These are all good questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hansolobp
Some questions regarding the most recent FTP mess:
1) Does "FTP1" still exist, and if so, what exactly is it? Poket Kings, ... ? Whatever it is itīs the entity where to the money owed by all these "pros" should be paid to right now?
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hansolobp
@the legal experts in this thread:
2) Is it even legaly correct for GBT to (try to) collect debts owed to FTP1 at this point in time before the forfeiture / "selling" or whatever of (some of) FTP1īs assets to GBT through the DOJ?
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hansolobp
3) Isnīt there a legal difference between the fully understandable "due dilligence question" from GBT if the debts of the proīs are still collectable / valid on the one hand and the attempt to collect said debts ahead of time on the other hand?
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hansolobp
4) Somehow related: so it seems that it is not Ferguson but an other bunch of "proīs" which are delaying / jeopardizing the overall deal? Is it to be concluded that Ferguson somehow already paid back the USD 14 Mil. in question, or did that money / debt nexer exist as such to begin with?
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hansolobp
Please excuse my poor english and probably incorrect use of some terms! (I guess I donīt even completly understand terms such as "forfeiture" / "remission" / "dismissal" etc. in my native tongue which happens to be german...)
|
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
Quote:
|
the legal process by which the ownership of property ... is non-consensually transferred from its owner to the government.
|
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.
Two Plus Two
Re: FTP Discussion Thread (Everything but big new news goes here. Cliffs in OP)
Linear Mode
