After reading the questions, I think HL may change his mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DF
■Was there an opportunity to avoid Black Friday from happening if FTP agreed to leave the US market?
HL: That was always up to the DOJ. I have no specific knowledge that the DOJ wouldn't have seized the accounts even if FTP left the US at the end of 2011, for example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DF
■Was the government insisting that a $ 1 billion fine be paid regardless?
HL: I wasn't aware of any negotiations on a specific fine during the pre-BF time period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DF
■Did Howard know that these talks would not go on indefinitely without some action being taken?
HL: Since I didn't know about these alleged talks, I wouldn't know about any time period they could take place over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DF
■Why did he not share information about these talks with other owners?
HL: Since I didn't know about the alleged talks, I wouldn't have had anything to tell to the owners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DF
■What steps was FTP taking that could have avoided Black Friday from happening?
HL: Our lawyers gave us their opinion that what we were doing was legal. They had reseached it and we believed them when they said we were in the right. We believed we were different than Party Poker. Clearly if we had left the US market in 2006, we could have avoided being seized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DF
■Why did the company not stop accepting echecks from the US marketplace, or at least the states that had laws that could be referenced with charges?
HL: We had a good legal opinion that said such laws did not apply to us. To my knowledge, no state DOJ contacted us, nor were any criminal charges pursued at that state level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DF
■If the company had agreed to leave the US market, did Howard think that there was enough liquid funds available to immediately pay off U.S. customers and keep the company functioning in the rest of the world? If yes, when and how did he check on those numbers? If not, what steps did he take to begin to procure enough capitalization to make repayment possible?
HL: As stated many times in my interviews, I only became aware that we didn't have money to pay back players on April 22, 2012. Prior to that, all the financial reporting that I saw said we had the cash on hand.
While I thought I made it clear, obviously many on 2+2 weren't able to understand what I said. Disbursements to owners had been frozen for years, even though the company had more than doubled in revenues. It was explained to everyone the reason was to make up the losses due to seizures. While $100 million is a lot of money to be seized, that's what the owners were getting when the company was smaller and making money. It was reasonable to assume if the company could afford a $100 million payout in 2008 that if it doubled in size later, the profits for an internet business would more than double, covering the seizure losses. The fact that it didn't meant a lot of the business wasn't under control, but that is Monday morning quarterbacking.