Mammoth Chase

About Mammoth Chase

For the gaming industry, the marked economic shift over the course of 2026 and a return to an elevated interest-rate environment after years of post-Covid easing could dissipate some of the optimism that prevailed at the onset of this year.

Many top gaming stocks have underperformed relative to the broader market in recent years, and most of the M&A activity has been facilitated by private equity and other institutions that can more readily capitalise on depressed valuations. There had been hope that rates would start to fall and help alleviate those pressures.

“Publicly traded valuations are a reflection of the current interest rate environment,” Chad Beynon, lead gaming analyst for Macquarie, told iGB. “Whether it’s a long-term financial model on a growth company, you’re going to discount that back at a higher rate, or if it’s just a standard four-wall business, the cash flows in a higher interest rate environment are worth less.”

What is Mammoth Chase?

“We are committed to minimising the impact on our people and are exploring all avenues to reduce the number of redundancies,” the spokesperson said. “As a first step, we are planning a programme of voluntary redundancies.

“Our colleagues are our priority. We understand the concerns many will have. Impacted staff have been informed and are being fully supported throughout this process.”

Bet365 noted the impact of the UK government’s near doubling of the remote gaming duty, which increased from 21% to 40% on 1 April this year.

What is Mammoth Chase?

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.

It seems like not a day goes by without IPI coming under fire for something else. The company’s chairwoman, Cui Li Jie, has already found herself in trouble and was previously held in contempt of court, but now has another black mark beside her name. She has been found in contempt again, this time for allegedly perjuring herself in court. A lawyer representing employees suing IPI and Cui produced evidence proving she had lied under oath, and Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona has now agreed. She issued her ruling this morning, with Cui only able to respond, through an interpreter, “I don’t know anything, I don’t understand English.”

The post Ethical questions at IPI lead lawyer to exit as chair held in contempt appeared first on CalvinAyre.com.