GVC Holdings is reportedly involved in a legal battle with Canadian sports and entertainment consultancy firm 37 Entertainment. The latter company accused the London-listed gambling operator of reneging an important deal due to its bid for the purchase of bwin.party.
According to British media, GVC had reached an agreement with the Canadian company to jointly operate two Sportingbet sites. One of those was intended solely for Quebec and the other was to be available in the rest of the English-speaking regions across Canada.
Under the agreement between GVC, which is currently locked in a battle for gambling operator bwin.party, was to be responsible for the gambling services and products offered on the two websites. As for 37 Entertainment, its was to provide the related market services. The generated revenue and the data ownership would have been split equally.
The Montreal-based company claimed that GVC had agreed to all the important terms of the agreement, although it had not been formally signed. In addition, the gambling operator had presented a number of both “written and verbal commitments” that the deal would be completed.
Media reported that 37 Entertainment argued in its filing to the London Court of International Arbitration that the signing of the agreement was just a formality. The company even launched the Canadian site and was presented with all the necessary financial statements, trading reports, and related information about Sportingbet’s operations within the country’s borders.
However, according to 37 Entertainment, GVC has been delaying the signing of the deal since February 2015. The Canadian company also noted that it had not been given a reason for this. Yet, it pointed out that the delay could be attributed to GVC’s bid for the acquisition of the struggling bwin.party.
The consultancy firm said in a Monday statement that the gambling operator could face customer and shareholder lawsuits as well as licensing and regulatory inquires due to the court filing.
A spokesperson for GVC commented that the claim has no merit as no formal agreement has been signed between the two involved parties. He also added that the company has always been looking for “new relationships” but not all the opportunities it has been presented with have reached maturity.
