About this app
About TWIN WINS
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.”
On Aug. 26, Tel Aviv District Court Judge Iris Lushi-Abudi rejected Papaya’s motion to pay down the Skillz judgment over 6.5 years with profits from its continuing operations.
What is TWIN WINS?
the studio took two of its most recognizable characters and brought them together
BGaming’s product chief tied the release directly to prior results. Julia Alekseeva, CPO at BGaming, said duel slots have proven to be a hit in the past, with titles like Clash of Gods Power Duel driving strong engagement, so the studio decided to take this further with Johnny vs Chicken. She added that the studio took two of its most recognizable characters and brought them together in what she called the ultimate BGaming IP showdown.
That language, an “IP showdown” between established characters, points to where the strategy could go next. If a duel format plus familiar faces reliably lifts engagement, BGaming has a repeatable template for future crossovers drawn entirely from its own library. Johnny vs Chicken reads less like a finished idea. It reads more like a first test of a shared-universe approach to slot IP.
About TWIN WINS
The move came shortly after the Senate declined to advance the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act. The procedural vote on September 15 rejected it with 49-50, not meeting the 60 votes required to move forward.
The CFTC’s move gives the agency a chance to pursue parts of a crypto market framework under its existing authority, rather than waiting for Congress to resolve the broader legislative debate.
CFTC Chairman Michael Selig signaled that possibility back in August. The agency was considering how its existing powers could be used to create a dedicated market structure for digital assets that are standard, he said.
