Evolution and C&K’s Legal Battle Shows No Signs of a Resolution

A 7 June ruling saw Judge John C. Porto of the New Jersey Superior Court deny a new motion by law firm Calcagni & Kanefsky (C&K) to prevent Evolution Gaming from uncovering the sponsors behind the controversial Calcagni Report. The report, published in December 2021, accused Evolution of operating in prohibited jurisdictions and significantly damaged the company’s share price.

C&K Already Secured a Similar Concession

The Calcagni Report, which alleged that Evolution was conducting business in jurisdictions where it is not authorized, profoundly impacted the live casino giant, causing its market cap to drop by approximately 30%, equating to a loss of around $10 billion. After the publication, Evolution initiated a multi-billion-dollar defamation lawsuit against C&K, attempting to identify the entities behind the investigative report.

The New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement examined the report in 2021, concluding that Evolution did not operate or benefit from operations in prohibited jurisdictions. While this conclusion restored some of the company’s investor confidence, the damage had already been done. Evolution attempted to leverage this finding to compel the court to reveal the report’s sponsors.

C&K’s newest motion appears baffling, considering the law firm secured a substantial court victory in April. Judge John C. Porto ruled that the court could not approve Evolution’s motion to unveil the report’s sponsors, citing the need for further evidence. Such a revelation would mark a significant development in the legal battle, considering the entity behind the report is likely one of Evolution’s competitors.

A Conclusion Is Nowhere in Sight

A recent report by iGaming news outlet NEXT.io revealed that C&K filed a new motion, seeking to ensure that Evolution would not make another attempt to uncover the entities behind the report. Judge John C. Porto dismissed such action as unnecessary, reiterating his previous stance that Evolution must provide compelling evidence.

The supplier accused C&K of using stalling tactics, delaying the legal process, and preventing vital witnesses from submitting depositions. Evolution argued that C&K’s motion had no basis under New Jersey law. While the court reportedly shared this opinion, the case’s conclusion appears nowhere in sight as the past few months have recorded little progress.

As Evolution and C&K’s legal battle drags on, industry insiders will closely monitor the proceedings even if the identity of the law firm’s mysterious client remains a secret. The case’s resolution will impact more than just the parties involved, setting a precedent for how such disputes may be handled in the future.