Andar Bahar: Katti Mangatha

How to play Andar Bahar: Katti Mangatha

The bill passed at third reading on 13 August after second reading debate and clause-by-clause consideration during the committee stage. The measure has not yet been confirmed as having received presidential assent or entered into force.

If enacted, the bill would amend the Gambling Authority Act (Cap. 19:03). Its provisions would take effect on a date appointed by the responsible minister through an order published in the Government Gazette.

The age proposal was the bill’s most contentious provision. Opposition MPs argued during the committee stage that Botswana should retain the existing minimum age of 21, but the bill passed with Clause 2 intact. The clause would replace references in the Act to “the age of 21” with “the age of 18”.

About Andar Bahar: Katti Mangatha

Operators were encouraged to take several practical steps, including enhancing terms and conditions, maintaining robust evidence and uptaking technical standards.

They have also been advised to thoroughly review their Know Your Customer, fraud detection protocols and contractual terms to reflect the guide’s recommendations. 

They must also evaluate their current technical safeguards to ensure alignment with regulator expectations and certification standards.

What is Andar Bahar: Katti Mangatha?

“A proceeding aimed at impairing a single creditor is not the collective administration Chapter 15 contemplates, and the mismatch is not a technicality. It is part of the Debtors’ bad faith effort to forum shop for the most advantageous tool to use against their litigation adversary,” Skillz attorneys alleged.

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.”