Legal Compliance Concerns Raised as GC Chief Responds to Allegations of Inaction in Football Index Collapse

Rhodes, who recently assumed the position after Neil McArthur’s departure, has addressed concerns about the operator on Twitter. However, the Gambling Commission clarified that the possibility of a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) to compensate customers is not within their jurisdiction, as it is an administrative matter. Rhodes emphasized that the decision for a CVA rests with the administrators and potential investors or buyers. In the event of a CVA, customers’ debts, including their bets, would be part of the offer made by the company. Re-launching the platform and offering equity to creditors, including former customers, was outlined in the operator’s CVA plans according to court documents. Nevertheless, the valuation of bets and debts would be determined by the administrators, and the Gambling Commission would need to assess and approve the operator’s license application if a CVA is pursued. The ongoing investigation prohibits Rhodes from commenting on individual roles or providing a timeline for the publication of the Football Index inquiry findings conducted by DCMS. It is important to understand that even though the platform was regulated by the Commission, there is no guarantee for compensation or insurance if a gambling company enters administration and liquidation. While the protection of funds held separately may exist, it does not shield against company insolvency. Administration is infrequent among operators, with only four cases in recent years. The Commission revealed that BetIndex had been under review for nearly a year prior to its collapse but stated that suspending the license at that time could have further endangered customer funds. Due to ongoing investigations and reviews, the Commission is limited in what it can disclose regarding the matter. BetIndex, the operator of the “football stock market” platform, entered administration in March. Administrators were appointed and the High Court then decided on the repayment of £4.5 million in customer funds, limited to balances held in accounts and excluding active bets. However, potential repayment of funds spent on active bets requires either a CVA or liquidation of the business.