n June 13, 2007, the U.S. District Court for Nevada ruled that the two lawyers failed to meet their burden of proof of establishing their case of whistleblower retaliation, as they alleged, under the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and that IGT was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Shawn and Lena Van Asdale initially filed a complaint in July 2004 with the U.S. Department of Labor (OSHA), alleging retaliatory termination in violation of Sarbanes. The former employees alleged that they were terminated in retaliation for asking for an investigation of whether Anchor Gaming and its executives failed to properly disclose information allegedly affecting the value of Anchor’s patents in connection with IGT’s acquisition of Anchor in 2001.
In November 2004, the Van Asdales withdrew their OSHA complaint and on December 1, 2004, they filed a complaint, under seal, in the U.S. District Court for Nevada, which is the complaint addressed in the summary judgment.
The former employees also alleged that the acquired patents were overvalued on IGT’s financial statements. Outside counsel, retained by an independent committee of the Board of Directors, reviewed the allegations and found them to be entirely without merit. The Court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ pendant state law claims without prejudice.