Blobsters Clusterbuster

About Blobsters Clusterbuster

The Cleopatra statue itself was removed to storage in late 2023, as the space was transformed into today’s Caspian’s Caviar and Cocktails.

Caesars Palace hopes that its new resting place will become permanent.

The post Cleopatra Statue Returns to Caesars Palace for More ‘Lucky’ Rubs appeared first on Casino.org.

What is Blobsters Clusterbuster?

An Australian casino player is taking Royal Caribbean to court, arguing that the company banned him from sailing with its services and from playing at its casinos over his ability to count cards. After previously winning a legal battle against Star Casino, Mark Timothy Grant is now moving to confront the cruise line. 

Grant argues that he has booked five Royal Caribbean cruises that were valued at a total of AUD 22,000. He booked the cruises with money he won playing at the Royal Caribbean’s ships’ casinos. 

However, before he could even board the first cruise, Grant was told that he would not be able to proceed onboard. Grant had his son and partner along with him. The company only then went to inform Grant that he had been placed on a “no sail” list, effectively a ban, because of “breaking the house rules” in the casino.

What is Blobsters Clusterbuster?

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.