Koi Harmony

How to play Koi Harmony

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.

About Koi Harmony

Kevin O’Neal, a DOCV board member, argued the scale of the investigation calls the GGL’s broader black market estimates into question. He cited the regulator’s 2025 activity report, which put the 2024 share at 23% (€547 million in gross gaming revenue), against Nielsen data suggesting a share of around 56%.

The trade body has long been critical over the discrepancy between channelisation estimates made by the regulator, and other independent reviewers.

The DOCV reinforced its calls for a unified federal licensing regime for online casino games and stronger enforcement mechanisms against illegal operators. 

About Koi Harmony

In a rare punitive move, commissioners also directed the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office to investigate the cooperative for potential statutory violations, which carry fines between $100 and $1,000 per infraction.

The commission also agreed with the state Department of Commerce’s assessment that the cooperative’s actions were driven by concerns over lost electricity sales rather than legitimate safety risks.

Commissioners pointed to evidence suggesting the tribe may have already been overcharged compared to other member customers.