Christmas Megapots

What is Christmas Megapots?

“We finally got to a point where we said, you know what, let’s drop all our other efforts right now and get these over the finish line and get them up for comment so that we can make sure that we’re current with things,” Jeremy Eberwein, chief of the board’s Technology Division, told iGB.

The bulk of the work revolved around compiling and codifying the technical information in one place, Eberwein said. There were some existing Technical Standards, but other requirements lived in the state’s Minimum Internal Control Standards, which are a broad mix of technical and procedural requirements.

The goal is to make it easier for licencees to find technical information in one definitive source rather searching across multiple libraries. Most of the explanatory notes in the revisions refer to adaptations from MICS and other sources. This process has been years in the making, Eberwein said, with work stopping and starting at various points.

What is Christmas Megapots?

What changes is the support behind that business. Wilson says Splash Tech is moving from the resources of a 20-person company to those of a group of around 300, adding depth across licensing, compliance, finance, technology, product and business intelligence. In his characteristically understated phrasing, each area has had “rocket fuel injected into it”.

RubyPlay’s broader licensing footprint and distribution also give Splash Tech access to operators and markets it could not have pursued efficiently alone.

“Because you’re a small business, you need to pick your battles,” Wilson says. “I can’t go and get 10 licences this year. It’s just unrealistic. It would require so much work that it would distract us. Now we have that ability through our relationship with RubyPlay, and we are grabbing that opportunity with both hands.”

What is Christmas Megapots?

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.”