Golden Glyph 2

About Golden Glyph 2

A US listing can improve access to capital without making the underlying business more attractive. London has a capital-markets problem. Gambling has an investment problem. The two overlap, but they are not the same thing.

Frank Fantini, founder and publisher emeritus of Eilers-Fantini, thinks the change began before Covid. “There is a tendency to look at the world as pre-Covid and post-Covid,” he says. “But the decline in gaming began earlier than that with the slowdown in new jurisdictions and new projects.”

The US land-based casino market had begun to mature and the number of obvious new markets and projects was shrinking. Online gambling offered a new source of growth, particularly through the expansion of legal sports betting. That opportunity was quickly reflected in share prices.

How to play Golden Glyph 2

The DOCV reinforced its calls for a unified federal licensing regime for online casino games and stronger enforcement mechanisms against illegal operators. 

An ongoing review of the Interstate Treaty on Gambling, which is meant to conclude by the end of this year, should introduce a nationwide licensing model for online casino games, the group added.

As part of the review, German regulators decided in July to lift the €1 staking limit on online slots, another signal that regulators are actively reassessing the framework ahead of the treaty’s formal review.

What is Golden Glyph 2?

George Hasselback is done with Imperial Pacific International (IPI). The attorney has been representing the controversial and incompetent casino operator as it defended itself in a lawsuit filed by Fox Financial, as well as others, but has now washed his hands and stepped away. He had filed a request to withdraw from representing the company on February 12, and a judge granted his petition yesterday. Magistrate Judge Heather Kennedy agreed with Hasselback in his assertion that continued representation would put him in an ethical conundrum.

Judge Kennedy explained in her ruling, “The court finds that Hasselback’s statements that continued representation in this matter would cause him to violate several ethical obligations trigger mandatory withdrawal under Model Rule 1.16(a) and is sufficient for granting his motion.” She added, “Hasselback need not be required to provide details, beyond his written motion, to establish that mandatory withdrawal is warranted,” and stated that requiring him “to specify the basis for his mandatory withdrawal could create the untenable situation of an attorney having to choose between his obligation of candor to the court and his obligation to maintain his client’s confidences.”

Unfortunately, because of that attorney-client privilege, it is difficult to know what types of ethical dilemmas Hasselback is facing. However, it’s likely just the mere hint at issues will be enough for IPI to find itself, once again, being more closely scrutinized. Where that leads is anyone’s guess, given gaming regulators’ reluctance to hold the company accountable for its actions.