Latest News
Statement by the Board of Directors of LeoVegas in relation to the public offer from MGM
The Board of Directors of LeoVegas unanimously recommends the shareholders of LeoVegas to accept the public offer from MGM of SEK 61 in cash per share.
This statement is made by the Board of Directors[1] of LeoVegas AB (publ) (the “Company” or “LeoVegas”) pursuant to Rule II.19 of the Nasdaq Stockholm Takeover Rules (the “Takeover Rules”).
Background
MGM Casino Next Lion, LLC, a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of MGM Resorts International (“MGM”), has today announced a public offer to the shareholders of LeoVegas to transfer all of their shares in LeoVegas to MGM for a consideration of SEK 61 in cash per LeoVegas share (the “Offer”). The total value of the Offer corresponds to approximately SEK 5,957 million[2]. The price of SEK 61 per share in the Offer will not be increased.
The Offer represents a premium of:
· approximately 44.1 per cent compared to the closing price of SEK 42.32 of LeoVegas shares on Nasdaq Stockholm on 29 April 2022, which was the last trading day prior to the announcement of the Offer;
· approximately 57.6 per cent compared to the volume-weighted average trading price of SEK 38.70 of LeoVegas shares on Nasdaq Stockholm during the last 30 trading days prior to the announcement of the Offer; and
· approximately 76.5 per cent compared to the volume-weighted average trading price of SEK 34.56 of LeoVegas shares on Nasdaq Stockholm during the last 180 trading days prior to the announcement of the Offer.
The acceptance period for the Offer is expected to commence on or around 3 June 2022 and expire on or around 30 August 2022.
Completion of the Offer is conditional upon, inter alia, that the Offer is accepted to such an extent that MGM becomes the owner of shares representing more than 90 per cent of the outstanding shares in LeoVegas (on a fully diluted basis), as well as all regulatory, governmental or similar clearances, approvals and decisions necessary to complete the Offer, including approvals and clearances from competition authorities, being obtained, in each case on terms which, in MGM’s opinion, are acceptable. MGM has reserved the right to waive the conditions for completion of the Offer. The Offer is not conditional upon financing. MGM has stated that it will not increase the price of SEK 61 in the Offer. By this statement, MGM cannot, in accordance with the Takeover Rules, increase the price in the Offer.
The Board of Directors of LeoVegas has given consent to MGM to offer a management incentive plan for certain key employees of LeoVegas and notes that MGM has obtained a statement from the Swedish Securities Council (Sw. Aktiemarknadsnämnden) confirming that the proposed incentive plan is compatible with the Takeover Rules (Ruling 2022:16).
The Board of Directors of LeoVegas has, at the written request of MGM, permitted MGM to carry out a due diligence review of LeoVegas in connection with the preparation of the Offer. With the exception of information that was subsequently included in LeoVegas’ Q1 report for 2022, MGM has not been provided with any inside information regarding LeoVegas in connection with the due diligence review.
MGM has obtained irrevocable undertakings to accept the Offer from the Company’s largest shareholder and Chief Executive Officer, Gustaf Hagman, and certain other shareholders[3]. Gustaf Hagman has undertaken to tender 8,050,000 shares (8.2 per cent of the outstanding shares in LeoVegas), and other shareholders have undertaken to tender a total of 6,909,281 shares in LeoVegas (7.1 per cent). Accordingly, irrevocable undertakings to accept the Offer from shareholders representing in total 14,959,281 shares (15.3 per cent) have been obtained. The irrevocable undertakings apply irrespective of whether a higher competing offer is made. The irrevocable undertakings will terminate if the Offer is not declared unconditional on or before 31 October 2022. In addition, Torsten Söderberg, who is also a Board member of LeoVegas, has stated that he is very supportive of the Offer. Torsten Söderberg and family owns 4,533,861 shares in LeoVegas (4.6 percent).
SEB Corporate Finance (“SEB”) is acting as financial adviser and Cederquist is acting as legal adviser to LeoVegas in connection with the Offer.
Process conducted by the Board of Directors
In parallel with other interested third parties contemplating public tender offers, MGM contacted LeoVegas in December 2021. The Board of Directors engaged SEB to lead the process of evaluating other parties’ interest for the Company. In February 2022, MGM submitted a non-binding offer letter to the Board of Directors of LeoVegas indicating an interest to pursue with a public offer subject to, inter alia, a satisfactory due diligence review and the Board of Directors of LeoVegas recommending the shareholders to accept the offer from MGM. The Board of Directors gave MGM permission to conduct a due diligence review. As instructed by the Board of Directors, SEB entertained parallel processes with other interested parties in the interest of creating maximum value for the shareholders in LeoVegas. Following further negotiations with the Board of Directors and SEB, MGM increased its non-binding offer, to a price level other interested parties could not match, in order to receive a recommendation from the Board of Directors.
