About this app
What is Google Drive?
Merging Marlins and rewarding Free Spins build momentum throughout the game, creating opportunities for bigger wins.
How to play Google Drive
A US appeals court last week gave Laos another chance to pursue casino entrepreneur John K. Baldwin and his company, Bridge Capital, for the money.
The ruling is the latest twist in a dispute dating to 2012 that has involved allegations of government interference, a failed settlement, and three international arbitration awards.
Baldwin and fellow casino entrepreneur Shawn Scott arrived in Laos in 2007 with ambitious plans to build a casino business aimed partly at customers crossing the country’s borders.
About Google Drive
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.
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.”
