+1

Please.

Doesn't this mean the money is safe?

has anyone actually filled out that from at this point?

well even if the players money is held in a trust acct an tusk went broke and has no money to pay out debts left were are the liqudators gonna paid from? yep thats right st8 out of the players funds belive me there the 1st to get paid.

ok well, their 'contact us' form doesnt work for me, it hangs then says fatal error

uhm I rly doubt it, whole point of funds held in trust is that they arent touched to pay other debts and go back to the ppl that those belonged 2 in first place.

Otherwise wtf would be the point of having funds in trust ?

If they are held in a trust then surely they cannot be touched by the Liquadators?

First off, I still really feel for everybody here that has to go through this nightmare. I wanted to ask if anybody has recieved any information personally, like through their e-mail or something? My point is; what are the hundreds / thousands of people that never read 2+2 or hardly speak english (much less able to go through a claims form) going to do? They must be fumbling in the dark I guess, cause a majority of people are NOT looking at this forum and getting this feedback (which so far has been excellent by the way, good job mightyzep and others). All they see are these (at least to them) cryptic public statements. Are the skins guiding their clients in what to do? If these people miss the deadline for submitting their claim, is it gone forever?

I was wondering this myself. I haven't heard anything from RCC (or anybody else for that matter) since all of this began.

No, the skins, TUSK and MGS have done absolutely nothing in regards to contacting players (aside from MGS press announcements which are very well hidden). I have mentioned this before, that I am very thankful for twoplustwo but MGS/skins/TUSK have handled this so irresponsibly. However, I am thankful my skin is posting here, I'm guessing some skin representatives took and and ran off....

I and many others have also repeatedly called out skins/MGS for not providing more information to the players voluntarily or making an effort to contact players.

For instance while it is great to see battlefield is posting on this thread it took them forever to update their website and claim they do not have emails for any of their customers (why they don't request emails from players and start a mailing list is beyong me, it would be very easy... As you can see little information is provided on their website.

http://www.battlefieldpoker.com/

Sadly reminds me of the jetset page before they ran off with players money

Where did you get these figures from, mellowman? If player balances were held in trust, it should speed up the process of giving the players money back I think. Right? Would be nice to here one of the lawyers view on this.

This was dicussed about 60 pages back lol :P

I really hope the funds are in trust but....

The consensus earlier was at some point during new management it was likely that funds were no longer held in trust. But it is a very good question as to why funds that were held in trust were reversed....

Again I really hope they are still in trust but even the artic poker rep on the twoplustwocast did not seem to have an optimistic viewpoint (nothing in their contract mentions funds kept in trust).

Thanks for updating me on this acethiest. Felt optimistic for a short while. Thought i might be a breakthrough, sigh...

what do u think the liqudators will work for free? isyour name tattoo do u see planes cause i swear u livin on fantasy island, no way the liqudators will do the work for free, im sayin if the only funds tusk has left cash wise is players balances the liqudators fee will come out of it u can count on it

This statement is incorrect. Don't worry, there is always enough money left over for the liquidator to get paid before any of the other unsecured claims. Plus, a liquidator by law can only get paid from funds - or tangible assets - that are a part of the liquidation administration. The assets held in trust are by definition not an asset subject to liquidation. They are instead treated as an asset subject to distribution to the beneficiaries of the trust.

The only exception that I have ever heard is that the interest earned on trust funds can be placed into the general revenue fund by agreement.

I am still under the impression that my money is held in trust, so I am not a creditor. All the financial statements I see are from two years ago, and contradict other statements I have seen. Do we have a clear statement from the liquidator that people who deposited are creditors? (I believe that the terms of service said our money was to be held in trust, but I could be wrong on that. But if the TOS said that, and they are treating us as creditors because of the way Tusk set up their accounting, do we have recourse to change the way we are treated?)

I am sorry if it has been posted already, but I would really like to see an official statement from the liquidator saying that we are creditors.

I will wait for some word from BattleField or the liquidators on this. I really don't see how they are treating us as creditors.