The Board of Directors’ recommendation
In its evaluation of the Offer, the Board of Directors has taken a number of factors into account which the Board of Directors deems relevant. These factors include, but are not limited to, the Company’s present strategic and financial position and the Company’s expected potential future development and thereto related opportunities and risks.
The Board of Directors notes that the Offer represents a premium of approximately 44.1 per cent compared to the closing price of SEK 42.32 of the Company’s share on Nasdaq Stockholm on 29 April 2022, which was the last trading day before the announcement of the Offer, and a premium of approximately 57.6 per cent and 76.5 per cent respectively, compared to the volume-weighted average share price for the Company’s share on Nasdaq Stockholm during the last 30 and 180 trading days, respectively, prior to the announcement.
As noted above, LeoVegas has received several indications of interest or non-binding offers concerning a potential tender offer. MGM’s offer is, in the assessment of the LeoVegas Board of Directors, the superior offer from the perspective of the shareholders. The LeoVegas Board of Directors has investigated and considered market and industry trends, and certain strategic alternatives available to LeoVegas. Such alternatives included, but were not limited to, remaining an independent listed company with a possible listing in the USA. The LeoVegas Board of Directors has also considered the risks and uncertainties associated with such alternatives.
LeoVegas operates in an industry which is characterised by, inter alia, high innovation pace, new regulation and consolidation. In this context, the Board of Directors believes that the industrial logic and strategic fit between LeoVegas and MGM is attractive and should serve both the company and its employees well in the future.
The Board of Directors further notes that LeoVegas’ largest shareholder and Chief Executive Officer Gustaf Hagman and certain other shareholders, representing in aggregate 15.3 per cent of the outstanding shares and votes in the Company, have entered into undertakings to accept the Offer, subject to certain conditions, irrespective of whether a higher competing offer is made. In addition, Torsten Söderberg, who is also a Board member of LeoVegas and together with family owns 4.6 per cent of the outstanding shares, has stated that he is very supportive of the Offer.
As part of the Board of Directors’ evaluation of the Offer, the Board of Directors has engaged BDO to issue a so-called fairness opinion regarding the Offer, see Appendix 1. According to the fairness opinion, the Offer is fair to LeoVegas’ shareholders from a financial point of view (subject to the assumptions and considerations set out in the fairness opinion).
Under the Takeover Rules, the Board of Directors shall, based on the statements made by MGM in the Offer press release issued earlier today, present its opinion regarding the impact that the implementation of the Offer will have on LeoVegas, particularly in terms of employment, and its opinion regarding MGM’s strategic plans for LeoVegas and the effects it is anticipated that such plans will have on employment and on the places in which LeoVegas conducts its business. In this respect, the Board of Directors notes that MGM has stated that “MGM values the skills and talents of LeoVegas’ management and employees and intends to continue to safeguard the excellent relationship that LeoVegas has with its employees. Given MGM’s current knowledge of LeoVegas and in light of current market conditions, MGM does not intend to materially alter the operations of LeoVegas following the implementation of the Offer, subject, of course, to MGM’s continued regulatory review. There are currently no decisions on any material changes to LeoVegas’ or MGM’s employees and management or to the existing organization and operations, including the terms of employment and locations of the business”. The Board of Directors assumes that this description is correct and has no reason to take a different view in this respect.
Based on the above, the Board of Directors unanimously recommends the shareholders in LeoVegas to accept the Offer.
This statement shall in all respects be governed by and construed in accordance with Swedish law. Disputes arising from this statement shall be settled exclusively by Swedish courts.
The information in the press release is information that LeoVegas is obliged to make public pursuant to the EU Market Abuse Regulation and the Takeover Rules. The information was submitted for publication, through the agency of the contact person set out above, at 08.00 CEST on 2 May 2022.
[1] The Board member Torsten Söderberg and the Company’s largest shareholder and Chief Executive Officer Gustaf Hagman have not participated in the Board’s evaluation of or discussions regarding the Offer due to conflict of interest.
[2] Based on 97,652,970 outstanding shares in LeoVegas, which excludes 4,000,000 treasury shares held by LeoVegas. In the event that LeoVegas should pay any dividend or make any other value transfer prior to the settlement of the Offer, the price per share in the Offer will be reduced correspondingly.
