FTP Discussion Thread (Everything but big new news goes here. Cliffs in OP)

[Go Get It]

I guess it puts a little pressure on GBT to get the deal done?

At least GBT can't run around saying they are the only way players get paid some back now.

[foldacedeuce]

I think it will hopefully speed up GBT and make them decide, the only thing is if the software deal goes through, how much will we all get out of it?

What 10c on a dollar if lucky and when?!

[Haupt_234]

Originally Posted by foldacedeuce

What 10c on a dollar if lucky and when?!

Probably this, if we're lucky.

[QuizzyRascal]

The DOJ should be looking for a deal that is in the best interests of the players. I hope the ROW players don't get screwed if they decide to just sell the software then use the seized funds to pay US players only

[moe_green]

from the start i always expected the software to be sold by its self without the debt attached. There is no value in the full tilt brand the only value is in the software, was quite amazed when it looked like GBT was goin to make all the players whole. At the end of the day if no one will buy the software with the debt the DOJ will have to sell the software by its self

[pineapple888]

Originally Posted by moe_green

There is no value in the full tilt brand

Well, now we know! Thank goodness you showed up.

Please feel free to share your in-depth analysis with GBT. Despite doing acquisitions for a living, they somehow missed this important point.

[therealjohnny416]

Originally Posted by pineapple888

Well, now we know! Thank goodness you showed up.

Please feel free to share your in-depth analysis with GBT. Despite doing acquisitions for a living, they somehow missed this important point.

Thanks for this, I was going to take the opportunity but decided against.

[EYESCREW]

Originally Posted by pineapple888

Well, now we know! Thank goodness you showed up.

Please feel free to share your in-depth analysis with GBT. Despite doing acquisitions for a living, they somehow missed this important point.

If there clearly is value in the FT brand don't you think Tapie would have put up the $80 million purchase price plus the $175 million needed to cover rest of world player balances by now?

Clearly FT has some value if you don't have to cover ROW player balances but once those get factored in with the $80 million purchase price it's no longer clear if the value is there.

If you disagree I'd love to hear why.

[DoTheMath]

Originally Posted by FTPHater

Do you think the DOJ will sell those assets if it comes to that directly themselves or appoint others such as an accountancy firm to handle it for them?

Doesnt really seem like something they would want to handle themselves ...

I suppose it is possible that they would hire some outside help.

Originally Posted by FTPHater

... and could anyone try and oppose or beat the DOJ to seizing those assets ie try and jump in before them by taking out there own legal action in some other country? (assuming you can find out which company owns what)

What happens to any particular asset probably depends on the legal processes of the jurisdiction where the asset is located. People could try to sue in non-US jurisdictions. If they have a cause of action, and standing, and the local courts had jurisdiction, there is a possibility they might be given priority over access to those specific assets over which the foreign court has jurisdiction. To my knowledge one such suit has been launched - in Canada, against the funds in some payment processing accounts held in Canadian bank accounts. I haven't heard about any progress in this suit.

Originally Posted by FTPHater

Can you explain in simple terms why the DOJ has first rights to FTP assets?

I don't know if it is possible to do this in simple trms. I'll try:

FTP owns its assets until they sell/transfer them or a court transfers their ownership. A case requesting the court to transfer FTP asset ownerwhip to the government (a forfeiture allegation) has been filed by the DoJ in a US court. By filing forfeiture allegations, the DoJ has effectively put a big legal fence around FTP assets. Assets in the US have been seized, so FTP cannnot sell or transfer them. Certain cash assets outside the US have been frozen, so FTP cannot transfer them. In the forfeiture case, people have the opportunity to tell the court that FTP isn't the real owner of the assets in question, so they shouldn't be transferred to the government. Very few people or companies have told the court this within the allocated timelines, which I believe have now passed. Since a US court is now deciding whether FTP, the government or those few who have filed a claim are the proper owners, no other US court can jump ahead and make its own ruling about ownership of those assets.

Originally Posted by FTPHater

Why couldnt I as an individual sue FTP or Pocket Kings for the $1000 say that it owes me?

You can sue whichever natural or corporate person you want. You can't sue FTP because FTP doesn't exist as a corporate entity. You could try to sue Pocket Kings, but you would have to do so in a court which has jurisdiction over Pocket Kings, and you'd have to convince the court that Pocket Kings owes you something. This might be difficult to do, because on the face of it, it is Filco or Vantage that owes you money. Neither of these companies seems to have any assets.

Despite these difficlties, a number of class action lawsuits have been filed. I have only heard about progress in one of these.

STEVE SEGAL, NICK HAMMER, ROBIN HOUGDAHL, and TODD TERRY

brought a suit against

RAYMOND BITAR; NELSON BURTNICK; FULL TILT POKER, LTD.; TILTWARE, LLC; VANTAGE, LTD; FILCO, LTD.; KOLYMA CORP. A.V.V.; POCKET KINGS LTD.;
POCKET KINGS CONSULTING LTD.; RANSTON LTD.; MAIL MEDIA LTD.;
HOWARD LEDERER; PHILLIP IVEY JR.; CHRISTOPHER FERGUSON; JOHNSON
JUANDA; JENNIFER HARMAN-TRANIELLO; PHILLIP GORDON; ERICK LINDGREN; ERIK
SEIDEL; ANDREW BLOCH; MIKE MATUSOW; GUS HANSEN; ALLEN CUNNINGHAM;

PATRIK ANTONIUS, and JOHN DOES 1-100

in UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

alleging RICO violations and conversion. The judge has thrown out the RICO allegations against all defendants and thown out the conversion allegations against all defendants except Pocket Kings, Vantage and Filco. I have no idea what will happen if the plaintiffs obtain a favorable judgement before the forfeiture allegations are settled, or even whether they can obtain such a judgement with the forfeiture case pending. A judgement after the forfeiture case is settled might be a hollow victory, as the defendants might be left with no assets. Having the case against individuals thrown out was a big loss for the plaintiffs, because it would seem any real chance to actually get any money has evaporated. I could be worng, and plaintiff Todd Terry sometimes posts here, so perhaps if I am, he could explain why.

