; (4) there may be uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (5) the matter may not have progressed sufficiently through discovery or there may be significant factual or legal issues to be resolved or developed; and/or (6) there may be uncertainty as to the enforceability of legal judgments and outcomes in certain jurisdictions. Other matters have progressed sufficiently that we are able to estimate a range of possible loss. For those legal contingencies disclosed below as to which a loss is reasonably possible, whether in excess of a related accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, and for which we are able to estimate a range of possible loss, the current estimated range is up to approximately $13.1 million in excess of the accrued liabilities (if any) related to those legal contingencies. This aggregate range represents management’s estimate of additional possible loss in excess of the accrued liabilities (if any) with respect to these matters based on currently available information, including any damages claimed by the plaintiffs, and is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions and inherent uncertainties. For example, at the time of making an estimate, management may have only preliminary, incomplete, or inaccurate information about the facts underlying a claim; its assumptions about the future rulings of the court or other tribunal on significant issues, or the behavior and incentives of adverse parties, regulators, indemnitors or co‑defendants, may prove to be wrong; and the outcomes it is attempting to predict are often not amenable to the use of statistical or other quantitative analytical tools. In addition, from time to time an outcome may occur that management had not accounted for in its estimate because it had considered that outcome to be remote. Furthermore, as noted above, the aggregate range does not include any matters for which the Company is not able to estimate a range of possible loss. Accordingly, the estimated aggregate range of possible loss does not represent our maximum loss exposure. Any such losses could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The legal proceedings underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate.

Colombia Litigation

Our subsidiary, SGI, owned a minority interest in Wintech de Colombia S.A., or Wintech (now liquidated), which formerly operated the Colombian national lottery under a contract with Empresa Colombiana de Recursos para la Salud, S.A. (together with its successors, "Ecosalud"), an agency of the Colombian government. The contract provided for a penalty against Wintech, SGI and the other shareholders of Wintech of up to $5.0 million if certain levels of lottery sales were not achieved. In addition, SGI delivered to Ecosalud a $4.0 million surety bond as a further guarantee of performance under the contract. Wintech started the instant lottery in Colombia but, due to difficulties beyond its control, including, among other factors, social and political unrest in Colombia, frequently interrupted telephone service and power outages, and competition from another lottery being operated in a province of Colombia that we believe was in violation of Wintech’s exclusive license from Ecosalud, the projected sales level was not met for the year ended June 30, 1993.

In 1993, Ecosalud issued a resolution declaring that the contract was in default. In 1994, Ecosalud issued a liquidation resolution asserting claims for compensation and damages against Wintech, SGI and other shareholders of Wintech for, among other things, realization of the full amount of the penalty, plus interest, and the amount of the bond. SGI filed separate actions opposing each resolution with the Tribunal Contencioso of Cundinamarca in Colombia (the "Tribunal"), which upheld both resolutions. SGI appealed each decision to the Council of State. In May 2012, the Council of State upheld the contract default resolution, which decision was notified to us in August 2012. In October 2013, the Council of State upheld the liquidation resolution, which decision was notified to us in December 2013.

In July 1996, Ecosalud filed a lawsuit against SGI in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia asserting many of the same claims asserted in the Colombia proceedings, including breach of contract, and seeking damages. In March 1997, the District Court dismissed Ecosalud’s claims. Ecosalud appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision in 1998.

In June 1999, Ecosalud filed a collection proceeding against SGI to enforce the liquidation resolution and recover the claimed damages. In May 2013, the Tribunal denied SGI’s merit defenses to the collection proceeding and issued an order of payment of approximately 90 billion Colombian pesos (approximately $35.2 million based on the current exchange rate) plus default interest (potentially accrued since 1994). SGI has filed an appeal to the Council of State, which appeal has stayed the payment order.

SGI believes it has various defenses, including on the merits, against Ecosalud’s claims. Although we believe these claims will not result in a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows, it is not feasible to predict the final outcome, and there can be no assurance that these claims will not ultimately be resolved adversely to us or result in material liability.

