About this app
How to play Cash Pool
The Ministry of Finance stated that any approval, authorisation, payment notice or other act issued by a department without authorisation was “devoid of legal effect”, with operators still liable for fulfilling their obligations to the DRC’s Public Treasury.
The DRC is perceived by many as a gambling market with significant potential, owing largely to its population well in excess of 100 million people.
Yet tax collection continues to plague the sector’s progress.
What is Cash Pool?
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.
What is Cash Pool?
Laos argues they were effectively indistinguishable from the companies that were ordered to pay and should therefore be held responsible for the debt.
A federal judge previously rejected Laos’ attempt to pursue Baldwin and Bridge Capital because they had not been parties to the original arbitrations.
But the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision Thursday (September 17).
