About this app
What is Ultimate Hold'em by Pokerist?
Betting and iCasino GGR rose to €151.6 million from €146.5 million. Growth in iCasino resulted from an expanded game catalogue and a rapid expansion of live casino offerings.
Veikkaus’ international B2B subsidiary, Fennica Gaming, continued rapid expansion in H1 2026, with revenue increasing by 80.6% to €10.3 million from €5.7 million in the previous year.
This growth reflects the launch of eInstants and iCasino products across various markets, including Italy, Canada, parts of Germany, Mexico, the Czech Republic and Iceland.
What is Ultimate Hold'em by Pokerist?
As part of Africa Safer Gambling Week, the AiA has also focused on the illegal market, with Kesitilwe highlighting that offshore operators are harmful for player protection.
For Kesitilwe, tackling the illegal market is not just a regulatory priority but a fundamental player protection issue.
“Oftentimes when you see governments increasing taxes, banning iGaming, it’s mainly because of illegal operators because they don’t comply,” he declares. “An illegal operator may not provide age verification, responsible gambling tools, secure treatment of player funds, or an effective complaints mechanism.
What is Ultimate Hold'em by Pokerist?
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.
