Myth

About Myth

Papanier has over 40 years of experience in the gaming industry, previously serving as CEO between February 2011 and October 2021 having first joined the company as COO in 2004.

Bally’s CEO Robeson Reeves thanked Mircheva for her contribution and expressed confidence in Papanier’s ability to ensure continuity during the transition.

“Having spent more than two decades in key operating and financial leadership roles at Bally’s, George has been instrumental in developing our business model, asset portfolio and growth strategy,” Reeves said.

About Myth

“You can go the combative route and ban something that’s federally regulated,” he said. “But what you’ll end up with is a bunch of customers in Texas just going offshore.”

The committee also heard from Brianne Doura-Schawohl, a nationally recognised problem gambling expert. One study cited by Doura-Schawohl found that 52% of Gen Z respondents include sports betting and prediction markets as part of their long-term financial plan.

She also criticised a Kalshi competitor for offering a function that allows minors over 17 to link an investment account with the ability to buy and sell event contracts. A former legislative director for the National Council on Problem Gambling, Doura-Schawohl described the opportunity as “very dangerous” for teenagers susceptible to harm.

About Myth

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.