Safari Rumble

About Safari Rumble

Japan has drawn on Singapore’s IR development model, which embodies a balancing act between ambitious economic visions and restrictive conditions. But Andrew Klebanow, principal of Klebanow Consulting, believes Japan’s IR regulations swerved “too far into crafting regulations and policies”. Klebanow specialises in hotel-casino market feasibility studies, strategic planning and facility planning recommendations.

“As the RFP process played out, regulators introduced additional policies and regulations. As each regulation was introduced, developers adjusted their gaming forecasting models downward. Finally, those models reached a tipping point where potential revenues were insufficient to justify a project’s capital costs,” says Klebanow.

Japan’s attempt to reap the economic benefits of casino gaming while keeping gambling socially contained is comparable to Asia’s dominant casino hubs Singapore and Macau.

About Safari Rumble

“As a result, we can miss out on talented individuals who simply don’t consider our sector.”

While representation remains important, Yaxley warns that many companies still mistake headcount for inclusion.

“One of the biggest misconceptions is that DEI can be measured by representation alone,” she says. “Representation matters, but it’s only one part of the picture.”

How to play Safari Rumble

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.