Cranky Panda

About Cranky Panda

Clubs fear the measure will jeopardise revenue from betting company sponsorships. Corinthians (Esportes da Sorte), Palmeiras (Sportingbet), and São Paulo (Superbet) alone hold contracts worth BRL350 million annually with betting firms.

One concern is the measure might force clubs to host matches outside the city to maintain their advertising agreements.

Stakeholders have yet to determine their response to the bills, with educational campaigns and collective actions on the agenda. Coordination with political leaders in the city of São Paulo is also under way.

About Cranky Panda

Kreeger said in August that Durango has continued to perform well despite the disruption caused by ongoing construction. He described the property as an important growth driver in the Las Vegas locals market.

The expansion follows the property’s first major addition, which brought more than 25,000 square feet of casino space and 230 slot machines. 

That project also introduced a high-limit slot area with 120 machines and a new bar.

What is Cranky Panda?

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.