[3] LOYS AG: 3,259,281 shares (3.3 per cent). Robin Ramm-Ericson: 2,250,000 shares (2.3 per cent). Pontus Hagnö: 1,000,000 shares (1.0 per cent). Gilston Invest AB: 400,000 shares (0.4 per cent).
Powered by WPeMatico
The debate over banning online betting in Brazil is resurfacing at a sensitive moment in the public discourse, marked by simplistic solutions to complex issues.
In this article, Thiago Iusim, founder and CEO of Betshield Responsible Gaming, analyzes the parallels between the electronic cigarette market and the ‘Bets’ sector, highlighting how attempts to eliminate an activity by decree tend to push it into informality.
According to him, the Brazilian experience shows that prohibition does not eliminate markets — it merely reduces the State’s ability to control them and increases risks for consumers.
Brazil has seen this movie before.
There is a magic solution that always seems to return to public debate, especially in election season, whenever an issue becomes politically inconvenient: ban it.
The logic is seductive. In the political narrative, the issue disappears. In real life, it simply moves elsewhere.
E-cigarettes make that point painfully clear.
Vapes have never been authorized in Brazil. They have been officially banned since 2009. In theory, they should not exist. In practice, they are everywhere, sold through social media, messaging apps, marketplaces, street vendors, and small retail shops, with no sanitary controls, no effective oversight, and no real guarantee of origin.
Prohibition did not eliminate the market.
It only eliminated the possibility of surrounding that market with rules.
A recent CNN report on the surge in e-cigarette seizures helps show the scale of the problem. Brazil did not get rid of vapes. It simply pushed the market into an environment where the state lost the capacity to control it.
The state banned it. Organized crime applauded.
That experience helps explain the current debate around online betting in Brazil.
Bets existed long before Law 14,790/2023. For years, Brazil lived with an active market operating online and from abroad, with no local tax collection, no regulatory oversight, and no effective consumer protection tools.
The activity did not emerge because of the law. The law emerged because the activity already existed.
Regulation was the rational response. It was the way to bring an already existing market into a controllable framework, with licenses, concession fees, user identification, anti-money laundering requirements, advertising rules, and player protection mechanisms.
And yet, just eighteen months later, public debate is once again flirting with the same simplistic solution applied to vapes: the fantasy that prohibition would make the activity disappear.
By now, Brazil should know better.
In the case of betting, the country had chosen a different path: regulate in order to control. Protect consumers. Protect the broader economy.
To now return to prohibition as a response to a market that already exists would be more than a regulatory mistake.
It would be a historical contradiction.
Or perhaps simply the most comfortable expression of a certain kind of public moralism that would rather push an activity into the shadows than acknowledge its existence.
In political discourse, prohibition can sound like victory.
In practice, it often functions as morally comfortable packaging for rushed and politically convenient decisions.
This is nothing more than electoral fantasy. And this time, no one will be able to say they did not know how the story would end.
Thiago Iusim
Founder and CEO of Betshield Responsible Gaming
The post Sports Betting, E-cigarettes and the Illusion of Prohibition appeared first on Americas iGaming & Sports Betting News.
En un artículo exclusivo para Gaming Americas, Udo Seckelmann, socio de Bichara e Motta Advogados, analiza cómo el mercado brasileño de iGaming ha entrado en una nueva fase de madurez tras el BiS SiGMA South America 2026.
Dejando atrás las expectativas regulatorias, la industria ahora enfrenta presiones reales a nivel operativo, político y económico, lo que plantea interrogantes clave sobre la sostenibilidad, la fiscalización y el equilibrio entre crecimiento y protección del consumidor en uno de los mercados de apuestas más dinámicos del mundo.
En un artículo exclusivo para Gaming Americas, Udo Seckelmann, socio de Bichara e Motta Advogados, analiza cómo el mercado brasileño de iGaming ha entrado en una nueva fase de madurez tras el BiS SiGMA South America 2026. Dejando atrás las expectativas regulatorias, la industria ahora enfrenta presiones operativas, políticas y económicas reales, lo que plantea preguntas críticas sobre sostenibilidad, aplicación normativa y el equilibrio entre crecimiento y protección del consumidor en uno de los mercados de apuestas más dinámicos del mundo.
BiS SiGMA 2026 dejó en claro que la conversación en torno al sector de apuestas en Brasil ha cambiado de forma fundamental. La industria ya no se discute como una oportunidad futura moldeada por expectativas regulatorias, sino como un ecosistema en funcionamiento sujeto a presiones del mundo real. Con el marco regulatorio en vigor y operadores activos, el foco se ha desplazado hacia cómo se comporta realmente el mercado bajo regulación y en qué puntos ese marco está siendo puesto a prueba.
