About this app
About Lava Lava
“Operators do pay, yes, but they pay whatever suits them,” they said. “In other words, we effectively pay what benefits us. All the while, the state has no means of monitoring its regulatory policies.”
In response to these issues, earlier this year the DRC Ministry of Finance outlined plans for a new gambling monitoring platform to enhance its supervision of the sector.
The DRC government is also developing a new legal framework for the gambling industry, designed to modernise existing rules and strengthen oversight of tax collection.
What is Lava Lava?
It could, therefore, take quite a bit longer than the timing of the initial filing indicates. The CFTC would have to publish its action and solicit public comment after White House review before writing a formal proposed rule. Any final rule would have to undergo another review and comment period before it could take effect.
The distinction matters for crypto businesses. The filing shows regulatory work is moving forward, but exchanges and other market participants cannot yet consider it a set of rules they must adhere to.
The CFTC’s move also comes as other US regulators continue to craft their own crypto policies. The agency and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) jointly issued an interpretation in March on how certain crypto assets would be treated under federal securities laws.
About Lava Lava
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.