SNAI Litigation

On April 16, 2012, certain VLTs operated by SNAI S.p.a. ("SNAI") in Italy and supplied by Barcrest erroneously printed what appeared to be winning jackpot and other tickets with a face amount in excess of €400.0 million. SNAI has stated, and system data confirms, that no jackpots were actually won on that day. The terminals have been deactivated by the Italian regulatory authority. Following the incident, we understand that the Italian regulatory authority revoked the certification of the version of the gaming system that Barcrest provided to SNAI and fined SNAI €1.5 million, but determined to not revoke SNAI’s concession to operate VLTs in Italy.

In October 2012, SNAI filed a lawsuit in the Court of First Instance of Rome in Italy against Barcrest and Global Draw, our subsidiary which acquired Barcrest from IGT‑UK Group Limited, a subsidiary of International Gaming Technology ("IGT"), claiming liability based on breach of contract and tort. The lawsuit sought to terminate SNAI’s agreement with Barcrest and damages arising from the deactivation of the terminals, including among other things, lost profits, expenses and costs, potential awards to players who have sought to enforce what appeared to be winning jackpot and other tickets, compensation for lost profits sought by managers of the gaming locations where SNAI VLTs supplied by Barcrest were installed, damages to commercial reputation and any future damages arising from SNAI’s potential loss of its concession or inability to obtain a new concession. In June 2013, Barcrest and Global Draw filed a counterclaim based on SNAI’s alleged breach of contract.

In September 2013, Global Draw brought an action against IGT‑UK Group Limited and IGT in the High Court of Justice (Commercial Court) in London, England seeking relief under the indemnification and warranty provisions contained in the agreement pursuant to which Barcrest was acquired from IGT‑UK Group, including in connection with the April 2012 incident and a number of ancillary matters. In November 2013, IGT‑UK Group Limited filed a defense in which it denied Global Draw’s claims and counterclaimed based on Global Draw’s alleged breach of contract in connection with another ancillary matter. In September 2014, Global Draw’s motion for summary judgment was granted in respect of one of the ancillary matters but denied in respect of the April 2012 incident. Accordingly, the parties are scheduled to proceed to trial relating to the April 2012 incident and the other remaining issues in May 2015.

In February 2015, we entered into a settlement agreement with SNAI that provides, among other things, for us to make a €25.0 million upfront payment to SNAI and to indemnify SNAI against certain potential future losses which payment was made in February 2015. In connection with the settlement, the parties’ pending claims in the Court of First Instance of Rome were dismissed on February 19, 2015. We are continuing to pursue recovery from third party sources in connection with this matter, including IGT and our insurance carriers; however, there can be no assurance that any amounts will ultimately be recovered.

On March 16, 2015, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London filed a complaint against the Company, Barcrest and Global Draw seeking a declaratory judgment that such underwriters do not owe insurance coverage for the matters that are the subject of the settlement agreement with SNAI.

WMS Acquisition Litigation

Complaints challenging the WMS acquisition were filed in early 2013 in the Delaware Court of Chancery, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois and the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois. The actions are putative class actions filed on behalf of WMS stockholders. The complaints generally allege that the WMS directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration and approval of the acquisition and in connection with their public disclosures concerning the acquisition. The complaints allege that other defendants, including WMS, Scientific Games Corporation and certain affiliates of Scientific Games Corporation, aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The plaintiffs sought equitable relief, including to enjoin the acquisition, to rescind the acquisition if not enjoined, damages, attorneys’ fees and other costs.

The Delaware actions have been consolidated under the caption In re WMS Stockholders Litigation (C.A. No. 8279‑VCP). The plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware actions submitted to the Delaware Court of Chancery a letter advising that they had conferred with the plaintiffs in the Illinois actions and agreed to stay the consolidated Delaware action.

The Lake County, Illinois actions were transferred to Cook County. All of the Illinois actions were consolidated in Cook County with Gardner v. WMS Industries Inc., et al. (No. 2013 CH 3540).

In April 2013, the plaintiffs in the Gardner action filed a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the WMS stockholder vote on the acquisition. Following that, in April 2013, lead counsel in the Gardner action, on behalf of counsel for plaintiffs in all actions in Delaware and Illinois, agreed to withdraw the motion for preliminary injunction and not to seek to enjoin the WMS stockholder vote in return for WMS’ agreement to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the acquisition.

