About this app
What is Santas Inn?
The UK government increased Remote Gaming Duty (RGD) from 21% to 40% from 1 April. Then from April 2027, a new 25% General Betting Duty rate for remote betting will apply, although remote bets on UK horse racing are excluded from the new rate.
Entain said the higher RGD had a £56 million negative impact on first-half EBITDA. In Britain, operators are dealing with government policy and higher taxes. In America, the main threat is competition. The problems are different, but they hit the same group of stocks.
Entain is trying to respond by simplifying itself. It has agreed to sell an initial 20% stake in Entain CEE for €425 million, implying an enterprise value of about €2.1 billion. The company says proceeds from the transaction and any future exit will be used to reduce debt and, subject to leverage objectives, return excess capital to shareholders.
What is Santas Inn?
The law came at the request of Full House Resorts, the Las Vegas-based regional gaming operator that expressed interest in relocating its Rising Star Casino in Rising Sun to a more attractive market, specifically in the northeastern part of the state.
During the lawmaking process, Full House’s exclusivity was stripped in favor of welcoming any company currently licensed as a commercial casino in the US to bid on the possible license. Lawmakers also threw in a one-time $150 million fee for the concession and a mandatory investment minimum of $500 million, all but ending Full House’s interest.
“The bill changed many times. We make money in Rising Sun. We always have, not a lot of money, but we make money. We continue to make money in Rising Sun. And we will continue to do that for our shareholders, as well as for the good of the state,” Full House CEO Daniel Lee said in March.
About Santas Inn
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.
IPI now has until this Friday to find a new lawyer to carry the six-case workload Hasselback had, but will most likely use this as an excuse to delay the ongoing legal battles. It won’t get very far with that, though, and perhaps Judge Kennedy expected IPI to try something. She added in her ruling that the attorney’s exit “may cause some delay, [but] that delay is not so much so that it would cause significant prejudice or adversely and materially affect the plaintiff.”
