Well , i dont knwo what to say .... Tapie should pay everything and i guess he's making agreement with DoJ to release seizied fund's ... so i still think we will have our roll's back and play there again ...
waiting news in next few days .... cose meeting is still underway.

It's already settled law, having been litigated and appealed. The DOJ executes the laws as the judicial system rules on them, not their own opinion.

Authorisation to debit your checking account is arguably not a debt. It comes under the strict NACHA rules and the authorisation does expire. Expiration does not convert it to a debt (automatically) either.

legal ramifications of posting an email? really?

Great answer that well done ..... the email is a real legalise document and if i knew the answer i would not have posed the question .... but just go ahead and hate mate well done ... ever hear of context ?

I will pm mail to mod on here Noah or other if they like they will be able to advise me more appropriately but thanks again for the needle!

1775 La Fayette
2011 Tapie

PS: btw, the word "humour" comes from the French word "humeur" (~=mood).

Have a nice day dreaming of getting your money back guys

I got a reply from them a couple of weeks ago and they just linked me to their website. Interesting they wrote that, can you post the email?

I will indeed i would like to get mod to have a look at it before I post it here(not too sure how to block out my personal details from it) tbh ,,,,, one thing I have learned from all of this is not to anger the DOJ,,, even tho I am European (Irish)

If mod says its fine to post then have no problem posting

Ok, the case I referred to was credit card authorizations, where the court ruled they were legal debts. Whether they would make a distinction for e-checks I don't know.

EDIT: From what I've been able to gather, the issue Tapie's lawyer raised with the DOJ wasn't about the legality of pursuing those deposits, but rather the opposite.

Apparently they argue that if the DOJ maintains that online poker is illegal gambling in the US, the winnings that occur after the deposit are not legal debts GBT can be held responsible.

I don't think they are trying to get out of paying, more likely they are going to use that argument for leverage.

Regardless of what happens I am sure the DOJ will require FTP to not conduct NY future financial transactions in the US at all. Going after money they did not get is likely to a complete non starter. Even repayments to us players would likely have to come from/through another party.

I think these guys are up to something. Perhaps they will try to get out of repaying us players because they are of no value to them forever. They work it out to get the assets, some/all those proceeds go to the DOJ for fines, FTP agrees go never do business in the Us and then they make all row depositors whole because they can actually play in the site.

To put it more succulently if the deal requires paying big fines, making all vendors current, making all deposits whole it will never happen. That deal would take 40 years to even have a chance for a roi.

What they want is to dump this mess on the current owners for everything involving the us, pull out the row piece and get up and running on the cheap.

There is no comparable value for any third party to make us players whole. It would literally be throwing money away and it is too much money for anyone to eat to make FTP work in row. This will ultimately scuttle the deal most likely.

I think there is a good chance nobody gets much or any of their money back but I think US players are even in a worse position now. A third party at least has a business incentive to return some / all deposits to those players. Us players are worthless to a new FTP so there is no reason to pay them.

http://www.gamblingcontrol.org/userf..._statement.pdf

Does anyone have the contact details/ or know anyone who is part of any UK class action?

Sounds juicy.

I think this thread should be locked already. The discussion thread serves the exact same purpose at this point.

YUP. Keep it all in one place imho

None that I have heard of. I heard this rumour too. I guess if not true came from this source. TBH I think the statement is misleading (as why else list the countries) suggests UK, US and Canadian class actions when it really says by UK, US and Canadian lawyers e.g. UK counsel working in the US

Google doesn't bring up anything...

Agree, SGT bring in the lock plz.

Fair enough. Locking this thread down, please move discussion to the FTP containment thread.