• Home
  • News
  • Casino
  • Legal bid to bind Evolution from uncovering Calcagni Report sponsors fails
igamingnext photo
A New Jersey court denied a white-collar litigation law firm’s bid to prevent Evolution from uncovering the sponsors of the Calcagni Report on Friday (7 June).

Judge John C. Porto said Calcagni & Kanefsky’s (C&K) requested relief was “unnecessary” and reiterated its previous discovery orders for the depositions of multiple firm attorneys and Evolution executives.

C&K had asked the court to clarify that it would not entertain another attempt by Evolution to uncover entities behind the report until the discovery process was complete.

The aftermath of the Calcagni Report’s December 2021 publication, which accused Evolution of operating in prohibited jurisdictions, saw the business lose approximately 30% of its market cap, or around $10bn.

The live casino giant is currently engaged in a multi-billion-dollar defamation case against C&K and has sought to uncover the identities of the investigative firm that put the report together and its ultimate commissioner.

C&K sent a copy of the report to the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE) in 2021, with the DGE concluding in February this year there was “no evidence” it promoted, permitted, or otherwise benefitted from prohibited jurisdictions.

Evolution had attempted to use the DGE ruling to request the court to order the report’s sponsors to be revealed.

NJ Court orders depositions completed

The court rejected this attempt, stating that further work needed to be done first to establish the report’s veracity.

As such, it ordered the previously arranged limited discovery process to be completed, including the depositions of multiple C&K attorneys, as well as current and former Evolution executives.

This, the court said, would help it understand if the report was true.

An appellate court has previously ruled the report’s sponsors should only be unveiled if it is shown to be untruthful.

C&K subsequently filed a motion to prevent Evolution from requesting the court to order the entities behind the report unveiled.

The supplier responded by accusing the firm of delaying tactics, arguing there was no basis for the motion under New Jersey law.

While the identity of the report’s sponsors remains unknown, NEXT.io understands that many in the industry suspect one of Evolution’s competitors was behind the dossier.

Similar posts