Notice: Undefined index: slug in /home/z7wdyktw/pinmybis.net/wp-includes/class-wp-theme-json.php on line 1110

Notice: Undefined index: slug in /home/z7wdyktw/pinmybis.net/wp-includes/class-wp-theme-json.php on line 1110

Notice: Undefined index: slug in /home/z7wdyktw/pinmybis.net/wp-includes/class-wp-theme-json.php on line 1110
Connect with us

News

Ex-F1 team boss Eddie Jordan considering £3bn bid for Playtech

Published

on


The former Formula One team owner Eddie Jordan is part of a consortium considering making a £3bn offer for Playtech, as the London-listed gambling software supplier becomes the focus of a potential bidding war.

Last month, Playtech’s board recommended shareholders accept a £2.7bn takeover offer from Aristocrat, the Australian slot machine developer, and a rival offer from its second-biggest shareholder Gopher Investments.

JKO Play, the consortium set up by Jordan and Keith O’Loughlin, who formerly ran the sports betting operation of the Nasdaq-listed Scientific Games, confirmed it was “evaluating making a competing offer for Playtech”. JKO is in talks with the US-based investment firm Centerbridge, among other potential partners, to finance a cash and shares offer for the business.

Playtech confirmed its board of directors had “received a preliminary approach from JKO Play seeking access to certain due diligence information, in order to explore terms on which an offer for all of the issued and to be issued share capital of Playtech might be made”.

Jordan’s role leading JKO Play is just the latest stage in a career that has ranged from motor racing driver and F1 team owner to TV pundit and entrepreneur.

After winning the Irish Kart Championship in 1971, he went to race in Formula Three and Formula Two throughout the 70s. After suffering a number of major accidents, he set up his eponymous racing team in 1980 and had significant success in Formula Three and Formula 3000 before setting up a Formula One team in 1990.

Drivers who owed their break to Jordan include Michael Schumacher and Eddie Irvine, while Damon Hill, Nigel Mansell and Ayrton Senna (his favourite driver) also drove for him.

After selling a struggling Jordan Grand Prix in 1995 he became a pundit for the BBC’s Formula One coverage from 2009 to 2015, subsequently moving to Channel 4.

Through his family office Jordan has invested in a wide range of businesses in recent years, from Celtic football club to gaming firm Entain. Earlier this year he set up JKO Capital to seek investments in gaming and entertainment businesses.

Besides the approach from JKO Play, Playtech is also reportedly in talks with Caliente, a gambling business that predominantly operates in Mexico, about a potential joint venture through a public merger with a special purpose acquisition company (Spac), according to Sky News, which first reported Jordan’s potential move on Playtech.

Aristocrat said it was forging ahead with regulatory approval relating to its own offer for Playtech, had financing facilities in place and had completed an equity raise of A$1.3bn (£700m) with “strong take-up from Aristocrat shareholders”. During its full-year results presentation on Thursday, Trevor Croker, Aristocrat’s chief executive, said it had also received irrevocable commitments and letters of intent supporting the takeover from a Playtech investor who represented 16.5% of the London-listed company’s shareholder base.

The next step in the potential bidding war will be the UK Takeover Panel announcing a deadline for when JKO Play and Gopher must “clarify their intentions” in relation to Playtech.





Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

News

Saudi Arabia’s Most admired Companies in 2022

Published

on


Insights Success is an archway that caters to Entrepreneurs’ quench of technology and business updates which are currently ruling the business world.
We are ceaselessly proving the best platform for leading companies, which aids indefinite progress while creating meaningful learning experiences for the visitors and invaluable brand awareness for the clients.



Source link

Continue Reading

News

Bank of England raises base interest rate to 1.75%

Published

on


The Bank of England has raised the base interest rate by half a percentage point to 1.75 per cent, the biggest rise since 1995, in an attempt to combat runaway inflation.

The nine-strong monetary policy committee voted eight to one in favour of a 50 basis point rise, defying some market expectations for an increase by 25 basis points.

It is the Bank’s sixth consecutive tightening in monetary policy and follows in the footsteps of the US Federal Reserve and European Central Bank, which have begun aggressively raising rates by larger increments.

Interest rates are now the highest since 2009 as the Bank attempts to bring down inflation, which is running at a 40-year high of 9.4 per cent and is on course to exceed 11 per cent later this year.

These would be the worst inflation rates in the G7, caused in large part by rising global energy prices driving household bills higher this year. The UK economy is also heading for a slowdown this year as consumer incomes are squeezed more tightly than since the 1950s.

Andrew Bailey, the Bank’s governor, has hinted that it will also announce how it intends to begin unwinding the £850 billion of government debt pumped into the economy since the financial crisis, offloading bonds worth between £50 billion and £100 billion from as early as next month.

The Bank will also deliver its quarterly outlook, with Bailey expected to forecast that inflation will rise beyond 11 per cent and remain in double digits into next year. The Bank’s target is 2 per cent.

Commenting on today’s Bank of England interest rate rise, David Bharier, Head of Research at the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), said: “This rise is the clearest signal yet of the Bank of England’s intention to get inflation under control. Spiralling prices are cited by businesses as by far and away the top concern right now.

“However, given the extremely precarious state of the economy, this decision is not without risk for businesses and consumers that are exposed to banking or overdraft facilities.

