June 17, 2026

Various claimants listed in the schedules to the claims -v- Entain Plc

Business and Property Courts Commercial Court Financial List High Court Order

CLAIM NO: FL-2025 000009
FL-2024-000010
FL-2024-000011
FL-2025-000008
FL-2025-000010
FL-2025-000017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
COMMERCIAL COURT (KBD)
FINANCIAL LIST

17 JUNE 2026

BEFORE:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TROWER

SITTING IN PUBLIC (SUBJECT TO INTERIM REPORTING RESTRICTIONS)

BETWEEN:

VARIOUS CLAIMANTS LISTED IN THE SCHEDULES TO THE CLAIMS

-v-

ENTAIN PLC

REPORTING RESTRICTIONS ORDER

UPON the application of Mr Kenneth Alexander, Mr Richard Cooper, Mr Lee Feldman and Mr Robert Hoskin (the “Charged Individuals”) dated 3 June 2026 to postpone certain reports of these proceedings to avoid a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in the ongoing related criminal proceedings known as R v Masterton (86IP4756716) and R v Hoskin (86IP4756725) (the “Criminal Proceedings”), (the “RRO Application”);

AND UPON the media having been notified of the RRO Application by the Charged Individuals by email to PA Media and the Financial Times and provided with a draft of the order sought in the RRO Application;

AND UPON the First CMC in these proceedings being listed before the Honourable Mr Justice Trower on 16-18 June 2026;

AND UPON the Court having made a reporting restrictions order on 16 June 2026 at the outset of the First CMC on an interim basis postponing reporting of the First CMC as a whole until the determination of the issues on the RRO Application and the CPS Application dated 6 November 2025, so as to protect the object of the RRO Application and permit the media to remain in Court and make representations if appropriate (the “Interim RRO”);

AND UPON the Court considering written representations on behalf of other defendants to the Criminal Proceedings, namely Mr Humberstone, Mr Rubitschek Smith, Mr MacAngus and Mr Dowling;

AND UPON hearing Counsel for the Charged Individuals, Counsel for the Claimants, Counsel for the Defendant, Counsel for the CPS, and the media being in attendance but not making representations

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Interim RRO is discharged and replaced (with retrospective effect to the commencement of the CMC) as below.

2. Pursuant to section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 there shall be no report of these proceedings which:
(a) refers to the RRO Application other than to the extent set out in this Order and its associated public ruling;
(b) refers to any allegation of bribery, money laundering, or fraudulent conduct within the Defendant or for its benefit;
(c) except that nothing in this Order prevents reference to any aspect of the alleged conduct of the Defendant as set out in paragraphs 8-9 of the Approved Summary of Judgment of the PKBD in R v Entain (Case No. U20231779) dated 5 December 2023, or in other public Court rulings or judgments
until the conclusion of the Criminal Proceedings, or until further order, with liberty to apply on notice as provided in paragraph 5.

Note, the Approved Summary of Judgment dated 5 December 2023 reads:

“8. The conduct which is the subject of this DPA relates to the alleged failure by GVC, as a relevant commercial organisation, to prevent bribery contrary to section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010 (the 2010 Act). The indictment period is from July 2011 (the date when the 2010 Act came into force) to December 2017 (the date that GVC disposed of its Turkish business).

9. The alleged bribery offences occurred primarily in Turkey. During the indictment period, Turkey was a jurisdiction in which gambling was non-legal. The phrase nonlegal in this context refers to services that were considered illegal by the Turkish authorities, or designated as illegal by Turkish domestic legislation, but which would not be illegal if offered in England and Wales where the provision of facilities for gambling (i.e. gaming, betting and/or lotteries) is legal if appropriately licensed and complies with the requirements of the Gambling Act 2005 (the 2005 Act).”

3. In respect of persons outside England and Wales:
(a) Except as provided in sub-paragraph (b) below, the terms of this order do not affect or concern anyone outside the jurisdiction of this court.
(b) The terms of this order will bind the following person in a country, territory or state outside the jurisdiction of this court:
(i) any person who is subject to the jurisdiction of this court;
(ii) any person who has been given written notice of this order at his residence or place of business within the jurisdiction of this court;
(iii) any person who is able to prevent acts or omissions outside the jurisdiction of this court undertaken in knowledge of this order, which constitute or assist in a breach of the terms of this order;
and
(iv) any other person, only to the extent that this order is declared enforceable by or is enforced by a court in that country or state.

4. This Order:
(a) shall be served by the legal representatives of the Charged Individuals on PA Media and the FT once it has been sealed;
(b) shall be published on the website of the Judiciary of England & Wales;
(c) shall be referenced to the Judge at the outset of any future hearing in these proceedings.

5. Liberty to apply to anyone affected by the terms of this Order on 21 days’ notice to the Charged Individuals at ProjectOpal@simmons-simmons.com and the CPS at cpspoc.civillitigation@cps.gov.uk and OpIncendiary@cps.gov.uk

6. No order as to costs.