Evolution AB’s Legal Triumph in New Jersey

Evolution AB’s Significant Legal Victory

Evolution AB, renowned for creating some of the most popular live casino games in the industry, can now celebrate a significant legal victory in a case it has been defending in New Jersey.

Back in 2021, a mysterious report emerged, accusing the company of distributing its products in regions where gambling was not legally sanctioned.

Evolution’s Resolve to Address the Report that Impacted $3 Billion in Value

The consequences of this disclosure were severe, leading to a massive devaluation of the company’s stocks, with losses totaling approximately $3 billion at that time.

• Initially, Evolution did not disclose its strategy but later took action to identify those responsible for the damaging allegations.
• Evolution consistently argued that the report’s claims were baseless and intended solely to damage the company’s reputation.
• An independent investigation by New Jersey regulators corroborated the company’s assertions.

On February 28, John C. Porto, a Superior Court judge, decreed that Calcagni & Kanefsky LLP, representing the anonymous party, must disclose their identity within seven days.

The court articulated, “The report lacks veracity and the plaintiff is entitled to all relevant discovery necessary. This court further finds that pursuit of the truth of the parties’ assertions is necessary here and disclosure of the client’s identity is ordered.”

Loss of Anonymity for Defendants After Report’s Claims are Discredited

It remains uncertain what actions Evolution will take once the identities of those who commissioned the report are known. However, the company has managed to mitigate the impact of the report.

• An investigation by New Jersey’s Department of Gaming Enforcement found no wrongdoing by Evolution.
• The regulator concluded that the report was misleading and unprotected.
• Judge C. Porto referenced this ruling in his own decision.

The coming days promise to be revealing, potentially identifying whether the source of the notorious report was a competitor, a company insider, or an entirely unknown entity.