Royal Spin - Coin Frenzy

How to play Royal Spin - Coin Frenzy

The regulator concluded that the central figure’s youthful facial features, casual styling and excited demeanour gave the impression he was in his late teens or early twenties. 

As such, the ad violated rule 16.3 of the CAP Code (Edition 12).

Midnite’s operator, Dribble Media Ltd, stated that the ad had not been authorised by their company. They cited discrepancies in branding and asserted that it was created and disseminated by an affiliate, Limay Media Ltd, without Midnite’s approval. 

How to play Royal Spin - Coin Frenzy

Score Media announced that it is selling five million shares, fewer than previously expected. The company had changed gears with its public launch, announcing last week a reverse split that would cut out some of the available shares while increasing the per-share price. It has already found support, with underwriters Canaccord Genuity, Credit Suisse, Macquarie Capital and Morgan Stanley able to purchase another 15% on top of the initial five million shares. Should they exercise that option, there would be a total of 5.75 million shares available. The underwriters have 30 days to make up their minds, which will give it time to see how the market reacts. 

Several gaming entities have jumped into public trading recently, most notably, DraftKings. It saw a huge response when it launched its IPO last year, and Score Media hopes it can see a similar response. With operations in Canada, Colorado, Indiana and New Jersey, heavy interest is not out of the question, and the company is ready to capture a larger piece of the market. It added in its announcement, “[Score Media] currently expects that the net proceeds of the offering will be used to fund working capital and other general corporate purposes, including the continued growth and expansion of theScore Bet’s operations in the United States and Canada by supporting the multi-jurisdiction deployment and operation of theScore Bet and user acquisition and retention in jurisdictions where theScore is, or will be, operating.”

Trading on over-the-counter markets, Score Media was worth $30.59 at the end of the day yesterday. If it is able to sell all 5.75 million shares, even at $30.50, it could earn as much as $175.375 million. However, the company said in its IPO filing that it will offer the shares at $36.52, hoping to raise up to $183 million. If it succeeds, the market value would be right at $1.8 billion. Those interested in following the company on the NGSM can select the SCR ticker, the same ticker Score Media uses on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

About Royal Spin - Coin Frenzy

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.”