Company: ACEL
Filing Date: 2025-03-03
Form Type: 10-K
Source: 0001698991-25-000011
Chunk: 101

Company: Accel Entertainment, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-03-03
Form: 10-K
Item: Item 16
Chunk 101
---
 with the Company, purporting to grant the Company the exclusive right to operate gaming terminals in those establishments. Separately, on August 24, 2012, Action Gaming sold and assigned its rights to all its location agreements to J&J, including its exclusive rights with the Defendant Establishments (the “J&J Assigned Agreements”). At the time of the assignment of such rights to J&J, the Defendant Establishments were not yet licensed by the IGB.Action Gaming, J&J, and other parties, collectively, the Plaintiffs, filed a complaint against the Company, Rowell, and other parties in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (the “Circuit Court”), on August 31, 2012, as amended on November 1, 2012, December 19, 2012, and October 3, 2013, alleging, among other things, that Accel aided and abetted Rowell in breaches of his fiduciary duties and contractual obligations with Action Gaming and tortiously interfered with Action Gaming’s contracts with Rowell and agreements assigned to J&J. The complaint seeks damages and injunctive and equitable relief. On January 24, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as further described below. On May 14, 2018, the Circuit Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss and granted a stay to the case, pending a ruling from the IGB on the validity of the J&J Assigned Agreements.From 2013 to 2015, the Plaintiffs filed additional claims, including J&J Ventures Gaming, LLC et al. v. Wild, Inc. (“Wild”), in various circuit courts seeking declaratory judgments with a number of establishments, including each of the Defendant Establishments, requesting declarations that, among other things, J&J held the exclusive right to operate gaming terminals at each of the Defendant Establishments as a result of the J&J Assigned Agreements. The Company was granted leave to intervene in all of the declaratory judgments. The circuit courts found that the J&J Assigned Agreements were valid because each of the underlying location agreements were between an unlicensed establishment and an unlicensed terminal operator, and therefore did 

F-46

Table of ContentsAccel Entertainment, Inc. and SubsidiariesNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements — (Continued)

not constitute use agreements that were otherwise precluded from assignment under the IGB’s regulations. Upon