XML 63 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.8
CONTINGENCIES
3 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
CONTINGENCIES  
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure
11.  CONTINGENCIES

Litigation

From time to time, in the normal course of its operations, the Company is a party to litigation matters and claims. Litigation can be expensive and disruptive to normal business operations. Moreover, the results of complex legal proceedings are difficult to predict and the Company's view of these matters may change in the future as the litigation and events related thereto unfold. The Company expenses legal fees as incurred. The Company records a provision for contingent losses when it is both probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount or range of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Except as otherwise stated below, we have concluded that we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, including reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts already accrued, for each specific matter disclosed below. An unfavorable outcome to any legal matter, if material, could have an adverse effect on the Company's operations or its financial position, liquidity or results of operations.

Atlantic Lotteries

In an action brought in the Supreme Court of New Foundland and Labrador by Babstock and Small as representatives of a purported class of persons allegedly harmed by VLT gaming in the Province of New Foundland and Labrador. Atlantic Lottery Corporation has impleaded VLC, Inc., IGT-Canada, Inc., International Game Technology and other third party defendants seeking indemnification for any judgment recovered against Atlantic Lottery Corporation in the main action. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class action certification on September 17, 2012. The Court has decided to address the motion for certification in two phases. Under Phase 1, the Court will determine whether the Plaintiffs have pleaded a cause of action. Hearings on Phase 1 were held on June 6 and 7, 2013. The Court has not yet issued a decision.  Should the Court conclude that Plaintiffs have pleaded a cause of action, then, under Phase 2, the Court would determine the appropriateness of certification of the putative class.
 

Shareholder Actions

On April 8, 2011, the Company was nominally sued in a derivative complaint filed in the US District Court for the District of Nevada, captioned Arduini v. Hart, et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-00255. Plaintiff purportedly brought this action on behalf of the Company. The complaint asserts claims against various current and former officers and directors of the Company, for breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and contribution and indemnification. The complaint sought an unspecified amount of damages. A motion to dismiss was filed. On March 14, 2012, defendants' motion to dismiss the action was granted. On April 3, 2012, the plaintiff appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument has been scheduled for April 10, 2014.

Lightning Box Games

On July 30, 2013, IGT was sued in US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for patent infringement by Lightning Box Games (LBG), captioned Lightning Box Games PTY LTD. v. International Game Technology and Caesars Entertainment Corporation, Case No. 13-cv-5423. LBG alleges infringement of two related patents for "Electronic System for Playing of Reel-Type Games," and specifically accuses IGT's MultiPLAY video slot machines of infringing one or more claims of the patents. LBG is seeking, among other items, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, monetary damages resulting from the infringing conduct (including pre- and post-judgment interest), and court costs. IGT intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in this lawsuit.

Mark E Pollack Arbitration

In January 2013, IGT notified Mark E Pollack that it was terminating eight agreements between IGT and Mr. Pollack relating to services provided by Mr. Pollack (e.g., providing ideas for gaming machines and initiating and arranging meetings with various artists and intellectual property owners).  Mr. Pollack disagreed that IGT could terminate the agreements and the parties entered mediation pursuant to the dispute resolution provisions in the respective agreements.  On October 22, 2013, the parties filed arbitration demands submitting the dispute to arbitration before Judicial Arbitration Mediation Services (JAMS), captioned International Game Technology v. Pollack, Case No. 1260002648 and Pollack v. International Game Technology, Case No. 1260002648.  Mr. Pollack is requesting unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief.  IGT is currently working with Mr. Pollack on the selection of an arbitrator to hear the dispute.
 
WMS Gaming, Inc.

2013 Northern District of Illinois 

On July 2, 2013, IGT was sued by WMS Gaming, Inc. in US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned WMS Gaming, Inc. v. IGT, Case No. 1:13-cv-4788.  The suit relates to a contract between the parties.  WMS alleges that IGT breached the contract, anticipatorily repudiated the contract, breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violated the Nevada Unfair Trade Practices Act.  WMS sought a temporary restraining order, which was denied.  WMS is seeking, among other things, declaratory judgment, specific performance, injunctive relief, unspecified monetary damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.  IGT intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in this lawsuit.

