Big Tuna Fortune

About Big Tuna Fortune

The factor that led some operators to drop out of the licensing race could be the “uncertainty” created by regulations that “didn’t seem set in stone”, says Leckert.

“Some of them [investors] that were looking at Japan were looking at a big IR licence or nothing. With Tokyo and Yokohama being out of the mix, maybe some weren’t as interested anymore and decided to sit back, and wait and see how regulation and licensing shake out.”

One concern for operators is “the short duration of licences and renewal of licences”, notes Leckert. For operators, the casino business licence is renewable every three years, while the IR development-plan authorisation runs for 10 years, in contrast to the 18-year IR licence term in the Philippines, for instance.

What is Big Tuna Fortune?

Entain’s removal from the FTSE 100 is a telling sign of what has happened to gambling stocks across both Europe and the US in recent years. The company’s shares have fallen sharply over the past year, even as its first-half results showed continued growth in several important markets.

In the six months to June, Entain’s online net gaming revenue rose 7% in constant currency. Revenue in Britain and Ireland increased 13%, while the company maintained its full-year guidance for online net gaming revenue growth of 5% to 7%. So why is its stock price still so under pressure?

One answer is that the industry is no longer being valued primarily on the promise of endless growth. The market instead wants to see profit, cash generation and manageable regulation maintained across all facets of a listed business. Ed Birkin, managing director of H2 Gambling Capital, says the longer-term decline in gambling stocks runs much deeper than just changes to earnings forecasts.

What is Big Tuna Fortune?

“A proceeding aimed at impairing a single creditor is not the collective administration Chapter 15 contemplates, and the mismatch is not a technicality. It is part of the Debtors’ bad faith effort to forum shop for the most advantageous tool to use against their litigation adversary,” Skillz attorneys alleged.

The Debtors here deployed an insolvency statute against the one creditor whose judgment they wished to defer and compromise, left every ordinary-course creditor untouched, preserved their own equity, and sought releases for the insiders who directed the conduct that produced the judgment—then asked this Court to treat that machinery as proof that their affairs are centered in Israel,” the petition continued.

“The Court should refuse the relief requested by … because it is manifestly contrary to the public policy of the United States based on the Debtors’ well-documented and pervasive bad faith conduct,” the petition said. “The Debtors are using the Israeli Action—a limited action which lacks many of the core characteristics of a collective insolvency proceeding—as a strategic tool to evade responsibility for their deceptive conduct.”