Another two-part rehash of old reporting done by other organizations. The Tapie interview referenced in the first part, about hoping to have the deal doen by end of February, was done before Tapie told his lawyer to come out with the warning that the deal could be in jeopardy because of the pros' refusal to pay debts to FTP and other unspecified serious issues.

These are all good questions.

I think it is a legal fiction that there is any one thing that is FTP. The term is just a convenient way to refer to a group of companies that together operated the FTP brand. None of those companies have stopped existing, AFAIK, but some have stopped operating.

We don't know the exact terms of the pros' debts, so we don't know exactly to which company the debts are owed. We don't even know if the debts are legally enforceable. I think it is safe to say that the debt is owed to one or more of the FTP companies. It certainly isn't owed to GBT at this time.

I'm not really a legal expert, but I hope you don't mind if I answer, given there haven't been many other responses.

I don't think there is anything legally wrong with GBT saying to the pros: "Pay us now and we'll forgive your debt when it becomes ours. We might even give you a bit of a discount." However, any pro taking them up on the offer would be taking a risk. If the deal never goes through, they'll still owe money to FTP or to the DoJ if FTP forfeits its assets.

Yes. There is quite a difference.

This offer by GBT could be nothing more than an attempt to gain more certainty over the collectability of the debts.

Tapie (or his lawyer) said Ferguson is not holding up the deal. That doesn't mean that the money didn't exist or that Ferguson hasn't asked for an accounting of it.

We don't know whether the failure of the pros to pay back their debts to FTP is really holding up the deal. Tapie's lawyer seems to imply that it is. GBT might just be trying to shake loose some extra value. OTOH, the degree of resistence of the pros to paying may have so surprised and discouraged Tapie that he is thinking of giving up.

One wild theory might be that the FTP ownership has broken into factions who disagree with each other about the settlement details, and Ferguson is working closely with GBT. GBT is trying to make Ferguson look good and the other party look bad, because Ferguson is being more cooperative with Tapie. I have no evidence that this is actually the case.

Your English is great and I haven't seen you misuse terms. I wish my German was good enough to give you a translation.

According to ""The Center for Forfeiture Law", "forfeiture" is That would seem to mean that forfeiture is an act which the owner does not agree to but the government does it anyway.

"Remission" is a specific type of money compensation, paid by the government to victims of an offence who have suffered a loss of money or goods as a result of that offence. The money paid by the government must come from a forfeiture of assets where the forfeiture is due to an offence that caused the loss, or another offence related to the offence that caused the loss.

"Dismissal" of a legal case means that the judge ordered that the case be stopped, without the judge rendering a judgment on the matters of the case. There are several reasons why a dismissal may occur.

In Todd Terry's civil case against certain owners of FTP and some of the FTP companies, the judge dismissd the case against all the people and against some of the companies. He also dismissed some of the charges against the remaining companies, but allowed the case against some of the companies to continue but only on the charge of conversion. This does not mean that the judge said that the individual defendants did not do what Todd Terry and his co-plaintiffs claimed. In this instance, the judge decided he was not legally allowed to hear a case against those people because his court did not have jurisdiction over them.

As I understand it, in the US, a dismissal of a civil case can occur when the two opposing parties together present to the judge a settlement agreement, called a stipulation, which sets out the terms of the agreement. The court then (almost always) agrees to the stipulation, and orders that the terms be carried out.

In the civil case that the DoJ has brought against the FTP companies, it has been reported that the settlement agreement will lead to a dismisal of the case, and DF is insistent upon "dismissal" being the correct technical word. If she is correct, it would seem likely that the dismissal would be by way of stipulation and order.

DF has also insisted that this dismissal would be in conjunction with a "voluntary forfeiture" of assets by FTP. Given the definition of "forfeiture" above, I don't see how a vountary transfer of assets pursuant to a dismissal stipulation can be termed a forfeiture. Such a transfer of assets is not involuntary or non-consensual. Also, if the transfer of assets is related to dismissal of a case, I don't see how those assets can be used for remission. Since the court has not rendered a judgement, there has been no finding that an offence occurred. If no offence has been found to occur, how can the assets have been forfeited in relation to an offence which caused the victims to lose money or property?