2013 Arbitration

Related to foregoing lawsuit, on September 10, 2013 IGT filed an arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (AAA) against WMS, captioned IGT v. WMS Gaming, Inc., No. 79 517 112 13.  IGT and WMS have a license agreement for Ticket-In-Ticket-Out (TITO) enabled gaming machines.  IGT alleges WMS failed to pay license fees owed on certain products covered by the agreement.  IGT is seeking a judgment that WMS must pay license fees on certain products and monetary damages of $50.0 million resulting from WMS's failure to pay license fees on those products. 

2013 District of Nevada

Related to the foregoing lawsuit and arbitration, on October 22, 2013, WMS filed suit in the US District Court for the District of Nevada, captioned WMS Gaming, Inc. v. IGT, Case No. 3:13-cv-00583.  WMS is seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment that the arbitration provision of the license agreement is unenforceable, alleging that IGT is seeking to arbitrate non-arbitrable issues, and seeking a refund of royalties WMS has allegedly overpaid.  WMS has filed a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin the arbitration. IGT intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in this lawsuit.
 

Global Draw Ltd

On September 17, 2013, Global Draw Limited (an English company) issued proceedings in London against IGT-UK Group Limited (a wholly owned subsidiary of IGT) and IGT, captioned 2013 High Court of Justice (Commercial Court) in London, England, Case No. 2013, Folio 1246. The claim arises out of a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated April 26, 2011 (SPA) pursuant to which Global Draw purchased from IGT-UK all of the shares in an English company called Barcrest Limited. Global Draw seeks to claim against IGT-UK under the terms of indemnities and warranties contained in the SPA, and against IGT under the terms of a guarantee given by IGT in respect of the liabilities of IGT-UK. On November 7, 2013 IGT-UK filed and served a defense and counterclaim in response to the claim and IGT has also entered its defense. The claims assert damages of £1.3 million and US $2.9 million excluding interest, plus other unquantified damages. IGT intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in this lawsuit.

Arrangements with Off-Balance Sheet Risks

In the normal course of business, we are party to financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk, such as performance bonds not reflected in our balance sheet. We do not expect any material losses to result from these arrangements and are not dependent on off-balance sheet financing arrangements to fund our operations.

Performance Bonds

Performance bonds outstanding related to certain gaming operations equipment totaled $19.5 million at December 31, 2013. We are liable to reimburse the bond issuer in the event of exercise due to our nonperformance.

Letters of Credit

Outstanding letters of credit issued under our domestic credit facility to ensure payment to certain vendors and governmental agencies totaled $8.3 million at December 31, 2013.

IGT Licensor Arrangements

Our sales agreements that include software and IP licensing arrangements may require IGT to indemnify the third-party licensee against liability and damages (including legal defense costs) arising from any claims of patent, copyright, trademark infringement, or trade secret misappropriation. Should such a claim occur, we could be required to make payments to the licensee for any liabilities or damages incurred. Historically, we have not incurred any significant settlement costs due to infringement claims. As we consider the likelihood of incurring future costs to be remote, no liability has been recorded.

Self-Insurance

We are self-insured for various levels of workers' compensation, directors' and officers' liability, and electronic errors and omissions liability, as well as employee medical, dental, prescription drug, and disability coverage. We purchase stop loss coverage to protect against unexpected claims. Accrued insurance claims and reserves include estimated settlements for known claims, and actuarial estimates for claims incurred but not reported.

State and Federal Taxes

We are subject to sales, use, income, gaming and other tax audits and administrative proceedings in various US federal, state, local, and foreign jurisdictions. While we believe we have properly reported our tax liabilities in each jurisdiction, we can give no assurance that taxing authorities will not propose adjustments that increase our tax liabilities.

Product Warranties

The majority of our products are generally covered by a warranty for periods ranging from 90 to 180 days. We estimated accrued warranty costs in the table below based on historical trends in product failure rates and expected costs to provide warranty services.

Three Months Ended December 31,
 
2013
  
2012
 
Beginning balance
 
$
4.4
  
$
4.2
 
Reduction for payments made
  
(1.4
)
  
(2.5
)
Accrual for new warranties issued
  
2.6
   
3.9
 
Adjustments for pre-existing warranties
  
(1.5
)
  
(1.4
)
Ending balance
 
$
4.1
  
$
4.2