Rocket Hit

About Rocket Hit

 “When a company refuses to respect the workers who make its profits possible, we shut it down,” Thomas G Mari, president of Local 25, said in a statement. “The teamsters don’t cross picket lines and won’t be intimidated.”

Union deals have been a pressing topic for casino operators in recent years. Workers have pressed for increased benefits and job security provisions in the wake of macroeconomic uncertainty and the advent of potentially disruptive technologies like AI.

All nine of Atlantic City’s casinos agreed to new labour deals this summer without a strike, although its union opted for just one-year deals instead of the typical length of three or more years. This was in response to increased uncertainty related to looming competition from both New York City casinos and New Jersey’s own online gaming industry.

What is Rocket Hit?

Once the deal is completed, current Lottomatica shareholders are expected to own around 67.5% of the share capital, with Cirsa’s shareholders owning the remaining 32.5%.

Cirsa shareholders will receive 0.668 newly issued Lottomatica shares for each of their shares in Cirsa.

Meanwhile Blackstone, Cirsa’s largest shareholder, is expected to become the largest shareholder of the combined company, maintaining around 24% of the share capital.

What is Rocket Hit?

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.”

This particular lawsuit involving Fox Financial, one of a growing list IPI is battling, centers on an arrangement the company made with a third party, Forson Holdings. That entity had leased property from Fox in 2016, but fell behind. IPI had signed as a guarantor of that lease agreement and, as such, was responsible for covering Forson in the event payments weren’t made. However, it decided it didn’t need to follow the terms of the contract.