In a criminal case, a settlement agreement can take the form of a plea bargain. In exchange for an agreement by the accused to plead gulty to particular offences, the state agrees to recommend a particular sentence (punishment) to the court. This is not a settlement agreement that leads to a dismissal of the case. IDK if there is a similar sort of settlement of a civil case: one where the defendant agrees he is liable for something in exchange for recommendation of a particular punishment. If there is, I can see that punishment being a forfeiture, and the proceeds from the forfeiture being available for remission payments.

But, as I said, I am not a legal expert, especially on American law, so perhaps, despite the definitions above, DF is correct that the FTP/DoJ settlement agreement will lead to dismissal, forfeiture and remission.

Actually, nothing at all is "100%" clear at this point.

Any or all of the dozens of potential stakeholders in this situation can still get bent over and screwed.

Here's a crazy idea-- why don't we WAIT FOR THE DEAL TO BE FINALIZED and FTP TO GET UP AND RUNNING before we 1.) claim anything as 100% or 2.) start pressuring various pros to throw money into some random pit.

In case you missed it, Tapie responded about the issue and confirmed and expanded on a few things: http://www.igamingfrance.com/full-ti...e-scenes/26186

Tapie is squeezing superbly here it has to be said,,,, good businessman shrewd move sir well played

http://www.igamingfrance.com/full-ti...e-scenes/26186

Greenstein is obviously one of the ones trying to wriggle free of this old debt, according to Tapie they are in the process of drawing up contracts with a number of the 19 pros who owe FTP $16.5 million ,,,,,, well played sir!!!

DJ Ricco Law

seconds between us oneonth3run

I wonder if he's trying to leverage some of the pro's who might not be able to afford to repay their debts to stay on as future red pros if the deal goes through.

He's crushing these guys in public hoping that they'll rep the company in the future? Who wants scumbags rep'ing them?

In the world of online poker? Probably everyone. If they've either got 'celebrity' status or any kind of decent results, sites will sign them in the hopes that the casuals follow.

These people are toxic. People like you describe are a dime a dozen. Why sign people that pros will hate and reflect poorly on your brand? There's no reason. GBT wants the money not 5 years of indentured service wearing a FTP patch.

Yeah I don't see Ivey and Lindgren starring in any FTP commercials anytime soon.

The other fact is that FTP was very much US facing in its endorsements and they won't be much use in a ROW market.

I wonder if he is trying to leverage them with the French foreign Legion.
Would be so nice if somebody could put pressure on those guys in a not so official way.

The right to collect these debts is an asset of FTP. If GBT is acquiring the assets of FTP then, among other things, GBT is acquiring the right to collect these debts. Part of due diligence is to determine what rights to debt collection are among the assets and the collectibility of them in order to properly value them.

Tapie has an agreement with the DOJ to buy FTP assets, those assets include outstanding loan balances to players.

If those players refuse to pay, Tapie either walks away from the agreement or negotiates a lower price for an agreement that doesn't include those outstanding balances.

If we get really lucky, Tapie will be able to reach a revised agreement rather than walking away, for let's say $70M rather than $80M, leaving the DOJ responsible for collecting on these loans as BG is requesting.

Exactly how would this help US players? $80M that can be remitted to players right now is a helluva lot better than $70M and a stack of IOW's to throw into the pile with the deposit backlog in hopes of someday recovering enough money to make US players whole.

If the DOJ wanted to be involved with collecting these loans on behalf of a moral obligation to 'US players', the deal would have been negotiated that way. It was negotiated the way it was so that BG and his boys could make payment plan arrangements with GBT in exchange for the cash needed right now for US player remission.

If you believe it wasn't these pro's fault, whatever, but if you believe they are 'looking out for US player interests', Edwin Kim, Jose Macedo and Russ Hamilton need a fourth for their next business venture.

@ DTM, your substantially correct. However, dismissal doesn't necessarily require court action, though it can.