[therealjohnny416]

Originally Posted by EYESCREW

If there clearly was value in the FT brand don't you think Tapie would have put up the $80 million purchase price plus the $175 million needed to cover rest of world player balances by now?

Clearly FT has some value if you don't have to cover ROW player balances but once those get factored in with the $80 million purchase price it's no longer clear if the value is there.

If you disagree I'd love to hear why.

There is no disagreeing with your point, it has been quite obvious that Tapie has never intended to pay full price for acquisition and compensation. However, that doesn't necessarily mean compensating the ROW players holds no value. The DOJ complications, the white knight initiative, large initial player base (before cashouts - not looking to argue this) are just a few reasons that compensating ROW players could hold value.

[DoTheMath]

Originally Posted by truthsbehind

Let me say this i dont believe that any of the FTP owners didnt know whats going on...

You are not alone in that belief. Do you have any actual evidence to back up that belief? However what you and others believe has absolutely no bearing on legal responsibility. If there was actual evidence that owners knew what was going on, then they would share responsibility.

Originally Posted by truthsbehind

but lets assume for a moment they didnt know for me they are still responsible because they are owning that site to a big extent.

For you, sure. For the law, being a minority owner of a corporation (as opposed to a partnership) carries no legal responsibility in matters like this.

Originally Posted by truthsbehind

Now to the laws. I dont know US laws well in this...

Nor do you know the laws of any other couintry, at least as far as the legal nature of corporations and ownership goes. This is not some peculiarty of US law. This is the way it works around the world.

Originally Posted by truthsbehind

... but laws are made for people for society. A law must make sense. So many laws change with time because people and society want always improve make it better. Maybe the laws say if the owners didnt know they are not guilty if it is so i think that law should be changed to some degree.

Perhaps you should try to educate yourself on the legal history of the concept of a corporation, and how that affects legal responsibility of owners. Also learn the difference between ownership, directorship and mangement. Then maybe you'd be less likely to think that this case indicates a need for a change to the law.

Originally Posted by truthsbehind

Because such amount of money cant disappear just in one or two days it looks more like a process over a longer time at least some months so i dont think that anyone didnt know.

It did disappear over a long time. Somebody did know what was going on. Even if they didn't actually know, the directors were legally responsible for knowing. However, in the absence of any actual evidence, we cannot assume that the owners knew.

Originally Posted by truthsbehind

I dont know if FTP was on stocks market but if they would and you are an owner by holding some stocks i would say then you are not responsible...

The owners of FTP are just like owners of a company on the stock market in this regard.

Originally Posted by truthsbehind

but owners like Chris Ferguson or Howard Lederer owned much bigger part of FTP i think. I dont think there havent been thousands of owners.

There were about 23 owners. How much you own is irrelevant, as long as it isn't a majority. What matters is the role you play and what you know or are supposed to know. Chris Ferguson and Howard Lederer are legally responsible, not because they were significant shareholders, but because they were directors, and therefore are legally responsible for distributions. Ray Bitar is responsible, not beause he was a large shareholder, but because he was both a director and a manager. Rafe Furst is also responsible as a director, even though there is a good chance he had no idea what was going on. As a director he had a legal responsibility to know what was going on.

Originally Posted by truthsbehind

And one more is Ferguson and Lederer took away millions of dollars making profit of FTP. This is okay as long players money is paid back. But in such a situation all who made big profit of FTP should be made responsible. To pay players money back should come first and the law should go this way in my opinion.

Ferguson and Lederer and Bitar and Furst have to pay you back. If they are responsible for paying you, why should somebody who is not responsible have to pay you as well?

[DoTheMath]

Originally Posted by Howard Beale

The headline 'DOJ sells seized illegal gambling company assests to another gambling company' just doesn't look very good.

Yet that headline describes the GBT deal, and that doesn't seem to have stopped the DoJ.

[G-Code]

nice to see that this thread turned into a war.

[It'sOn]

People are reading too much into this other company waiting in the wings to buy the software only. They are merely "expressing interest" at this stage, and that means jack squat at this point in time.

The DOJ is not about to bless a deal a deal that doesn't pay players with dropped lawsuits. Such an outcome only happens if the GBT deal falls through (and it looks like that deal will, in fact, pan out right now) and then after potentially years of legal wrangling by the DOJ.


Really, this is non-news.

[yesright]

This has no legal weight but lets just assume you were a pro/owner who genuinely didn't know what was going on.

Why would you sit back in silence and let your name be dragged through the mud?

By keeping silent you are basically backing those who have bilked the players.

Maybe the fact that virtually every owner/pro has turned out to owe FTP money is part of the reason their silence has been bought.

Call me naive but my feeling is that a lot of these people knew what was going on or are being forced into silence because of other things they have done which could sour their reputation or get them into legal trouble.