Seriously? Would be sweet if true. Where did you get your info from? Lawyers?

I am not a lawyer and when hell broke lose i did a lot of research on this earlier. As i recall IF the fund held in trust then we would get paid before liquidator and that puts us by far ahead of money owe to MGS. That would be the best bet and we can probably recover a lot more if "the fund hold in trust". However, we can not prove that the fund are held in trust even though the nature of business implies so. I even found and post the only document publish by an independent analysis from back when tusk was merge with the other big company. In that document it clearly states that fund were hold in trust.. not sure if that is legally binding since it is done by another independent analysis and the merge has unwind long ago. (any lawyer knows if we have a case to prove that fund should be hold in trust because of that document or any other reason in accordance to British law. feel free to jump in here)

down to tusk, MGS and all personal involved....

It certainyl does make you ask the question....

If funds were indeed held in trust in past how can they legally switch them to not in trust without informing the individuals who have that money in trust?

Obviously I'm not a lawyer either, but there's no way in hell that document is "legally binding". Ignoring the fact that it was written by a third party, it was simply an analysis of the situation and not something that could set policy.

On top of that, when I was reading the document I thought the author could just be using the term "held in trust" to show that tusk didn't have 3 million (or whatever it was) dollars in unallocated cash rather than meaning it was legally held in trust.

I'm going to say that the only way the funds are going to turn out to be held in trust is either 1) they legally have to be because of how they were obtained or 2) tusk actually had some internal paperwork laid out to show that they were. However, that statement should really be written by somebody with some knowledge of the law to have any weight, and that person isn't me.

It's much easier for me to find and read the latest developments of this thread when it's on the first page. [/bump]

Given how much he has at stake, I think it's safe to say he's not asking his little sister for legal advice tbh

Bigt2k4: So from what you've found out recently

- Due to company structure, our funds should have been held in trust according to British Common Law

- The liquidators are aware of this, and should they not pay us out first they'll be legally liable

- The law there dictates that company directors are liable for any shortfall in creditor funds in liquidation/bankruptcy.

So given this, our funds are in pretty good shape and the liquidators themselves will most likely end up being paid for by the directors themselves, if at all.

You said earlier that you'd notified the liquidators that should they not pay out the players first, they'd be held liable, what was their response to that?

Take it from me as an accountant. There is a zero percent chance the liquidators would have accepted the appointment if there wasnt a 100% chance they would be paid in full.

The status of player funds (i.e in trust or not) has yet to be fully established also. When the administrators mentioned 'dividend' it implied the payment would not be in full.

Bottom line is if there is not enough money left in the pot, you wont be able to get paid in full. Pursuing the directors for any money (If they are liable at all) would take years and is incredibly difficult.

That doesn't prove anything. Just one more indication that Rakerebate and Rednines were/are run by the same people

If, as bigt2k4 says, the liquidators stand a chance of earning little or even nothing from this, it'd make sense for them to neglect the case and go about it as slowly as possible.
On the other hand, it'd also make sense for them not to move the wheels quickly if they were earning large amounts of money and were being paid by the hour.

So, is there any conceivable case in which liquidators would do their job considerably fast?

Everyone grab their pitchforks and torches! (...bump)

That already had been established in this thread, check my previous posts... apperently the owner of Rednines and Rakerebate is a guy called Ronny Ingvar Breivik... http://mbpokerinvest.com/

The manager of Rednines was a guy called Per Thorn, who can still be reached at per@rakerebate.net...

I'd tried to get in touch with them both to get a hold of a copy of the Rednines TOS but they essentially just kept making excuses and I think eventually blocked me on MSN.

I don't mean to nag, but there isn't a single person from the UK with money tied up in this mess that could spare 10 minutes to make a phone call to the FSA?!

I'm considering moving some of my play to PurpleLounge and I don't really have time to read this monster of a thread. Should I not be doing this?

[ ] will get sympathetic responses from this thread.

Nope, you sure shouldn't.

Hrmmm, interesting, I sent in my proof of debt forms and asked for confirmation of receipt a number of times, the last being June 26th. I heard nothing back until today, when they said the following :

"Dear Richard



I refer to your email below and advise that we do not have your name (Richard B.) as an unsecured creditor of Tusk Investment Corporation. Accordingly, I enclose a blank Proof of Debt form for your completion. Once completed, please return the completed and signed form, together with the proof of your balance (eg. Screenshots) to my email for processing.



We advise that we are not to release any documents in relation to the company to the creditors. However, we advise that we are continuing to realise all assets of the company and conducting further investigations into the company’s affairs. A Report to Creditors will be prepared in due course.



Should you have any queries in relation to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.



Regards,



Eudo Hadde
Analyst

"

Obviously I'll re-send the documents now but this I'm wondering how many peoples documents need to be re-sent, i.e how much more they're going to try and stall this.

that's horrible....

Well, that's, uhm... not good?

Also, had they ever confirmed anything to you? The only thing I ever got was: "I confirm that your proof of debt had been received." ... now I wonder whether that is enough confirmation.

Yeah they never sent me anything back, yet decided to wait 4 or so months to contact me about it anyway.

Yep, pretty bad about the unsecured creditor thing alright, it's kind of hard to know how to react.

BigT has found out through his own means that under British Common Law, our funds should have been held in trust and that the liquidators must acknowledge this and pay out the dividends accordingly, else be held personally liable and taken to court (I presume), yet they continue to state that we're unsecured and will be treated as such.

If a bet were going, I'd probably now take the over on February 2009 as the month that we'll get our money back anyway. These guys are ****ing dripping along which could be because, as stated somewhere above, a: They know the law and that they'll probably get nothing as a result, so aren't putting too much effort into it or b: They're trying to get the maximum amount possible out.

I'd haved weighed it at something like 45:55 until I got that email, now I think it's probably something like 65:35 ish...?

given that the liquidators have stated we won;t know our dividend this year, this is very bad news (since they are confident it won;t be resolved in 2.5 months). It's likely they forsee this going into next summer if not longer.

Well if they're going to be draining money out of the player pool then I suppose they'll try to drag it out as long as they possibly can, and it'll apparently be March 2010 before we can get the courts to intervene.

I'll take the over on when pigs fly and hell freezes over.

my recent email from tusk

refer to your email below and advise the following:



1. We do not anticipate any legal prosecution against the company to occur in the future.
2. We are unable to advise you of the amount that unsecured creditors will get in their dividend payments until all assets of the company are realised.
3. We have applied to the Court in Vanuatu for directions and are presently awaiting a response from the Court for the hearing.
4. We are still continuing to realise all the assets and conducting further investigations into the company’s affairs.
A Report to Creditors will be prepared in due course.


Should you have any further queries in relation to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

I never asked about unsecured creditor status so seems like sims partners is now referrign to us as unsecured in all of their contacts

Yeah I got this from them today

"I confirm that we retain documents in relation to players’ balances and are not to release this information to creditors. We will declare dividends to unsecured creditors but unable to advise the amount of dividend until all assets are realised."

I asked them about the governing legislation surrounding the case and they didn't respond to it.

Obviously from their reply to you, they seem to believe they're in a pretty safe place, despite there being a single players with close to half a million caught in this each who'll do whatever they need to to get it back.

Bigt: They obviously didn't take your legal notifications seriously, think it's time you hired a few heavies and sent them down to have a word

has anyone sent back an email saying they are incorrect and in fact as player whos funds were held in trust by the site you are in fact a secured ?

GG money
Micro gaming is at the heart of this. Since they would not pay my money out, I have never played at any of there sites again and would suggest no one to play there.