Litigation, whistleblowing, FOBT crime and the Ladbrokes merger
Derek Webb
| Campaign for Fairer Gambling
Campaign for Fairer Gambling Founder Derek Webb writes about his personal experiences and explains his opposition to the merger of Ladbrokes and Coral.
My partner, Hannah O’Donnell, and I have been very successful in the past with US litigation. We obtained a settlement from PGIC following several years of antitrust litigation based on patents that were proven to have been fraudulently obtained, winning a substantial jury verdict after a lengthy trial and prevailing with the judge on post-trial motions. We also obtained a settlement from SHFL after filing a similar case in the same court under the same judge.
PGIC ceased trading within several months of our settlement and SHFL was acquired by Ballys, which was subsequently acquired by Scientific Games. By coincidence, Scientific Games owns SG in the UK, one of the two FOBT suppliers to the bookies.
Our US litigations each had a whistle-blowing component, in that they were federal anti-trust cases which happened to be based on gambling-related intellectual property abuse issues. In the US a successful antitrust plaintiff is rewarded with recovery of its legal fees and costs and a trebling of the damages award for helping the government to enforce antitrust laws.
Another federal civil antitrust case based on gambling-related intellectual property issues was filed against SHFL, Ballys and Scientific Games in Chicago over a year ago by three plaintiffs who we know and represented by the law firm that assisted us in our prior antitrust litigations. We were asked to assist in partial funding of this case.
We agreed to fund the case with our confidence in the legal arguments, the US judicial system, the lawyers and the plaintiffs. The damages estimate in the complaint exceeds $100 million, with automatic trebling under the antitrust laws if the plaintiffs prevail.
An interesting aspect of civil litigation is the attorney-client legal privilege, which protects confidential communications and legal advice from discovery. However, that privilege can sometimes be pierced if the communications assist in the perpetration of a fraud. Of further interest in US gambling related litigation is that regulators such as Nevada Gaming can insist on access to any legally privileged documents from a licensing suitability perspective.
Our participation in the Chicago antitrust litigation against Scientific Games, Ballys and SHFL involves the potential for financial gain as well as rectifying certain practices which we believe are unfair and monopolistic. By complete contrast, our Campaign for Fairer Gambling (CFG) and the Stop the FOBTs campaign are absolutely philanthropic. Anyone implying otherwise has their own commercial agenda.
Bill Bennett is a 27-year veteran former head of Health and Safety at Ladbrokes. He was recently dismissed after turning whistle-blower, stating that “Ladbrokes chose to prioritise profit over health and safety of its employees.” Furthermore, in a Daily Mirror story headlined: “Ladbrokes staff raped and killed as firm saves millions of pounds forcing staff to work alone.” This was also covered by the Daily Mail, The Times and on Central Lobby.
The Guardian also picked up the same story in a piece which detailed the horrific tale of attacks on betting shop workers. Sadly cases like this are fast becoming the norm with employees being told to "work on your own, or risk your job" as a Ladbrokes source explained to the Guardian.
The Ladbrokes CEO, Jim Mullen claims that: “The suggestion that I have put profits before lives is bunkum.” However, I myself have personally been the target of Ladbrokes generated “bunkum”. I have been informed that a Ladbrokes spokesperson stated to a national newspaper editor that I was obsessed and autistic, comments which had the potential to damage my media credibility. To this day, they still have on their corporate website a misleading article denigrating myself and the CFG.
History and Hollywood have shown us that when a predatory sector faces off against a whistle-blower the most likely source of “bunkum” is not the whistle-blower. Big tobacco and toxic polluters have attacked whistle-blower integrity and hoped to silence them with onerous litigation costs. Bill Bennett is bringing his Employee Tribunal claim to clear his name and prove his assertions regarding Ladbrokes.
Both the murder and the rape occurred in single-staffed premises. Just ten years ago it would have been inconceivable to have less than two staff members in a betting shop, but since the proliferation of FOBTs, single staffing accompanied by violence, threats and attacks on staff have become the norm not just in Ladbrokes shops but across all the corporate bookmakers.
FOBTs are the most addictive form of gambling. They are being marketed predominantly in deprived areas to a demographic that is often disenfranchised. Crime on premises against FOBTs has been a consequence. However I believe claims of a non-reporting of crime to police and of the Gambling Commission not requiring crime reporting, have led to a permissive culture in betting shops towards damage to premises and abuse to staff.
As a philanthropic endeavour, we are therefore financially supporting Bill Bennett in his case against Ladbrokes. If there are legally privileged documents that Ladbrokes will not disclose in that case, then politicians and the public can form their own judgement.
My opinion is that Mr Mullen and Ladbrokes are in breach of the licensing objectives and that the Gambling Commission should conduct a suitability investigation. Unwillingness to provide access to legally privileged documents should be regarded as adequate grounds for revocation of the personal management license held by Mr Mullen. Let’s not forget, Ladbrokes have previously been revealed to operate a “stonewall” policy stating, “We were given boxes with detailed instructions on where to store things and not release anything until a senior director arrived”.
A CFG letter to Martin Cave at the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) requests that the merger of Ladbrokes and Coral be placed on hold pending a CMA review of the disclosable documents. A refusal to provide the documents should be construed as grounds to deny the merger.
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.