Este cambio fue evidente tanto en la calidad de las discusiones como en el perfil de los participantes. En ediciones anteriores, gran parte del debate se centraba en el marco regulatorio ideal, la tributación y las estrategias de entrada al mercado. En 2026, el foco se trasladó hacia temas más sofisticados y, en muchos sentidos, más desafiantes: implementación regulatoria, fiscalización y el equilibrio entre crecimiento y protección del consumidor.
Un elemento adicional que permeó muchas de las discusiones fue el reciente endurecimiento del discurso político hacia el sector. Declaraciones del Presidente que sugieren la posible eliminación del mercado regulado de apuestas, así como iniciativas en el Congreso orientadas a restringir de forma amplia la publicidad del sector, revelan preocupaciones legítimas sobre externalidades negativas, pero también un riesgo concreto de que la política pública se diseñe de forma desconectada de la nueva realidad regulatoria.
La crítica aquí no se dirige a la preocupación por la protección del consumidor, que es sin duda esencial, sino a la forma en que se ha llevado a cabo este debate. Medidas prohibitivas o excesivamente restrictivas, particularmente en el ámbito de la publicidad, tienden a producir efectos adversos ya observados en otras jurisdicciones: menor capacidad de canalización hacia el mercado regulado, fortalecimiento de operadores ilegales y debilitamiento de los propios mecanismos de protección al consumidor.
En este contexto, la publicidad no debe ser vista únicamente como un factor de riesgo, sino también como una herramienta de política pública. Es a través de la publicidad que los operadores licenciados pueden diferenciarse de entidades no reguladas, comunicar prácticas de juego responsable y operar dentro de parámetros auditables. Las restricciones desproporcionadas, en la práctica, reducen la visibilidad de quienes están sujetos a regulación, al tiempo que amplían el espacio para quienes operan fuera de ella.
Además, la inestabilidad del discurso político, especialmente cuando coquetea con escenarios de prohibición tras años de esfuerzos para estructurar un mercado regulado, genera una importante inseguridad jurídica. Las inversiones realizadas bajo un marco regulatorio reciente son reevaluadas, los costos de cumplimiento aumentan y el apetito de nuevos entrantes tiende a disminuir. En última instancia, esto afecta no solo el desarrollo del sector, sino también la recaudación del gobierno y los objetivos regulatorios originales perseguidos por el Estado.
Otro tema clave discutido durante el evento fue el impacto del aumento de la carga impositiva, particularmente tras el incremento del Gaming Tax, sobre la competitividad del mercado regulado. Existe una preocupación legítima de que un entorno excesivamente gravoso, combinado con fuertes restricciones publicitarias, pueda generar un escenario económicamente inviable para los operadores licenciados, incentivando nuevamente la migración hacia el mercado no regulado.
Otro punto destacado del evento fue el debate en torno al rol de los intermediarios tecnológicos, incluidos los market makers en segmentos emergentes como los prediction markets. La expansión de estos modelos plantea importantes interrogantes regulatorios: en qué medida los marcos existentes son suficientes para acomodar estas innovaciones y cuándo será necesario avanzar hacia regímenes regulatorios específicos, posiblemente bajo la supervisión de autoridades como el regulador del mercado de valores.
Una comparación con ediciones anteriores de BiS SiGMA demuestra claramente la creciente madurez del sector. Si Brasil alguna vez fue visto como una gran promesa, hoy es una realidad compleja que requiere ajustes finos y coordinación institucional. La agenda ha pasado de la apertura del mercado a la gobernanza, ahora bajo un escrutinio político y social mucho más intenso.
Por último, un aspecto que merece especial atención es la creciente profesionalización de todos los actores involucrados. Operadores, reguladores, proveedores de servicios e incluso el debate público han evolucionado significativamente. Hoy existe una comprensión más clara de que el éxito del mercado brasileño depende de su credibilidad y de su sostenibilidad a largo plazo.
Udo Seckelmann
Socio del área de Gambling & Crypto en Bichara e Motta Advogados
The post Los nuevos desafíos de la industria del iGaming en 2026 appeared first on Americas iGaming & Sports Betting News.
In an exclusive article for Gaming Americas, Udo Seckelmann, partner in the Gambling & Crypto department at Bichara e Motta Advogados, examines how the Brazilian iGaming market has entered a new phase of maturity following BiS SiGMA South America 2026.
