Obviously MGS doesn't run the show, even for its smaller and less powerful customers like Tusk. Otherwise none of this would have happened.

A turnkey system supplier like MGS does not have a strong position when dealing with a large customer. The Tain Network was created when a large and crucial part of the Prima network just walked away. In the current environment a good poker room/casino operator has multiple options to replace MGS with another supplier. MGS has basically no options to replace that lost customer or the players that go with it. The visible symbol of the power of the rooms is their control of the player money. That is both the result of skin power and a major source of that power.

I agree that the skins seem to have delegated security issues to MGS. That's not a core interest for the skins other than the importance of someone handling it for them. Letting MGS do the dirty work helps keep their hands clean of the resulting PR problems.

Stellar -

What is sickening to me is generally blase attitude of the poker community to this travesty. MGS has a responsibility to its players on all skins. I think it is appropriate for players on all skins to take their money out and not continue to play on the network. If all those other skins are so safe, then even the simultaneous withdrawal of all player funds shouldn't be a problem - right? MGS states that player protection is a top priority. Well, given the lack of oversight that resulted in this situation, I would say that that is a false statement.

You reference the Bet Holdem situation, where you say that MGS was absent. Well, that's because there was nothing for them to do. I posted the timeline of this earlier in the thread. The sale of Betcorp to Bodog was announced within 1 week, and after that it was just a matter of it being finalized for payouts to be made, which happened in about 1 month. This is a completely different situation.

As far as anger toward the skins. Sure, I'm pissed. But that's a completely futile place to direct anger. They are done. They have no money or ongoing business to protect. MGS does. Causing damage to the MGS network in the form of informing customers of the shoddiness of the MGS oversight of skins can directly impact MGS and perhaps cause them to attempt to make good in some way - or at least change their practices going forward.

I don't get it why people with so much money stranded don't do anything productive in order to get their money back.

File civil lawsuites against microgaming in any jurisdiction, they don't cost much at all.

Call local police where microgaming is located and file police reports for fraud.

Imagine you go to a local casino, buy chips win now you go back to cashier's cage and they tell you our processor is out of business you are out of luck.

You didn't give the money to Tusk you gave it to MicroGaming, now go after them.

I guess i'm one of the few people playing poker on the internet that actually does 'due diligence' before I deposit on any site.

I've been playing on microgaming sites for over 3 years and was totally aware that they were software providers and that any funds that I deposited were with the individual operators and not held by microgaming.

Back to the liquidation..
In the trade this is known as a 'members liquidation' - these can be insolvent or solvent (here it is the former obviously).

It is likely that the liquidators were appointed by the owners (members) of Tusk, not by any court or creditor.

The good news is that Tusk took this step themselvs - they jumped before they were pushed by a creditor, so there might be more $$ left.
The bad news is that it could mean that the liquidators are more 'friendly' towards the owners than ones appointed by pissed off creditors might be.
Also the fact that they were appointed in early March and a month later seem to nothign to report as regards what the asset/liability position is doesn't inspire much confidence. It would certainly seem to indicate that full financial information hasn't been provided to them at the outset by the Tusk owners for example.

Now there will be a court involved somewhere and usually a requirement to call a creditors metting and report to the court in fairly short order (I'm not an Ozzie lawyer but 2 months would be my guess although they might be able to apply for an extension)

Certainly under UK law creditors can band together to remove liquidators appointed by the company's members and replace them with their own choice of registered insolvency practitioner as liquidator (effectively making it a creditors liquidation). I would expect Oz law to be similar. So when the creditors meeting is called we will have some idea where we stand assets wise and those owed big $$$ might be able to consider replacing the liquidators if they aren't happy (although all sorts of large and dubious creditors connected to the Company tend to crawl out of the woodwork at that point) - here Microgaming are the obvious suspects.

Last resort if you aren't happy with the way the liquidation is going is to apply to the court that has the relevant jurisdiction - the judge will make sure it's all fair and above board and no IP is going to risk pissing off his local insolvency court judge.

Those of you with $10,000's at stake should consider grouping together and getting a Brisbane based Insolvency Lawyer to make enquiries on your behalf and keep and eye on what is going on.

I have been saying that for a while, but until now we weren't sure where the liquidators were based.

Those of us with a few $1000 at stake or less, are probably best just sitting and waiting to see after filing our proof of debt forms (and vote at any creditors meeting as the bigger players advise). The proof of debt forms are what gives you the right to vote (and determine for how much) (as well as making sure that the liquidators give you your share on a distribution and access to ongoing information).

Some of the posts lately seem to hint that the end result may not be all players being paid the same % of their money back, but rather the possibility that some may get a higher % depending on what they're owed/what course they take. Is this the case?

No - they should all get treated equally % wise so far as the liquidation goes.
It's just that the players who are owed more might be wise to take a more pro-active role than those who are owed $500.
Of course if you don't lodge your claim with the liquidators there is always the risk that they won't know you are a creditor and so you would miss out on any distributions made by them.

From everything I understand all players will be given the same percentage. However there are other creditors involved who to my understanding will be paid before the players...

