COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
|12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
|Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
|COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
NOTE 12. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Operating lease obligations. In February 2014, we entered into a lease (the “Spencer Lease”) for a new corporate office with an unrelated third party. The 5-year Spencer Lease is for a building approximately 24,000 square feet, which is comprised of approximately 16,000 square feet office space and 8,000 square feet warehouse. The property is located in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The initial term of the Spencer Lease commenced on April 1, 2014. We are obligated to pay approximately $153,000 in annual base rent in the first year, and the annual base rent will increase by approximately 4% each year. We are also obligated to pay real estate taxes and other building operating costs. Subject to certain conditions, we have certain rights under the Spencer Lease, including rights of first offer to purchase the premises if the landlord elects to sell. We also have an option to extend the term of the Spencer Lease for two consecutive terms of three years each, at then current fair market value rental rate determined in accordance with the terms of the Lease.
In connection with the Spencer Lease, the landlord agreed to finance tenant improvements of $150,000 (“TI Allowance”). The base rent is increased by an amount sufficient to fully amortize the TI Allowance through the Spencer Lease term upon equal monthly payments of principal and interest, with interest imputed on the outstanding principal balance at the rate of 5.5% per annum. The TI Allowance has been classified as a capital lease on the balance sheet. See Note 10.
Pursuant to the Spencer Lease, we have the option to terminate the Spencer Lease effective at the end of the 36th month (“Termination Date”). We must deliver written notice of our intention to terminate the Spencer Lease to landlord at least six months before the Termination Date. In the event we exercise our option to terminate, we shall pay the landlord a termination fee (the “Termination Fee”) equal to the sum of (i) all unamortized TI Allowance amounts, plus (ii) all unamortized leasing commissions paid by landlord with respect to the Spencer Lease, plus (iii) all unamortized rental abatement amounts.
The amounts shown in the accompanying table reflect our estimates of lease obligations for the twelve months ending 2015 through 2019 and are based upon our current operating leases:
Legal proceedings. In the ordinary course of conducting our business, we are, from time to time, involved in various legal proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory government investigations and other matters, including those in which we are a plaintiff or defendant, that are complex in nature and have outcomes that are difficult to predict. In accordance with ASC Topic 450, we record accruals for such contingencies to the extent we conclude that it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of the related loss can be reasonably estimated. Our assessment of each matter may change based on future unexpected events. An unexpected adverse judgment in any pending litigation could cause a material impact on our business operations, intellectual property, results of operations or financial position. Unless otherwise expressly stated, we believe costs associated with litigation will not have a material impact on our financial position or liquidity, but may be material to the results of operations in any given period. We assume no obligation to update the status of pending litigation, except as may be required by applicable law, statue or regulation.
California administrative action – In March 2003, Galaxy Gaming of California, LLC (“GGCA”), an independent entity managed by GGLLC, submitted an application to the California Gambling Control Commission (“California Commission”) for a determination of suitability to conduct business with tribal gaming operations in California. At the time, our CEO was a member of GGCA and was required to be included in the application process. In July 2013, the California Commission denied the applications of our CEO and GGCA for a finding of suitability. The California Commission also denied a request for stay or any further reconsideration of the matter.
In August 2013, GGCA and our CEO filed a motion for writ of mandate with the Sacramento County Superior Court, asking the Court for a judicial review of the California Commission’s ruling. A hearing on the motion has been scheduled for October 2015. There can be no assurances that the judicial review will be successful or that our CEO will be found suitable. In September 2013, we were notified that until this matter is resolved, we are not permitted to conduct business with tribal casinos in California.
In July 2014, we filed application with the California Bureau of Gambling Control for a finding of suitability. That application is in process. Revenues sourced from California clients for the twelve months ending December 31, 2014 and 2013 were approximately $0 and $167,000, respectively.
Bank of America action. In October 2012, we were served with a complaint by Bank of America (“BofA”) regarding a promissory note payable by GGLLC to BofA. The complaint, filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court in the State of Nevada, alleged that we received valuable assets from GGLLC in 2007 for little or no consideration. In the complaint, BofA sought to collect in full the outstanding principal and any accrued interest owed under the promissory note. We filed a cross-complaint against BofA claiming that abuse of process, slander of business and detrimental promissory reliance. On February 21, 2014, we reached a full settlement and all legal actions against all parties were subsequently dismissed.
In-Bet litigation. In November 2014, we filed a complaint for patent infringement against In Bet Gaming, Inc. and In Bet, LLC, alleging that their “In-Between” side bet game infringes on one or more of our patents. The litigation is currently in the pre-discovery stage.
Red Card Gaming & AGS litigation. In September 2012, we executed an asset purchase agreement (“APA”) with Red Card Gaming, Inc. (“RCG”), for the purchase of all the rights, title and interest in and for the game known as High Card Flush and all associated intellectual property. The APA included customary non-compete, non-disparagement and right of first refusal provisions. In 2014, AGS, LLC (“AGS”) purchased RCG’s rights in the APA and became the assignee of the APA. In September 2014 we notified RCG of their material breach of the APA and discontinued contingent consideration payments. In November 2014, RCG and AGS attempted to terminate the APA and in December 2014, filed a complaint against us alleging trademark infringement. We filed a cross-complaint against RCG and AGS alleging conspiracy to breach the APA, misappropriation of our trade secrets, infringement of our trademark and copy rights and interference with customer relationships. As of the date of this Report, there were pending cross motions for preliminary injunctions in which the parties seek to enjoin each other from selling the High Card Flush game. The parties have agreed the substance of the dispute is to be heard in arbitration and once the hearing is conducted, the case will proceed in arbitration.
Uncertain tax positions. As further discussed in Note 15, we have adopted the provision of ASC 740. We had $67,738 of uncertain tax position as of December 31, 2014. Due to the inherent uncertainty of the underlying tax positions, it is not possible to forecast the payment of this liability to any particular year.