About this app
What is Talking Lion: My Virtual King?
Cirsa’s implied pro forma value, before synergies, corresponds to an multiple of approximately 6x its expected 2026 EV/EBITDA which will be between €800 million and €820 million, according to the operator’s most recent earnings.
According to a joint press release, the combined company would hold “undisputed leadership positions” in both Italy and Spain, with the group set to hold a duel listing on the Milan and Spanish stock exchanges.
The group is expected to have an addressable market of up to €34 billion when combining all its available markets, including Portugal, Mexico and Colombia.
What is Talking Lion: My Virtual King?
BGaming’s product chief tied the release directly to prior results. Julia Alekseeva, CPO at BGaming, said duel slots have proven to be a hit in the past, with titles like Clash of Gods Power Duel driving strong engagement, so the studio decided to take this further with Johnny vs Chicken. She added that the studio took two of its most recognizable characters and brought them together in what she called the ultimate BGaming IP showdown.
That language, an “IP showdown” between established characters, points to where the strategy could go next. If a duel format plus familiar faces reliably lifts engagement, BGaming has a repeatable template for future crossovers drawn entirely from its own library. Johnny vs Chicken reads less like a finished idea. It reads more like a first test of a shared-universe approach to slot IP.
The post BGaming Pits Two Signature Characters Against Each Other in Johnny vs Chicken appeared first on Vegas Slots Online News.
About Talking Lion: My Virtual King
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.”
On Aug. 26, Tel Aviv District Court Judge Iris Lushi-Abudi rejected Papaya’s motion to pay down the Skillz judgment over 6.5 years with profits from its continuing operations.
