Super Boom

What is Super Boom?

Over the course of the campaign’s lifetime, various sectors and subsectors of the industry have been highlighted and the sheer diversity of talent has shone through, year after year. We have had the pleasure of delving into the careers and aspirations of our previous winners, and learned a lot about the make up of the sector along the way.

From recruitment to regulation, cybersecurity, tribal gaming, affiliates, gambling law, C-suite leaders and everything else in between, the campaign has shown that where roles, companies and backgrounds differ, many of the women we have honoured share a united drive to improve diversity within the sector.

This year sees the return of the majority of our judging panel for either the first, second or third consecutive year! Their confidence in the campaign, and how it’s run is a real testament to Most Influential Women, and how highly it is regarded across the sector, particularly as these types of lists and rankings gain popularity across industry media.

About Super Boom

Also, Stephen Cloobeck, a billionaire and 2026 California gubernatorial candidate, purchased approximately $10,000 in contracts tied to his campaign. He was fined $31,770 and suspended for three years.

Each settlement involved cooperation with Kalshi’s investigation. 

What distinguishes Santos’ penalty is the exchange’s allegation that he actively issued false or misleading statements to alter prices and profited materially, violating additional rules such as failure to cooperate and manipulative conduct. 

About Super Boom

George Hasselback is done with Imperial Pacific International (IPI). The attorney has been representing the controversial and incompetent casino operator as it defended itself in a lawsuit filed by Fox Financial, as well as others, but has now washed his hands and stepped away. He had filed a request to withdraw from representing the company on February 12, and a judge granted his petition yesterday. Magistrate Judge Heather Kennedy agreed with Hasselback in his assertion that continued representation would put him in an ethical conundrum.

Judge Kennedy explained in her ruling, “The court finds that Hasselback’s statements that continued representation in this matter would cause him to violate several ethical obligations trigger mandatory withdrawal under Model Rule 1.16(a) and is sufficient for granting his motion.” She added, “Hasselback need not be required to provide details, beyond his written motion, to establish that mandatory withdrawal is warranted,” and stated that requiring him “to specify the basis for his mandatory withdrawal could create the untenable situation of an attorney having to choose between his obligation of candor to the court and his obligation to maintain his client’s confidences.”

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.