“There are many causes of the current inflation crisis – global supply chain problems, trade barriers, soaring energy costs, increased taxes, and labour market shortages. Interest rate rises alone will do little to address these.

“Worryingly, our research indicates strongly that most small businesses are not investing for growth, and that longer-term confidence is beginning to wane.





Source link

Continue Reading

News

Opinion: OSC appointment fuss is a tempest in a teapot

Published

on


Jeffrey MacIntosh: The government has the legislated right to have a say in the agency’s course

Article content

Ed Waitzer’s recent op-ed (“The issue at the OSC is integrity, not debate,” July 14, 2022) expresses surprise and disappointment in my recent op-ed (“Conflict at the OSC: Why the regulator needs to make room for dissent,” July 7, 2022). In that op-ed, I argued that lawyer Heather Zordel’s appointment as non-executive chair of the OSC in March of this year should be met with open arms, as it introduces new points of view into what seems to be a rather intellectually closed shop. I don’t suppose it will come as a shock to Ed Waitzer or anyone else that I am surprised and disappointed at his rebuttal.

Advertisement 2

Article content

To begin with, it contains a number of inaccuracies. It states that Ms. Zordel was denied reappointment to her earlier position (2019-2021) as part-time commissioner. In fact, given her busy legal practice, she took herself out of the running. This puts a rather different complexion on the matter.

And I never stated or implied that Ms. Zordel was not reappointed as part-time commissioner because of two dissenting opinions that she wrote as commissioner. My point was that for Ms. Zordel’s critics the dissents were a factor in opposing her appointment as chair of the board.

The nub of my argument was that the OSC could benefit from greater variety of viewpoints among its brass as to what investor protection and other aspects of the OSC’s mission entail. By contrast, Mr. Waitzer argues: “the importance of debate and dissent is not the point here.” I beg to differ. As I indicated, some prominent accounts of Ms. Zordel’s appointment have put a pejorative cast on her disagreements with her fellow commissioners. That puts the issue of debate and dissent front and centre.

Advertisement 3

Article content

I certainly agree with Mr. Waitzer that the independence of administrative agencies is a cornerstone of our democracy. But does that mean that every administrative agency should be entirely divorced from any government oversight whatsoever — a little fiefdom unto itself and in no sense answerable to its political masters? Not a whit. It is the government that creates the agency, defines its mandate, gives it the powers that it needs to carry out that mandate and defines its organizational structure. And it is entirely within the purview of the government to enlist its legislative power to re-define that mandate, powers, and organizational structure if it chooses.

We don’t have to look into the distant past to find an example. On the advice of a non-partisan blue ribbon panel — the Capital Markets Modernization Taskforce (“CMMT”) — the Conservative government has recently substantially reorganized the OSC via the Securities Commission Act, 2021 (declared in force in April). That legislation splits the adjudicative function (the “Capital Markets Tribunal”) from the regulatory function. Moreover, where before the reorganization the OSC Chair and CEO were the same person, the two offices are now split. As expressed by the CMMT, “The Board of Directors, led by the Chair, (will) focus on the strategic oversight and corporate governance of the regulator,” while “The CEO (will) be responsible for the overall management of the organization and execution of the OSC’s mandate.” The directors, including the chair, are all government appointees.

Advertisement 4

Article content

This new structure, recommended by a non-partisan committee, gives the government of the day the power to influence, at the highest level, the strategic direction of the OSC. But why should it not? If the government is dissatisfied with the strategic vision or regulatory philosophy of the regulator or the manner in which it is being implemented, it would be profoundly anti-democratic — and at odds with the rule of law — to forbid the government from seeking to alter the agency’s course.

Indeed, the Ontario Securities Act states “The Commission is an agent of the Crown in right of Ontario.” The key word here is “agent.” It is not “hegemony,” “fiefdom” or “satrapy.” At the end of the day, the OSC is a government creation performing regulatory functions ceded to it by the government.

Advertisement 5

Article content

Do Ms. Zordel’s conservative connections compromise the independence of the institution of which she is now head? Absolutely not. In the making of such appointments, the twin issues of competence and integrity will take up a lot of shelf space. But why should the government not also consider, if it chooses, whether potential nominees share the government’s regulatory philosophy

The true worry about political interference is that the government might attempt to dictate or influence the result of particular cases. But the new legislation builds in the important protection of ceding no operational powers to the board of directors. Thus, aside from the government’s power to approve or decline proposed rule changes (a longstanding feature of securities regulation), its sole discretionary avenue of influence lies in its power to appoint directors and hence influence high-level strategic direction.

Advertisement 6

Article content

What is left of the argument that there has been inappropriate political interference over the OSC? Only the assertion that Ms. Zordel and three other part-time commissioners were appointed without the government having consulted the OSC, as has customarily been done. Yes, it would have been better if the government had consulted the OSC. In all likelihood, however, the outcome would have been the same. The OSC might not like not having been consulted but at best this is a foible not a fiasco.

In the end, this tempest easily fits within a standard-issue teapot.

Financial Post

Jeffrey MacIntosh is a professor of law at the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, and a director of the Canadian Securities Exchange.

Advertisement

Comments

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notifications—you will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending