Durian Dynamite

What is Durian Dynamite?

The 62-minute hearing featuring Kalshi and a prominent lobbyist from the American Gaming Association provided a blueprint for the state’s evaluation of prediction markets next year. Before the calendar turns to 2027, though, stakeholders will monitor races for governor, attorney general and the US Senate on election night. The results in all three Texas races will likely have a major impact on the future of prediction markets inside the state.

Convened by Texas State Senator Bryan Hughes, the hearing in the Senate Committee on State Affairs examined the relationship between federally regulated derivatives markets and state-prohibited gambling. Research from Eilers & Krejcik Gaming in April found that 43% of activity from sports event contracts came from two states, Texas and California. A separate breakout of Texas activity alone is not publicly available.

At Tuesday’s hearing, AGA Vice President Tres York testified before the committee alongside Robert DeNault, head of enforcement and legal counsel at Kalshi. The AGA, one of the nation’s most strident critics of prediction markets, argued that an event contract on the Cowboys to beat the Giants does not differ fundamentally from the same wager placed at a sportsbook.

About Durian Dynamite

But he said he was not concerned. “On the Italian antitrust, we don’t think we are in a risky situation because Italy is not the core of this deal and this doesn’t change the level of concentration in the country and will still be below 40% in each relevant market. So we don’t see that.

“We do not expect revenue attrition. These are complementary brands and complementary models, and we have a history of managing a multi-brand business in Italy, and we already have several brands that run in our business and that are complementary.”

Kyle has been with Clarion since December 2023, joining from the world of sports journalism, subsequently becoming a LatAm-facing senior reporter with iGB.

About Durian Dynamite

“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.”