In many jurisdictions a plaintiff can voluntarily dismiss his action, without prejudice, one time, at any time before the commencement of trial (some jurisdictions have a different procedural stop point) by simply filing a notice of dismissal. The plaintiff frequently has a time limit within which the action must be re-commenced, if he wishes to do so (the time is frequently one year).

In many jurisdictions, when the parties reach a settlement agreement, they terminate the pending action by way of an entry of dismissal with prejudice, executed by the plaintiff and, usually, filed by the defendant (he has an interest in it being properly filed).

In such transactions, no intervention of the court is required and it allows the parties to settle their action without publicly revealing the terms of the settlement (that often facilitates settlement).

"Voluntary forfeiture" does sound like a contradiction in terms but I speculate that it is a short hand method of describing an uncontested forfeiture, possibly one in which the party losing property has actually signed away their right to contest it. Probably an "uncontested forfeiture" or a "consented to forfeiture" would be a more accurate description; however, unless there is some substantial and important legal fine point that one describes more accurately than another; What's the difference to a layperson?

Thanks for the additional information. I appreciate it.

I'm less intersted in the terminology than the practical impacts. The layman might be interested in whether this form of asset tranfer has any impact on remission. Do you have a view on whether the proceeds of a voluntary asset transfer of the sort contemplated in the FTP settlement (which might be called a forfeiture) would potentially be available for remission payments. When there is no judgement of the case matter, because there was a dismissal, is there an offence to which the forfeiture is related? If not, how could the proceeds of such a forfeiture be used for remission?

@DTM, thank your for all your accurate and extensive answers, they are exactly what I hoped for when I asked my questions!

I don't know/understand (I place no information value in the "reports" that have been posted here or elsewhere) whether, if it is occurring, it will be an asset transfer pursuant to an agreement or an uncontested forfeiture; however, I do not believe that the form of the transfer will over rule the substance of the transaction or determine the possible use of the proceeds.

I don't feel like re-reading the remission regulations or the DOJ guidelines relating to the them; I have read both in the past, but it seems to me there was a provision for remission in situations where there was not formal finding because of a settlement. The law, especially the civil law, looks for just results based on the facts not unjust results from a characterization of a transaction. (Where you see quirkish results is usually in the criminal area where a whole different set of policy objectives, usually to do with the rights of the state in conflict with the rights to the individual, are at work.)

To answer your question directly, I think it is highly unlikely that the form in which asset transfer occurs (i.e. forfeiture or voluntary conveyance) will have any impact on the availability of funds for repayment to players.

this seems as good news, isnt't it ?

http://www.igamingfrance.com/full-ti...e-scenes/26186

This.
GBT paying $80million to DOJ is better for US players than either GBT/DOJ having to litigate these loans. I don't think they foresaw so much squirming by some of these pros and GBT valued them initially higher. I can't remember but think DTM posted the correct accounting methodology/terms earlier.

The DOJ wants the readies now so if/when deal is executed they can move to start the US player repayment process and if some of the repayment is conditional on litigation vs individuals maybe an interim payment could be made. If any one -GBT or DOJ have to litigate it would be a delay to US player repayment.


These celebrity pros either agree to payback (over agreed settlement terms) to GBT on condition deal is executed; OR

get litigated by DOJ/administrator and lose any support and sponsorship due to being ostracised from the poker community for damaging the deal, whilst still having to pay back the loan (most likely under harsher collection terms and interest than GBT is offering).

In the UK statutory interest is set @ ~'base rate'+ 8% on late repayments for most loans. I expect in other jurisdictions there are similar penalties.

good, but we need to find out who isn't paying back their debts and put the pressure on them. It would be nice to know a list of pro's who didn't call back Tapie.

lol like you pressuring anybody will have any effect...

I haven't been following the situation the past month very closely. Can somebody give very brief cliffs regarding the deal?

The phantom deposits are also assets - has he bought them as well? Will a list of everyone who owes money to FTP be released? Don't see why not.

Good news but that morher****er sonofabitch lederer, I see him as the last guy to pay his dept. that **********