Only secured creditors should be paid before players, and that payment would be based on the realization of proceeds from the specific security held by that creditor, unless there are blanket liens on Tusk. In the case of a blanket lien (all assets are considered security), than that creditor would be paid in full before any payment is made to any unsecured creditor - which is the class that players appear to fall into.

It is important for us to find out when and if we can if MGS is a secured creditor, and especially if they are a secured creditor with a blanket lien. Because the demise of Tusk appears to be directly related to an action by MGS (the withdrawal of licenses), if MGS collects money ahead of players then we as players may have a cause of action against MGS. This info is probably a ways down the road before we know about it, but if any high rollers have attorneys working on this it is an angle they should be looking at.

The first paragraph looks very wrong if, as I suspect, the Oz system is based on the English one.
Secured creditors get paid out first to the extent of their security,
then the liquidators fees (based on an hourly rate and often huge),
then the entire class of preferred creditors (usually various employee claims, government debts/taxes etc) and
then, the ordinary creditors - trade and player purses (if not held in trust). Finally there are deferred creditors - those monies owed to the owners and directors of the company and those closely connected with them.

A lien would only be directly relevant to us if someone with one actually held the player funds (although if there was a creditor with a lien over another asset it would havbe security over that asset, so remove the proceeds of its liquidation from the general pool available)

Apologies if you actually are a NSW lawyer of course...

yeah but this doesnt prove anything. you could deposit just $5 and make it $15,000 in your poker account, but you would have no evidence of this in your neteller.

Or you could deposit 15k and lose it all, so ya it's not much use.

But the fact that you know the details of how the money entered the account at least helps prove that you are the real owner. It most likely won't help at all alone but can be used to provide a miniscule amount of proof accompanied by other data.

Back to page 1.

lucky they don't do buisness with aussies or I am sure players would be turning up on the liquidators door.

Nope, not an NSW lawyer - my experience with liquidations comes from the lenders side in the U.S., so I'm definitely making assumptions based on that.

What we are saying isn't that different (I just didn't mention the employees, taxes, and liquidator fees - this is same in U.S. that they come before unsecured creditors, I thought everyone already understood that these classes come first).

The difference lies in the concept of the blanket lien. Does this type of lien not exist under U.K. (or OZ) law? When I was in lending, I was a secured lender and we placed specific liens where applicable (equipment, real estate), and a "blanket lien" on all company assets. The blanket lien entitled us to be paid out to the full extent of realizable company assets before ANY payments to unsecured creditors. Preferential payments (employees, taxes) came before us, but other than that, we took everything. If there was anything left over after us, then the unsecureds would get paid.

Hopefully they should be in contact with you soon as they did just send out emails to all Battlefield players.

What should we actually do with that file?
I filled all the details, where should i email/fax it?

+1

Did we learn/decide at some point that Australian law applies?

I thought this was being done under Vanuatu law and just assumed that an Australian-based law firm was chosen for practical reasons.

The demise of Tusk appears to be related to all the money being missing .

MGS was probably well within their rights to revoke the licenses. Probably this needed to be done long before it was. Not revoking the licenses would probably have allowed players to deposit and lose even more money. I don't see why they should be liable for popping the bubble. You need to find a way to make them liable for creating the bubble.

I'm going to be optimistic and suggest that it would be a good thing if MGS is a secured creditor. I think they will return any money they collect to the players. The advantage of being secured is that puts them in front of other unsecured creditors who might otherwise collect a share of the player's money.

But it is certainly true that the more people know about the payouts the more likely this is to turn out well. If MGS knows that everyone knows they have the money it may be easier for them to do the right thing.

What are you guys doing about owed rakeback? Is it worth putting on this Tusk form along with your owed player balance?

I know the rakeback is from an affiliate but on RedNines it is paid directly into your poker account so there is a direct relationship there.

Folding Pete

I mentioned my unpaid rakeback for the month of February in the form I filled out. I may never see the rakeback payment, but at least Ive made it known to the liquidators extra money is owed to me.

This email was imbedded in the one I received, and the one I sent all my info to.

tusk@simspartners.com.au

Theres no number for faxes in the email, so you may need to call them to find one, or scrounge around their website for one.

It seems to me, and I am not an Aussie lawyer, that the flow of money is such that players are creditors of:

Tusk, for the amount of the player's balance in the cashier when Tusk ceased operations; and
The skins, for unpaid rakeback.

The creditors of Tusk include the players, the skins, and MGS. In the US, there are mechanisms by which MGS can be forced to subordinate their position to the players and skins for various representations that apparently were made to the skins, and thus relayed to the players. A NSW insolvency attorney should be able to answer these questions about procedures.

MGS may not be in a financial position to assist the players. The suggestion in the Eurolinx thread that Eurolinx is having cash flow problems, if true, could signify much deeper seated problems across the entire network.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=184
which links to:
https://www.picclub.com/eurolinxdefaults.html

rakeback is a payment from the skin not Tusk. Tusk pays skin, skin pays you.