In January 2014, the plaintiffs in the Illinois action filed an amended complaint seeking damages for the alleged breach of fiduciary duties by the individual defendants and the alleged aiding and abetting of those breaches by WMS and Scientific Games Corporation. In February 2014, WMS and Scientific Games Corporation filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. In September 2014, the plaintiffs’ claims in the Illinois action were dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiffs in the Illinois action have filed a claim for attorneys' fees of $0.9 million, which we have opposed.

In February 2015, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action moved to intervene in the Gardner action for the purpose of participating in the motion for attorneys' fees and in March 2015, the Illinois Court granted the motion.

In March 2015, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action submitted a motion for voluntary dismissal of the consolidated Delaware actions. The Court granted the motion and the matter was dismissed.

Bally Acquisition Litigation

Complaints challenging the Bally acquisition were filed in August 2014 in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada. The actions are putative class actions filed on behalf of the public stockholders of Bally and name as defendants Bally, its directors, Scientific Games Corporation and certain of its affiliates. The complaints generally allege that the Bally directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration and approval of the acquisition and that we aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The plaintiffs seek equitable relief, including to enjoin the acquisition, to rescind the acquisition if not enjoined, damages, attorneys’ fees and other costs.

All of the actions have been consolidated under the caption In re Bally Technologies, Inc. Shareholders Litigation (C.A. No. A‑14‑ 705012‑B) (the "Nevada Action"). In October 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for limited expedited discovery in connection with an anticipated motion to enjoin the proposed transaction. Following that, in October 2014, Bally and its directors filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint and Scientific Games Corporation and its affiliates filed a motion to dismiss the count of the consolidated complaint alleging wrongdoing by Scientific Games Corporation and its affiliates. Following that, the plaintiffs withdrew their motion for expedited discovery and the parties entered into preliminary settlement discussions.

On October 17, 2014, following arm’s‑length negotiations, the parties to the Nevada Action entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") under which they agreed in principle to settle all of the claims asserted in the Nevada Action on a class‑wide basis, subject to certain conditions, including confirmatory discovery by the plaintiffs in the Nevada Action and preliminary and final approval of the Nevada court, which will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. Bally, Scientific Games and the other named defendants entered into the MOU solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, and vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny, the claims alleged in the Nevada Action. The MOU provided that Bally would make certain supplemental disclosures about the transaction in a definitive proxy statement, which it did on October 20, 2014.

On November 18, 2014, Bally's stockholders approved the Bally acquisition and the Bally acquisition was consummated on November 21, 2014. After entering into the MOU, the plaintiffs completed confirmatory discovery and concluded that the settlement contemplated by the MOU is fair, reasonable and adequate and is in the best interests of the Bally public stockholders.

On April 23, 2015, all parties to the Nevada Action entered into a definitive stipulation and agreement of compromise, settlement and release, providing for all claims that were or could be asserted in the Nevada Action to be dismissed with prejudice on a classwide basis in accordance with the terms of the MOU, subject to court approval. On April 28, 2015, plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the settlement, class certification and notice to class members. The Nevada court has scheduled a hearing on June 2, 2015, to consider that motion. If plaintiffs' motion is granted, defendants will provide notice of the proposed settlement to persons who held shares of Bally stock between August 1, 2014 and November 21, 2014, inclusive, and the court will schedule a hearing at a future date where objections, if any, to the proposed settlement will be heard.

There can be no assurance that the Nevada court will approve the settlement. In such event, the proposed settlement will be null and void and of no force and effect. Payments made in connection with the settlement, which are subject to court approval, are not expected to be material.

Oregon State Lottery Matter

On December 31, 2014, a representative of a purported class of persons alleged to have been financially harmed by relying on the "auto hold" feature of various manufacturers' video lottery terminals played in Oregon, filed suit in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon, against the Oregon State Lottery and various manufacturers, including WMS Gaming Inc. The suit alleges that the auto hold feature of video poker games is perceived by players as providing the best possible playing strategy that will maximize the odds of the player winning, when such auto hold feature does not maximize the players' odds of winning. The plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $134.0 million in monetary damages.

In February 2015, WMS Gaming Inc. and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss. On April 21, 2015, the court granted the Oregon State Lottery’s motion to dismiss stating the plaintiff had not satisfied the Oregon Tort Claims Act. As a result of the dismissal, the court indicated that all claims against WMS Gaming Inc. are moot. The plaintiffs have 30 days after entry of judgment to file a notice of appeal.