Item 1. Legal Proceedings
ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
The following descriptions include updates since the filing of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, relating to the proceedings involving the Company. In addition to the matters described below, we are also involved in ordinary routine litigation matters which are incidental to our business. Refer to Note 16, Contingencies, to our condensed consolidated financial statements, for further information.
Kater Class Action Suit
On April 17, 2015, the Kater litigation was filed in the Washington District Court alleging, among other claims, that the Company’s "Big Fish Casino" operated by the Company’s then-wholly owned mobile gaming subsidiary Big Fish Games, violated Washington law, including the Washington Consumer Protection Act, by facilitating unlawful gambling through its virtual casino games (namely the slots, blackjack, poker, and roulette games offered through Big Fish Casino), and seeking, among other things, return of monies lost, reasonable attorney’s fees, treble damages, and injunctive relief. As previously disclosed, on January 9, 2018, the Company sold Big Fish Games to Aristocrat, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Aristocrat Leisure Limited, an Australian corporation, pursuant to the Stock Purchase Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the Stock Purchase Agreement, the Company agreed to indemnify Aristocrat for the losses and expenses associated with the Kater litigation for Big Fish Games, which is referred to in the Stock Purchase Agreement as the "Primary Specified Litigation."
After the Washington District Court dismissed the case with prejudice on November 19, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the Washington District Court’s dismissal of the complaint on March 28, 2018. The complaint was amended on March 20, 2019, to add Big Fish Games as a party and to assert claims on behalf of an additional plaintiff, Suzie Kelly. Prior disclosures in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission have identified the extensive procedural history associated with this case.
As previously disclosed, on May 22, 2020, the parties entered into an agreement in principle to settle the Kater litigation and the Thimmegowda litigation. The agreement in principle remains contingent on final court approval by the Washington District Court. Under the terms of the settlement, which will take effect only after final court approval of the proposed class settlement: (i) a total of $155.0 million will be paid into a settlement fund. CDI will pay $124.0 million of the settlement from its available cash; Aristocrat will pay $31.0 million of the settlement; (ii) all members of the nationwide settlement class who do not exclude themselves will release all claims relating to the subject matter of the lawsuits; and (iii) Aristocrat has agreed to specifically release CDI of any and all indemnification obligations under the Stock Purchase Agreement arising from or related to the Kater and Thimmegowda litigations, including any claims of diminution of value of Big Fish Games and any claims by any person who opts out of the proposed class settlement.
On July 24, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.
Thimmegowda Class Action Suit
On February 11, 2019, the Thimmegowda litigation was filed in the Washington District Court alleging, among other claims, that “Big Fish Casino,” which is operated by Big Fish Games, violated Washington law, including the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and seeking, among other things, return of monies lost, reasonable attorney’s fees, injunctive relief, and treble and punitive damages. Prior disclosures in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission have identified the extensive procedural history associated with this case.
As previously disclosed, on May 22, 2020, the parties entered into an agreement in principle to settle the Kater and Thimmegowda litigations. The agreement in principle with respect to the Thimmegowda litigation is described above, under the "Kater Class Action Suit."
Kentucky Downs, LLC, et al. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Public Protection Cabinet, Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, et al.
On January 4, 2019, Kentucky Downs, LLC and Kentucky Racing Acquisition, LLC (collectively, "Petitioners") filed a Petition for Review and Appeal of Approval of WKY Development, LLC License Application and Denial of Kentucky Downs, LLC License Application styled Kentucky Downs, LLC, et al. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Public Protection Cabinet, Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, et al. in the Franklin Circuit Court, Commonwealth of Kentucky. Petitioners appealed the vote of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, which awarded WKY Development, LLC, our joint venture with Keeneland, a license to conduct live racing and pari-mutuel wagering in Christian County, Kentucky and denied Petitioners’ application for a license to conduct live racing and pari-mutuel wagering in Christian County, Kentucky. WKY Development, LLC is a joint venture owned 95% by the Company and 5% by Keeneland. In late 2019, the parties submitted briefs on threshold legal issues per a
FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2020
51
directive from the Franklin County Court and, thereafter, on February 27, 2020, Petitioners filed a voluntary motion to dismiss their appeal with prejudice. The Court granted that motion and dismissed the appeal with prejudice on April 8, 2020.
