You say this as though everyone involved has the same interests and are just hoping everything works out. In fact, it is quite likely that Tusk deliberately robbed us and there's no reason to believe the liquidators are especially interested in anything other than getting paid. There is no one very powerful currently involved in the process who wants the players to get paid. I don't know what legal action is available to us, but if we can find anything pursuing it is probably a good idea.

I heard from Tusk that there are a little over 1000 players- perhaps just those that have sent in their proof of debt forms, claiming a little more than $7 million.
Australian securites commission said they cannot do much enforcement as they company is registered in Vanuatu.
Vanuatu operates under British common law and actually has some very thorough corporate law including holding directors of a corporation personally responsible for any short fall they may owe.

If anyone can gather information on a similar previous case or actual legislation in British common law that says our funds have to be held in trust it would be helpful in further proving our case and getting our funds back in full. Also, when I say previous case it can be anything relating to people opening accounts at any sort of company and then that company having to pay those people first.

Glad to see raketherake is so sympathetic, just got this email, which they sent because I used to play on prima (rednines):

Hiya,



As someone who currently plays or has previously played on the network, we just wanted to make sure that you were aware of the exclusive races we were offering this month on the Prima/Microgaming Network on top of the normal rakeback offers.

If you are already playing we have added the Current Leader board links for you to check your current position!

Wow that's extremely interesting. Hopefully there's someone who's savvy in British Corporation Law around that will be able to answer those questions.

bump

also the liquidators have been noticed that if they pay out to any secured creditors before the players then they will be held personally responsible.

Very interesting.

That's pretty interesting, is all legally tight with regards to that?

It is quite common

wtf page 3??!!1

any actual news, also bump

No news. Anyone else have a bad feeling that less responsible sites are gonna go belly up because they speculated with players balances on the stock market? The only site I'm trusting right now is pokerstars and it's not even close.

None of the casinos will use your money on the stock market. What they will do with it though is invest in their own company (not someone elses). Players money will instead be used for such things as promotions/advertising rakeback, deposit bonuses etc etc, nomrally with the intent that it will be paid back once the casino becomes more profitable. Almost all casinos that go donk down do so because they are using players funds for operating costs.

If tusk did mismanage funds its likely that player deposits went towards funding the unrealistic rakeback rates some players were getting (with the belief that new players would eventually fix this).

I might be completely off here, basically this is the product of some random googling...

http://www.zyen.com/Press/Press%20Re...ublication.pdf

"The FSA’s rules demand that client funds are held in separate accounts under unambiguous and enforceable trust arrangements. This would appear to be the case with Betfair above, although further independent assurance would increase confidence. However, the FSA rules back up these basic trust arrangements with detailed regulations as to the required governance and control structures surrounding client money. "

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/Pages/handbook/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financi...ices_Authority

Without reading through that entire handbook, maybe someone from the UK can contact the FSA and describe our case and see if they can state the UK law for us.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/Pages/Doing/Contact/index.shtml

If Tusk went bust because they were mismanaging player funds it wasn't because they were using them for funding rakeback. The imminient decision by MicroGaming to kick some of Tusk's skins off that were allowing high rakeback percentages may have been the final nail in Tusk's coffin but rakeback didn't cause them to go broke. There was nothing unrealistic about the rakeback rates that players could get from Tusk's skins. Players could and still can get higher rates indirectly on other networks such as Ongame than they did from Tusk's MicroGaming skins.

I agree that rakeback alone would not cause the fall (it would be simply one factor as there are other operating costs as well). But from what I understand 60% is an unrealistic number to offer players and can't be maintained when you factor in MGS and TUSK share as well. Wether this is true or not I'm not sure (FTR I was not receiving 60% like some players).

Also keep in mind that skins which are not run under TUSK can give higher rakeback because they only need to give a share to MGS and not two companies.

60% is high but that number by itself is deceiving and it's a bit more complex than you make it out to be. Sure the skins were giving a high percentage at 60% but they wer deducting ALL of their player deposit fees from the rake. So 60% sounds high but the players were really only getting 60% of the net rake after the skins deducted 100% of their player expenses. The weren't taking a hit from the expenses making it alot easier for the skin to make a small profit after kicking up to Tusk and Tusk to MicroGaming.

Here is an example. People complain about deposit fees and such being deducted at Full Tilt but at Full Tilt if a player deposits $1k and FT takes out a 8% fee or $80 the player only loses 27% of that from their rakeback so they would get $21.60 less rakeback than if FT didn't deduct deposit fees at all. At the Tusk skins the fees were much worse to the players. With the Tusk skins the same player would take the full $80 hit in fees and get $80 less in rakeback than if the skins didn't deduct any deposit fees.

On top of the fees the rakeback on MicroGaming is contributed not dealt so it's like comparing apples to oranges to a site like FT that has dealt rakeback. Between the fees and the contributed rakeback I would just as soon have 27% or 33% dealt rakeback at FT or Cake rakeback as 60% at the Tusk skins. Sixty percent migh seem high but it wasn't nearly high as it might have appeared.

60% RB... You know, if we all simply followed the advice of if something looks too good to be true, it probably is.

I'm not worried about companies investing in the stock market, the way things seem to be heading I'm concerned that one of the banks where player funds are held will go belly up. Then what? I am also onl playing on PS, but I'm not sure how the Royal Bank of Scottland has fared so far since the bailout etc.

What email address did you use to ask for your varification? I'm beginning to sonder if I've been using the wrong one sicne I haven't recieved confirmation in 3 months.

I don't think it was their SOP to send a confirmation email. I had to resend asking for confirmation to recieve one.

bump

I wish we would get our money back.

I sent two emails requesting confirmation, but never recieved one

I think it took me 2-3 times to get confirmation. Just re-send it and re-ask for confirmation.