Originally Posted by excession

Can the Unibet rep please clarify something here. Are the player funds for players at Unibet held in trust in segregated accounts for the players or not?

It's liquidation 101 that funds held in trust for players take priority over all the other claims in a liquidation and that if the funds aren't the players are at the back of a very long clue if something goes wrong.

Ladbrokes (another MG licencee) state that they hold player funds in trust in segregated accounts. So it would certainly seem to be possible on the MG network to do that.

It would also seem that MG didn't make it a term of their licence to Tusk as Tusk didn't hold the funds that way (so MG's claims to be the 'safest' online gaming company as regards player protection are shown to be laughable when their chosen main licencee/fund handler runs off with $6m of player funds).

Because the one lesson we have all had reinforced thru this debacle is that offshore gaming sites and those involved in them are not to be trusted and that you take a risk whenever you put your funds in them - so to minimise that risk you put your money in reputable companies who actually take player protection seriously and segregate player funds rather than dipping into them for general running costs and the CFO's Ferrari. Do Unibet actually protect funds in this way? If not then even if you are mad enough to play an MG site, it shouldn't be Unibet.

Originally Posted by NANONUTS

I was advised not to post anymore about the issue. The reason Im posting now is because I see my chances of recovering the money as almost negligible.

Originally Posted by NANONUTS

So your first reason that they should cover the players is that it's 'the right thing to do'. That is laughable.

Your second reason is also bull****

Originally Posted by BruceN

Having previously worked as Company Liquidator within the Australian system, I would have to say after following the various threads on 2 plus 2 that the liquidators will be looking for every available opportunity to claw funds back from Microgaming.

Now, let me start by disclaimer by saying that is a bit of a crude summary and I have not been involved in inslovency for a few years now, (prefer tax work). I am also making assumptions here which may be incorrect, as I am not privy to all the facts.

The main avenue that may be available to the liquidators is through the process of "preferential payments". From the point that Tusk was deemed to be "trading insolvent", virtually every payment made to specific creditors in preference to other creditors can be clawed back.

Now , I am assuming that various licence fees and payments were paid to microgaming as per the terms of the licence, and that continual operation of the skins depended upon Microgaming receiving regular payments. A bit like preferencing your payment of the rent when you are broke and holding off paying the credit card.

If this happened, and Microgaming have received revenue ahead of other creditors and in preference to their legitimate claims, then they can be asked to cough up.

Good luck to all the players affected by this appaling situation.

Bruce

Originally Posted by caruzo

Quite unique to be owed over half a million dollars, the single biggest individual balance, and yet staunchly defend the company who most everyone else regards as having responsibility, arguing that they should not pay you anything:



I don't believe you are owed any money.

Originally Posted by mephisto

Let's get a sticky so we can cost them many new potential players to their site.

Originally Posted by $taybuffMM

read whole post.
very good post.
I hope to one day do as much for the poker community as you and nat arem.

5.4 million isnt that much over 28 sites (200k per?) and with maybe 10k players they avg 20$ each?....I'd lay 4 to 1 not even 50% of players with any balance whatsoever come after 15% of an avg 20$ balance.....

Originally Posted by durkadurka33

Your math is terrible since each skin probably didn't come close to having 10k players! Even 1k might be a stretch for a lot of them.