Company: ACEL
Filing Date: 2025-05-05
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001698991-25-000023
Chunk: 33

Company: Accel Entertainment, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-05-05
Form: 10-Q
Item: Item 1
Chunk 33
---
 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 not constitute use agreements that were otherwise precluded from assignment under the IGB’s regulations. Upon the Company’s appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District (the “District Court”), vacated the circuit courts’ judgments and dismissed the appeals, holding that the IGB had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter that formed the basis of the parties’ claims, and declined to consider the merits of the parties’ disputes. On September 22, 2016, and after the IGB intervened, the Supreme Court of Illinois issued a judgment in Wild, affirming the District Court’s decision vacating the circuit courts’ judgments for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismissing the appeals, determining that the IGB has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the validity and enforceability of gaming terminal use agreements.Between May 2017 and September 2017, both the Company and J&J filed petitions with the IGB seeking adjudication of the rights of the parties and the validity of the use agreements. Those petitions were recently adjudicated by the IGB, largely in the Company’s favor, and J&J has filed two new lawsuits to challenge the IGB’s rulings. J&J lost at both the trial court and appellate court level and recently filed a petition with the Illinois Supreme Court seeking permission for a further appeal. The petition for leave to appeal was denied by the Illinois Supreme Court. The second case is awaiting a ruling at the trial court level. The Company does not have a present estimate regarding the potential damages, if any, that could potentially be awarded in this litigation and, accordingly, has established no reserves relating to such matters.On October 7, 2019, the Company filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against Rowell and other parties related to Rowell’s breaches of his non-compete agreement with Accel. The Company alleged that Rowell and a competitor were working together to interfere with the Company’s customer relationships. On November 7, 2019, Row