Evolution’s Ongoing Legal Battle: Unveiling Accusers Amidst Regulatory Vindication

A notorious report that once caused a significant $3 billion loss in share value for Evolution in 2021 has recently become a central point in the company’s legal battles, with new developments unfolding in this ongoing narrative.

New Developments in the Saga of Evolution’s Accusers

The company has stood firm against several regulatory probes, including one by the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE), which determined that the report was unsubstantial. Since the report’s release and dissemination to the media four years ago, Evolution has been actively defending itself.

Another regulatory body, the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, also came to a similar conclusion, finding no misconduct in Evolution’s actions.

Previously, none of the regulators had discovered any evidence suggesting that the company had knowingly marketed or profited from its products being utilized by unlicensed entities.

In late February, a New Jersey Superior Court judge ordered Calcagni & Kanefsky LLP, the firm representing the individual or individuals behind the damaging report, to disclose the identity of their clients.

The decision was made on Friday, February 28, and the judge granted the law firm a seven-day window to comply. However, Calcagni & Kanefsky LLP responded with an emergency motion on Monday, March 3, seeking a stay of the previous order.

Evolution must act swiftly to contest the motion today, with an oral argument expected to be concluded by the end of this week.

If the attempt to stay the order is unsuccessful, the identities of Evolution’s accusers will finally be unveiled after over three years of speculation. It is important to note that even if Evolution learns the identities of the accusers, this does not imply that the company will necessarily make this information public.

The law firm representing the unnamed defendants argued in their filing that they would face significant, immediate, and irreparable harm if a stay is not granted, citing:

‘(i) it will be forced to disclose confidential client information, a disclosure that cannot be undone; and (ii) disclosure of the identities of the investigative firm and its client will moot appeal of the February 28 Order, thus insulating that ruling from appellate review.’

The firm further asserted that granting the stay would also serve the public interest and uphold attorney-client privilege.

Previous Efforts by Evolution to Identify Accusers

Despite the anticipation surrounding the identities of those behind the report, there is no assurance that the public is any closer to discovering them.

In 2022, Evolution attempted to uncover the identity of the accuser(s), but its efforts were halted by the state’s Appellate Division, which indicated that a deeper understanding of the report itself was necessary to determine whether the company was justified in demanding the identities of its accusers.

With regulators now exonerating Evolution, the company is in a more advantageous position. It hinges on whether the new filing is unsuccessful and whether Evolution responds promptly.