Moving beyond regulatory expectations, the industry now faces real operational, political, and economic pressures, raising critical questions about sustainability, enforcement, and the balance between growth and consumer protection in one of the world’s most dynamic betting markets.
BIS SIGMA 2026 made it clear that the conversation around Brazil’s betting sector has fundamentally changed. The industry is no longer being discussed as a future opportunity shaped by regulatory expectations, but as a functioning ecosystem already subject to real-world pressures. With the framework in force and operators active, the focus has shifted to how the market actually behaves under regulation — and where that framework is being put to the test.
This shift was evident both in the quality of the discussions and in the profile of participants. In past editions, much of the debate focused on the ideal regulatory framework, taxation, and market entry strategies. In 2026, the focus moved toward more sophisticated — and, in many ways, more challenging — topics: regulatory implementation, enforcement, and the balance between growth and consumer protection.
An additional element that permeated many discussions was the recent hardening of political discourse toward the sector. Statements from the President suggesting the potential elimination of the regulated betting market, as well as initiatives in Congress aimed at broadly restricting betting advertising, reveal legitimate concerns about negative externalities but also a concrete risk of public policy being shaped in a way that is disconnected from the newly established regulatory reality.
The criticism here is not directed at the concern for consumer protection — which is undoubtedly essential — but rather at how this debate has been conducted. Prohibitive or overly restrictive measures, particularly in the field of advertising, tend to produce adverse effects already observed in other jurisdictions: reduced channeling capacity toward the regulated market, the strengthening of illegal operators, and a weakening of consumer protection mechanisms themselves.
In this context, advertising should not be viewed solely as a risk factor, but also as a public policy tool. It is through advertising that licensed operators can differentiate themselves from unregulated entities, communicate responsible gambling practices, and operate within auditable parameters. Disproportionate restrictions, in practice, reduce the visibility of those subject to regulation while simultaneously expanding the space for those operating outside it.
Moreover, the instability of political discourse — especially when it flirts with prohibition scenarios after years of efforts to structure a regulated market — creates significant legal uncertainty. Investments made based on a recent regulatory framework are reassessed, compliance costs increase, and the appetite of new entrants tends to decline. Ultimately, this undermines not only the development of the sector but also government revenue and the original regulatory objectives pursued by the Government.
Another key topic discussed during the event was the impact of increased taxation — particularly following the rise in the Gaming Tax — on the competitiveness of the regulated market. There is a legitimate concern that an overly burdensome environment, combined with severe advertising restrictions, may create an economically unviable scenario for licensed operators, once again encouraging migration to the unregulated market.
Another highlight of the event was the debate surrounding the role of technological intermediaries — including market makers in emerging segments such as prediction markets. The expansion of these models raises important regulatory questions: to what extent are existing frameworks sufficient to accommodate these innovations? And when will it be necessary to move toward specific regulatory regimes, potentially under the oversight of authorities such as the securities regulator?
A comparison with previous BIS SIGMA editions clearly demonstrates the sector’s growing maturity. If Brazil was once seen as a major promise, it is now a complex reality that requires fine-tuning and institutional coordination. The agenda has shifted from market opening to governance — now under much more intense political and social scrutiny.
Finally, one aspect that deserves particular attention is the increasing professionalization of all stakeholders involved. Operators, regulators, service providers, and even the broader public debate have evolved significantly. There is now a clearer understanding that the success of the Brazilian market depends on its credibility and long-term sustainability.
Udo Seckelmann
Partner in the Gambling & Crypto department at Bichara e Motta Advogados
The post The iGaming Industry’s New Challenges in 2026 appeared first on Americas iGaming & Sports Betting News.
-
Akshat Rathee6 days agoManish Agarwal Joins NODWIN Gaming Board as Non-Executive Director
-
AGCO6 days ago
Platipus Gaming secures Ontario supplier licence
-
Bally’s Intralot6 days ago
Bally’s Intralot Signs New Contract with British Columbia Lottery Corporation
-
Caesars Digital5 days ago
RubyPlay partners with Caesars Entertainment in Ontario to advance North American expansion
-
Africa5 days ago
TaDa Gaming joins inaugural iGaming AFRIKA Summit in Nairobi
-
Amazons’ Wonders4 days ago
SYNOT Games Enters into Partnership with Bulgarian Operator BETVAM
-
Aviator5 days ago
SPRIBE Wins Interim Injunction in Brazil – Court Orders Betnacional to Immediately Cease Unauthorized Use of “AVIATOR”
-
Asia5 days ago
S8UL signs Team Question Mark roster for PUBG: BATTLEGROUNDS ahead of EWC 2026
