Company: ACEL
Filing Date: 2025-05-05
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001698991-25-000023
Chunk: 32

Company: Accel Entertainment, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-05-05
Form: 10-Q
Item: Item 1
Chunk 32
---
 Gaming, LLC (“J&J”), as further described below.On August 21, 2012, one of the Company’s operating subsidiaries entered into certain agreements with Jason Rowell (“Rowell”), a member of Action Gaming LLC (“Action Gaming”), which was an unlicensed terminal operator that had exclusive rights to place and operate gaming terminals within a number of establishments, including the Defendant Establishments. Under agreements with Rowell, the Company agreed to pay him for each licensed establishment which decided to enter into an exclusive location agreement with Accel. In late August and early September 2012, each of the Defendant Establishments signed a separate location agreement 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, 

23

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

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