Scientific Games Corporation’s Acquisition of Spicerack Media
April 11, 2017
On April 11, 2017, Scientific Games Corporation announced it has completed the acquisition of privately held mobile and social game company Spicerack Media, Inc. Cravath represented Scientific Games in connection with the transaction. The addition of Spicerack, creator of the Bingo Showdown social bingo game app, complements Scientific Games’ stable of social casino games and mobile offerings.
The Cravath team was led by partner George F. Schoen and included associates G.J. Ligelis Jr. and Mathew J. Saur on M&A matters and partner J. Leonard Teti II and associate Peter W. Rogers on tax matters. Nicholas Reichard also worked on M&A matters.
Related Practices & Industries
People
- Photo
-
-
J.D., 1998, University of Chicago Law Schoolwith Honors
-
B.A., 1994, Cornell University
- New York
Education
Admitted In
- Photo
-
-
J.D., 2005, University of Virginia School of LawOrder of the Coif
-
A.B., 1999, Princeton Universitywith Honors
- New York
Education
Admitted In
- Photo
-
-
J.D., 2009, Harvard Law Schoolcum laude
-
A.B., 2006, Princeton UniversityPhi Beta Kappa, magna cum laude
- New York
Education
Admitted In
Related News & Insights
Deals & Cases
October 15, 2024
Epic Games Wins Post‑Trial Injunction in Antitrust Case Against Google
On October 7, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entered a post‑trial order in favor of Cravath client Epic Games imposing a nationwide three‑year permanent injunction against Google. The injunction, which follows Epic’s jury trial win against Google last year, prohibits Google from paying competitors not to compete and requires Google to distribute alternative app stores on the Google Play Store and provide alternative app stores with access to the Google Play Store’s catalog of apps.
Deals & Cases
December 19, 2023
Epic Games Defeats Google in Antitrust Trial Victory
On December 11, 2023, a jury unanimously ruled in favor of Cravath client Epic Games (“Epic”) on all counts in its closely watched antitrust case against Google in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, determining—after a multiweek trial—that Google has engaged in anticompetitive behavior in the distribution of mobile apps and in the handling of in‑app payments.
