About this app
What is Crasher?
“Just eight years ago, this court reiterated that ‘each state is free to act on its own’ in regulating sports betting,” the petition says. “But Kalshi has a different view. Kalshi bills itself as ‘the first app for legal sports betting in all 50 states’ and believes it can offer that legal sports betting without following the sports-gambling laws of any of those 50 states.”
In a statement, Kalshi spokesperson Dani Lever said the platform is “an open, nationwide, financial exchange” that “cannot be regulated by 50 different regulators”, per CDC Gaming.
“Both the Third Circuit and the District of New Jersey side with Kalshi, because the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction prompt state law,” Lever said, adding that “nothing in New Jersey’s filing” changes that view.
About Crasher
“Considering that the regulated market has only been in place for just over two years, its implementation has been very positive,” she declares.
“Looking back over the past two years, the regulation has achieved its primary objective: creating a safer and more transparent market. It has established common standards for all licensed operators, particularly around KYC, AML and responsible gaming, ensuring that customers receive a more consistent experience regardless of the platform they choose.”
Atucha praises the regulation and the regulators themselves for making entry into the market easy, as well as allowing them to be competitive against illegal operators. But the market hasn’t been without its challenges.
About Crasher
“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.”
