About this app
How to play El Paso Gunfight
The operator has made a number of key operational and technology changes during this process, including switching its sportsbook backend from DraftKings to OpenBet. And hiring a number of industry stalwards to lead its competitive business.
Former Scientific Games veteran Chris Armes was appointed as the new executive VP of Gaming Technologies in early August. Armes is set to take up his new role in the autumn of 2026, leading Veikkaus’ technology organisation from its Helsinki headquarters.
In July last year, Veikkaus iGaming EVP Jarkko Nordlund told iGB: “The competition will be fierce when the market opens, so we must be very competitive. Our aim is to challenge the mentality of our current position, so we need to secure market leadership.”
How to play El Paso Gunfight
Entain is trying to respond by simplifying itself. It has agreed to sell an initial 20% stake in Entain CEE for €425 million, implying an enterprise value of about €2.1 billion. The company says proceeds from the transaction and any future exit will be used to reduce debt and, subject to leverage objectives, return excess capital to shareholders.
The strategy is less about rapid growth and more about showing that a cash-generating business with falling debt and improving operations is undervalued.
By looking at four major gambling companies – Entain, Flutter, DraftKings and MGM Resorts International – it becomes clear why the sector should not be treated as a single trade.
How to play El Paso Gunfight
“A proceeding aimed at impairing a single creditor is not the collective administration Chapter 15 contemplates, and the mismatch is not a technicality. It is part of the Debtors’ bad faith effort to forum shop for the most advantageous tool to use against their litigation adversary,” Skillz attorneys alleged.
The Debtors here deployed an insolvency statute against the one creditor whose judgment they wished to defer and compromise, left every ordinary-course creditor untouched, preserved their own equity, and sought releases for the insiders who directed the conduct that produced the judgment—then asked this Court to treat that machinery as proof that their affairs are centered in Israel,” the petition continued.
“The Court should refuse the relief requested by … because it is manifestly contrary to the public policy of the United States based on the Debtors’ well-documented and pervasive bad faith conduct,” the petition said. “The Debtors are using the Israeli Action—a limited action which lacks many of the core characteristics of a collective insolvency proceeding—as a strategic tool to evade responsibility for their deceptive conduct.”
