Candy Dreams

What is Candy Dreams?

Europa League Round of 32 Fixtures (Second Legs)

Wednesday 24th February

Tottenham Hotspur vs. RZ Pellets WAC (Agg 4-1) (5pm GMT kick-off)

How to play Candy Dreams

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.

About Candy Dreams

The study highlighted significant gaps between operator disclosures and genuine player comprehension.

The Commission’s investigation into what constitutes “informed choice” in gambling involved a multi-method approach. 

Researchers conducted a rapid desk review of 53 relevant sources, three deliberative focus groups segmented by gambling product type (sports betting, online casino/slots and land-based gambling) and four in-depth interviews with people identified as being at higher risk of harm (Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) score of 8 or more).