Louisiana Horsemens' Purses Class Action Suit
On April 21, 2014, John L. Soileau and other individuals filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Permanent Injunction, and Damages-Class Action styled John L. Soileau, et. al. versus Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, LLC, Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC (Suit No. 14-3873) in the Parish of Orleans Civil District Court, State of Louisiana (the "District Court"). The petition defined the "alleged plaintiff class" as quarter horse owners, trainers and jockeys that have won purses at the "Fair Grounds Race Course & Slots" facility in New Orleans, Louisiana since the first effective date of La. R.S. 27:438 and specifically since 2008. The petition alleged that Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, LLC and Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC ("Fair Grounds Defendants") have collected certain monies through video draw poker devices that constitute monies earned for purse supplements and all of those supplemental purse monies have been paid to thoroughbred horsemen during Fair Grounds’ live thoroughbred horse meets. La. R.S. 27:438 requires a portion of those supplemental purse monies to be paid to quarter-horse horsemen during Fair Grounds’ live quarter-horse meets. The petition requested that the District Court declare that Fair Grounds Defendants violated La. R.S. 27:438, issue a permanent and mandatory injunction ordering Fair Grounds Defendants to pay all future supplements due to the plaintiff class pursuant to La. R.S. 27:438, and to pay the plaintiff class such sums as it finds to reasonably represent the value of the sums due to the plaintiff class. On August 14, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amendment to their petition naming the Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association 1993, Inc. ("HBPA") as an additional defendant and alleging that HBPA is also liable to plaintiffs for the disputed purse funds. On October 9, 2014, HBPA and Fair Grounds Defendants filed exceptions to the suit, including an exception of primary jurisdiction seeking referral to the Louisiana Racing Commission. By Judgment dated November 21, 2014, the District Court granted the exception of primary jurisdiction and referred the matter to the Louisiana Racing Commission. On January 26, 2015, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs’ request for supervisory review of the Judgment. On August 24, 2015, the Louisiana Racing Commission ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing or a right of action to pursue the case. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the District Court, which affirmed the Louisiana Racing Commission’s ruling. The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the District Court’s decision with the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the Louisiana Racing Commission’s ruling and remanded the matter to the Louisiana Racing Commission for further proceedings on June 13, 2018. The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Fair Grounds Defendants’ Motion for Rehearing on July 12, 2018 and the Louisiana Supreme Court denied the Fair Grounds Defendants’ Writ of Certiorari seeking review of that decision on November 14, 2018.
The parties had previously attempted to mediate the matter in October 2018, but were unsuccessful. Thereafter, the parties resumed informal settlement discussions, and, as a result, the Company established an accrual for an immaterial amount in the third quarter of 2019. The parties submitted a settlement agreement to the District Court on February 14, 2020, following the Louisiana Racing Commission’s approval to transfer the matter to the District Court for approval and administration of the settlement agreement on February 12, 2020. At a hearing on February 18, 2020, the District Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and set certain deadlines relating to actions to be taken by class members. A fairness hearing with the District Court relating to the terms of the settlement agreement was set for April 27, 2020, but has been postponed to October 7-9, 2020, as a result of court closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The settlement agreement requires, among other items, the Fair Grounds Defendants to (i) pay a certain out-of-pocket amount that is within the amount for which we established an accrual in the third quarter of 2019, and (ii) support legislation that allocates a specified amount of video poker purse funds to quarter horse purses for races at Fair Grounds with maximum annual payout caps that are not deemed material. On June 13, 2020, the legislation addressed in the settlement agreement was passed by the legislature and signed into law by the Governor of Louisiana. The settlement includes a release of claims against the Fair Grounds Defendants in connection with the proceeding, although individual plaintiffs may opt-out. If there are opt-out claims in excess of $50,000, the settlement will be voided, unless the parties agree to stipulate otherwise. The settlement agreement is subject to certain conditions, including court approval. After the parties entered into the settlement, legal counsel for six objecting, named plaintiffs filed an amended petition with the District Court. After a hearing on July 20, 2020, the District Court dismissed the amended petition. The objecting plaintiffs have filed a notice of their intention to seek a writ with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit related to the dismissal of the amended petition.
FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2020
52
Text extracted from the filing as submitted to EDGAR. Formatting, tables and exhibits are simplified for reading; the original document is authoritative for anything you rely on.