igamingnext photo
Attorneys have clashed in New Jersey over whether the court should unmask the entities behind a 2021 attempted takedown of Evolution. 

Evolution is seeking to uncover the identities of the entities behind the 2021 Calcagni Report, which accused it of operating in prohibited jurisdictions.

The live dealer giant has strongly denied these claims, calling the document “inaccurate, false, defamatory and methodologically flawed.”

The New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE) found in February there was “no evidence” that Evolution sanctioned, promoted, permitted, or otherwise materially benefitted from prohibited jurisdictions.

The DGE’s verdict led to Evolution filing a brief that argued the court should now honour a previously submitted discovery request to reveal the identities of the entities that put together the document.

These entities would include the investigative firm that compiled the report and retained law firm Calcagni & Kanefsky (CK), as well as the firm’s client that commissioned the report in the first place.

It is currently unclear who the client is. Anonymous sources quoted by Bloomberg in 2021 asserted the client was an Evolution competitor, but this has not been confirmed.

Evolution and CK attorneys lock horns

Both Evolution and CK (the law firm that released the report) have now submitted arguments for and against the motion.

In their briefs, the two sides clashed over the contents of the DGE letter, New Jersey’s discovery rules and the framework for decision set by the Appellate Court.

The Appellate Court had previously ordered the lower court to consider the discovery request based on the accuracy of the Calcagni Report.

In its decision, the court had highlighted the DGE investigations, arguing it may contain “sufficient enlightenment about the report’s veracity.” 

CK’s attorneys argued the DGE letter actually supported the conclusions of the Calcagni Report, highlighting that the supplier took steps to improve its compliance procedures after its publication.

Evolution’s lawyers hit back, arguing CK’s opposition brief “obfuscates and attempts to confuse the issues.”

Evolution hits back as case continues

Evolution’s lawyers added that CK was unable to refute assertions that the report contained numerous false statements.

The provider also argued that CK “speculate[d], with no basis, about steps Evolution may or may not have taken after regulators received the Calcagni Report.”

Evolution’s attorneys said: “Defendants remarkably seem to allege that, if Evolution made changes after the Calcagni Report, the NJDGE would not have been able to determine what was going on before changes were made, and they try to call the NJDGE’s conclusions into question for that reason.”

Evolution concluded by reiterating its request that the court approve the discovery request within 14 days.

The court has also scheduled oral argument for the discovery request on 12 April.

If the court rules in favour of Evolution, the entity behind the report could potentially be exposed to billions of dollars in liability.

The aftermath of the report’s publication in November 2021 saw Evolution lose around 36% of its market cap, or around $10bn.

Evolution insists it continues to be negatively affected by the report and its contents.

It said competitors have continued to leverage the document’s “damaging and defamatory” statements to win business.

Similar posts