Inside Asian Gaming

IAG JAPAN DEC 2021 52 COLUMNISTS How might this affect Crown Melbourne’s business? For example, and without being too fanciful, it may require a complete reset of the company’s approach to the issue of gambling harm minimization. Its self-proclaimed “world’s best approach” to problem gambling was found by Finkelstein to be at odds with reality. A reset could conceivably impact the company’s advertising and promotional activities, see a wind-back of high limit slots and necessitate a fundamental rethink of its customer loyalty program. If the Board can’t be persuaded of the need for such changes, it would arguably be competent for the manager to simply direct the Board to implement suitably revised policies on the ground that the best interests of the company would be served by so doing. The substitution of the special manager’s judgement for that of the Board has another dimension, which the Bill does not appear to address. While the company’s directors will be bound to comply with any direction they receive from the manager, they are not shielded or indemnified by law in the event that they are sued by any third party adversely impacted by implementation of the direction. The only workarounds are either the company’s own Directors and Officers Insurance Policy or joining the State as a co-defendant in any court proceedings. A more satisfactory approach would simply be to provide a statutory protection against third party action for the Board when implementing any directions it may receive.