Litigation

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Litigation

Litigation

        We are involved in various routine and other specific legal proceedings, including the following which are described in Note 21 within our 2019 10-K: the Colombia litigation, SNAI litigation, Washington State Matter and Raqqa Matter. There have been no material changes to these matters since the 2019 10-K was filed with the SEC, except as described below.

We record an accrual for legal contingencies when it is both probable that a liability has been 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 $3 million for all of our legal matters that were contingencies as of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019.

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 us or our subsidiaries, even when the amount of damages claimed against us or our 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 in Note 21 in our 2019 10-K and this Note 16 as well as those related to the previously disclosed settlement agreement entered into in February 2015 with SNAI S.p.a., 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 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 we are 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 results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. The legal proceedings underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate.

TCS John Huxley Matter

On March 15, 2019, TCS John Huxley America, Inc., TCS John Huxley Europe Ltd., TCS John Huxley Asia Ltd., and Taiwan Fulgent Enterprise Co., Ltd. brought a civil action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against SGC, Bally Technologies, Inc. and SG Gaming. In the complaint, the plaintiffs assert federal antitrust claims arising from the defendants’ procurement of particular U.S. and South African patents. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants used those patents to create an allegedly illegal monopoly in the market for automatic card shufflers sold to regulated casinos in the United States. On April 10, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice. On April 25, 2019, the district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice pursuant to the court’s local rules, after the plaintiffs advised that they intended to file an amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on May 3, 2019, and on May 22, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint with prejudice. On March 20, 2020, the district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint, and defendants filed an answer to Plaintiffs’ amended complaint on June 19, 2020. On June 3, 2020, the trial court granted the defendants’ request to bifurcate proceedings in the case, with discovery to occur first into the statute of limitations and release defenses asserted by the defendants in their motion to dismiss, before proceeding into broader discovery. The trial court set a September 18, 2020, deadline for the parties to complete discovery relating to the statute of limitations and release defenses. We are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.

SciPlay IPO Matter (New York)

On or about October 14, 2019, the Police Retirement System of St. Louis filed a putative class action complaint in New York state court against SciPlay, certain of its executives and directors, and SciPlay’s underwriters with respect to its initial public offering (the “PRS Action”). The complaint was amended on November 18, 2019. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons or entities who acquired Class A common stock of SciPlay pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement filed and issued in connection with SciPlay’s initial public offering, which commenced on or about May 3, 2019. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77, and seeks certification of the putative class; compensatory damages of at least $146 million, and the award of the plaintiff’s and the class’s reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action.

On or about December 9, 2019, Hongwei Li filed a putative class action complaint in New York state court asserting substantively similar causes of action under the Securities Act of 1933 and substantially similar factual allegations as those alleged in the PRS Action (the “Li Action”). On December 18, 2019, the New York state court entered a stipulated order consolidating the PRS Action and the Li Action into a single lawsuit. On December 23, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated action. We are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss, if any. We believe that the claims in the lawsuit are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them.

Sylebra Matter

On October 23, 2019, Sylebra Capital Partners Master Fund, Limited and P Sylebra, Limited (together, “Sylebra”) filed a complaint in Delaware Chancery Court against SGC, SG Gaming, Inc., and certain of SGC’s current and former executives and directors. The complaint asserts claims for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and alleged aiding and abetting of such alleged breaches of fiduciary duty; for alleged unjust enrichment; for alleged anticipatory breach of Sylebra’s alleged rights under SGC’s prior Restated Certificate of Incorporation (“prior Charter”) and for alleged breach of that prior Charter; for alleged violations of certain Delaware statutes; and for alleged tortious interference with contract. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief, money damages, and the award of the plaintiffs’ costs and expenses incurred in the action. On December 20, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss Sylebra’s complaint. In response, on January 27, 2020, Sylebra filed an amended complaint, and on February 28, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss Sylebra’s amended complaint. On June 30, 2020, the trial court heard oral argument on defendants’ motion to dismiss Sylebra’s amended complaint. We are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any. We believe that the claims in the lawsuit are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them.

SciPlay IPO Matter (Nevada)

On or about November 4, 2019, plaintiff John Good filed a putative class action complaint in Nevada state court against SciPlay, certain of its executives and directors, SGC, and SciPlay’s underwriters with respect to SciPlay’s initial public offering. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons who purchased Class A common stock of SciPlay in or traceable to SciPlay’s initial public offering that it completed on or about May 7, 2019. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77, and seeks certification of the putative class; compensatory damages, and the award of the plaintiff’s and the class’s reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action. On February 27, 2020, the trial court entered a stipulated order that, among other things, stayed the lawsuit pending entry of an order resolving the motion to dismiss that is pending in the SciPlay initial public offering matter in New York state court. We are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any. We believe that the claims in the lawsuit are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them.

For additional information regarding our pending litigation matters, see Note 21 in our 2019 10-K.