From our friends at Subject:Poker, and agreement has been reached: http://www.subjectpoker.com/2011/12/ftp-gbt-agree/

ETA on when DOJ will stop screwing around? Any chance this is done before the holidays?

Good question! I love this forum when things are getting done!

I'd say there's always a chance - the DOJ/FTP agreement should be the easiest of the three, IMO.

But with the holidays approaching, I think that's impossible to say. All it takes is one key figure who is out of the office starting next week and the entire sequence gets pushed back to after Christmas at the earliest. I don't think there's anyway for sure we can know until next Friday - if no deal has occurred by then, then we know it didn't get done before the holidays.

I'd like elaboration on the underlined part.

1. Believed by who? The reporter (diamond-flush) or one of the sources? Is this speculation by someone who doesn't know, or a coy response by someone who does know but isn't supposed to say or can't be 100% certain?

2. 'Shortly'? days/weeks/months? Is 'shortly' just a placeholder guess because you don't know how long but think it will follow a timeline that you subjectively consider to be quick? Or do you have a specific (albeit rough) timeline for these events that you could objectively quantify as being 'short'?

I'm not sure the last time was when I was accused of being coy, but lets call it careful instead.
Look, I could tell you it might happen in 3 days, but then when it takes 2 weeks instead, I am accused of not being honest. If I say a month, and it happens in 3 days, I look like I just took a guess out of thin air. Its a no-win really.
I can tell you that there are four parties to consider here: GBT, FTP, the DOJ and the Judge in the case.
If it was up to GBT and/or FTP, I can tell you that both are totally committed to get this done as a priority. The DOJ, as much as we would like to think that we are the most important thing in their world, actually can be busy with other cases as well. Keep in mind, no matter how you celebrate, its the holiday season. That means vacation time etc, for key personnel, possibly even the Judge.
I can tell you that it could happen in a week or two. Factor in the holidays, could be a little longer. Remember there are additional steps to happen after this, but make no mistake, todays report is HUGE.
We have said all along that no one was being paid by Xmas, it just was not possible. That said, the updates we have presented should help everyone understand that GBT and FTP have been working round the clock, along with the DOJ, to move it along.

he wasn't accusing u, from what i understood, but rather the person who answer the (implied) question of 'when will this happen?'

What's the next step for Americans? Just wait until DOJ says apply for remission?

Why argue over what 'shortly' means after all of this time? This news should, and I only say 'should' for cautionary purposes, mean that the deal is done and that players will get paid eventually. I hope that someday we learn all of the inside details.

no one is arguing, just trying to glean as much information as possible.

When do we expect news on how the DOJ are going to handle the player funds issue? Has there been any formal release on this yet?

I assume you mean US player funds? No there has been no formal announcement made public as yet, and tbh, I would expect this would be the last thing we will hear after all other steps are completed. One step at a time.

I expect it will be handled much like SIPC claims. It is a process the DOJ would already be familiar with.

http://www.sipc.org/claim/claimsprocess.cfm

My guess is the DOJ process of repaying US players is going to take a long time. See: Neteller for a similar situation that wasn't quite as complex as this one.

The main issue is that the way that sentence is phrased leads to ambiguity as to whether DF was reporting vs editorializing.

"it is believed that..." is a phrase that in my opinion does not belong in a news article. It merely begs the question - who? Who believes that? ie was he paraphrasing one or more sources who expressed opinions/knowledge that it would be done shortly or was that just his own personal opinion based on all he learned while putting the story together.

The clarification is primarily required in order to assess the level of credibility of the person making the assessment, with only a secondary importance on what objective measure of time said person actually means when they use it.