Some of his posts are removed and he is not banned. (I flagged his last post and I assume that's why Mike Haven removed it (thanks Mike!)). I assume that if he does it again there will be consequenses.

His post was nothing special, just again the same thing he's been posting once a week but got really tired of the same stuff each week from him.

bumpity bump bump bump....

Can somebody drop some short cliff notes pls...

Is Microgaming responsible for any of this? All of this?

pg 1 has cliff notes

lol Fulzgold so true

Emailed the other day to see if any progress has been made.

Got the following reply...

Guess that means no?

I like it how they are "realising" TUSK's assets. Very nice euphemism.

I think an interesting question to ask would be which case law / statutes led to their conclusion that the players are unsecured creditors. That's something they apparently already concluded and shouldn't be able to dodge.

Hey Wolitzer,
Thanks for taking time to look through all these posting. I tried to look into matter when all this mess happen. I talk to few Australian lawyer and he found out Tusk was in Vanuatu before MGS announcement. i have email contact of 27 individual with $457,000 stuck in this mess however i couldn't organize anything because according to the lawyer there was not a whole lot we could have done at that point. If you or any experience lawyer think we can take any legal action i be glad to pass on these info to you.

so my dad sent microgaming a letter notifying them he was intending to take them to court. Within 4 days he got a response from a firm in Toronto( they have hired legal counsel already) saying they take no responsibility and that our accusations against them were erroneous

That's an interesting update.

Couple of questions...

Does your father intend to take them to court in Canada? I was under the impression that MGS is located on the Isle of Man, so even if your law suit should prevail, how would he intend to enforce it? The only possibility that I would see is if there was a Canadian MGS skin that made recurring payments to MGS which he could then seize by court order.

What is your father's legal argument for holding MGS liable?

How exactly did MGS counsel respond to it?

Awesome, gl! Keep us updated.

once a ruling is made in Canada, it is pretty easy to get it upheld in another developed coutry

He works at/runs rakerebate.net. You may be able to get in contact with him there if you wish.

Quoting my older post, since I´ve got only a few replies here...

If you guys like my idea, i will open some kind of message board (i will look for some free forum host) so we can group the information we collected and achieve the ideas I posted.

I appreciate your effort, but I really see no advantage to doing this. It would be easier for everyone involved if you just created a new thread called "Tusk - part deux" (supposedly thats pretty vogue in NVG these days), use your previous post and then went from there and tried to rally support for it.

Registering a new forum is just a huge hassle for everyone involved with no apparent benefit.

Also, if you really want to get more organized I suppose messaging the more vocal people in this thread (not just recently, but also the ones that have given up like 1k posts ago) and asking them for their AIM/MSN/etc will be far more efficient.

Well I guess this confirms they are not going to cover any of the shortfall. I am sure with the addition of Ladbrokes to the main network and 3 other big sportsbooks joining MGS they see traffic will be even bigger and have moved past this.

when is ladbrokes moving to the mgs network?

Early 2009, according to the microgaming website.

Oh man that doesn't sound good.

This means that microgaming is willing to fight in court and won't cover players balances by free will, they have washed their hands, now it is between liquidators and players.

Probably the owner of Tusk have some kind of deal or is a share holder or have some kind of association with simpartners.

I'm stuck a lot and am very interested in an organized smear campaign against Microgaming, once folks think it time to act.

I kind of dislike looking at it as a smear campaign tbh, but I do think we need to speak out more. Wolitzer is compiling the info from this thread atm. I think that will be a good start.

If you reread your license agreement with Microgaming I think you will see why they would defend a lawsuit and additionally are unlikely to voluntarily reimburse player's losses.




5. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

5.1. IN NO EVENT WILL MICROGAMING OR ITS LICENSEES BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, INDIRECT, PURE ECONOMIC OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, OR ANY LOST PROFITS OR LOST SAVINGS, EVEN IF A MICROGAMING REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH LOSS, DAMAGES, CLAIMS OR COSTS OR FOR ANY CLAIM BY ANY THIRD PARTY. MICROGAMING’S AGGREGATE LIABILITY AND THAT OF ITS SUPPLIERS UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THE SOFTWARE, IF ANY. NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS AGREEMENT LIMITS MICROGAMING’S LIABILITY TO YOU IN THE EVENT OF DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURY ARISING FROM MICROGAMING’S NEGLIGENCE.

Should have the whole thing compiled and posted on Sunday, hopefully. Been quite busy this week so it's slowed me down somewhat.

Oh and fwiw, I was talking to the owner of a bigger non-mgs site recently which will remain nameless for the time being who told me that Rednines players alone have over $3.5 million stuck in this so I could not even begin to estimate the total figure that Tusk have in holding at the moment. It will be interesting to see the report that Simspartners finally get around to publishing on the status of Tusk.

A thought I had today was that, given that all the information Tusk need is stored electronically on Tusks systems, this whole "proof of debt" form debacle is merely a money grabbing exercise and technically the whole liquidation could/should have been done 7 months quicker as a result.

So, it appears that MGS have distanced themselves legally from liability here, unfortunately I don't have access to a lawyer but I really would be interested to know where Tusk stand (legally and in terms of liability) with regards to operating in Queensland whilst apparently breaking Queensland law by not holding player balances in trust.

Also, again with regards to the law and given the above paragraph regarding the fact that Simspartners would have had every detail they needed from the get go on Tusks systems, is it possible to take action against Simspartners over the money lost on this waste of time and money that is the "collection of the proof of debt form" period.