【sw777 cassino】NJ judge to rule on Evolution accuser unmasking by end of March  

Judge John C. Porto ruled last Friday (28 February) the investigative firm which compiled the original report, which resulted in billions in value being wiped from its share price, and the entity which commissioned it should be revealed in discovery.

This followed the live casino giant being cleared by the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement and the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board from the allegations in the report last year.

The decision marked the biggest news so far in the now years-long case, and meant a resolution to the mystery of who was ultimately behind the report was within sight.

Calcagni & Kanefsky LLP (CK), the law firm representing the unknown groups, filed a motion for an emergency stay earlier this week, pending an appeal to a higher court.

As oral argument has been requested, the judge has ordered that a decision on the stay will now be made on 28 March, with details to follow.

Evolution yesterday filed its brief opposing the stay, highlighting that the matter had already been appealed to the appellate court in May 2022.

At the time, the Appellate Division remanded the case down back down to the Superior Court with the instruction that the revelation of the mystery client should depend on whether the report was true or not.

Evolution says appeal ‘meritless’

Evolution’s attorneys said: “Defendants’ forthcoming appeal is meritless because the court carefully followed the Appellate Division’s instructions, gave defendants every conceivable process along the way, and reached the correct (and only reasonable) conclusion: under the standards established by the Appellate Division, applied to the overwhelming evidence in this case, there is no privilege that justifies continued non-disclosure of the other defendants in this case.

“Defendants’ request for a stay pending a futile appeal is simply the latest in a long line of attempts to delay and hide the identity of their wrongdoer clients.”

The company added the court has “carefully followed” the Appellate Division’s opinion and reached the right result.

CK’s “late-breaking arguments”, Evolution’s attorneys argued, are contrary to the Appellate Division’s ruling and their own arguments that the truthfulness of the report was the key to resolving the dispute.

They added: “Defendants should not be given leave to pursue a pointless and disruptive interlocutory appeal. But even if they are, the relevant factors weigh heavily against a stay, and thus the motion should be denied.”