BattleField, under whose auspices do the liquidators operate? Is it Australia? Whoever it is, you should find out who licenses them, get on the phone, and tell whoever is blowing you off that if you do not talk to the liquidator before you hang up you are going to file a formal complaint and also file a lawsuit against the liquidator. I am not sure if you actually have grounds, but if they will not respond to you even with status, and that puts your business in jeopardy, you might (tell them that not having any status is putting your business at risk, and of course document every call). I would let them know that you have documented all attempts at communication, that they have been informed that their lack of response is putting your business at risk, that you know who has authority over them, and that you are considering legal action against the liquidator directly. If that does not at least get the liquidator on the phone, start lodging complaints and maybe have your lawyers send them some letters or even file.

I am not a lawyer, but I would hope that the liquidator has some (legal) duty to keep the stakeholders in a liquidation informed, especially if it impacts their business. That information, regardless of whether it is good news or bad news or even if it is just 'no news yet', can impacts business decisions. And something like whether your clients money is held in trust is a pretty fundamental and basic question. Lawyers help me out here: if we are being treated as creditors, and a lack of response from the liquidators caused us to not be able to challenge that treatment, do the liquidators have any accountability? Anyone who has experience from the liquidation side: is it normal to stonewall the stakeholders while you are sorting things out? If so do those stakeholders still have the opportunity affect the liquidation once communications are opened? I guess what I am really asking is if it is normal to have communications with the liquidators outside of the courtroom, or is it standard practice to only have communications in court? But if it is, why wouldn't they just tell BF that they will not discuss the liquidation proceedings outside of the official venue (i.e. court or whatever it is in this case)?

I know this is not a good excuse but until recently we did not have the entire contact list for all the players at Battlefield Poker. All the back end was shut down by Tusk. We now have the email list and we finally took over the support@battlefieldpoker.com email.

Whenever we wanted to send an email to the players, Tusk would do that for us. I agree we should have had it. I will agree it did take us to long to change the webpage.

For now though, I can say that we have made some progress and I truly hope & think we will have some good news in the very very near future.

Battlefield Poker

You sound like someone who knows what they are talking about, so I will restate a question from my long ass post directly to you:

Is their any official word as to whether our funds are held in trust or not?

And if so, should we be filing as creditors per some of the posts here?

Sorry if you have already weighed in on this, but pulling real content from this thread is difficult.

First i have to say: sry for my bad english but i hope u understand anyway =)

HI! Im a swedish player and play for red9s .. I speak (messenger) to the chief of pokermgr very often (he is swedish and have always been my contact person), and always ask him whats going on, what i should do .. and i ALWAYS answer: i dont know, we have to wait!

Now after the last statment from Micro i understand real nothing, dont know how to fill in that form ... dont understand a word of it! I ask him how to fill in that form and he answerd: i dont know, i cant help u with that because i know nothing!

i have been trying to read hole this thread but dont understand to much .. but now im real in the dark and dont know what to do!!!

So, what should i do? Cant someone plz help me ... i realy want my money back and just because i dont understand english to good should i not get my money back beacause of that??

Im not stuiped because my enlish sucks ...

plz if someone wants to help me send a PM and we can talk more ...
Realy need help..

From my experience and the way things have been handled I would be shocked if the funds are held in trust.

This is why: When funds are placed in trust they are still considered an asset for balance sheet purposes but are held by an independent entity (such as a bank or escrow holder) for the benefit of the named beneficiaries. Since trust assets do not go through the liquidation process, the liquidator would have no control over this separate account and the funds could not be frozen.

If a trust did exist, it would be more probable than not that Tusk would be the named trustee and could return these obligations independent of the liquidation. Since this has not happened and the funds appear to be frozen by the liquidator, I can only assume the player balances were a part of Tusk's general operating account.

I also realize you don't want to be labeled as a creditor, but unfortunately that seems to be the case. You have to remember the term "creditor" is a term of art. Basically, when looking at a liquidation a creditor is defined as a person to whom money is owed by a debtor; or someone to whom an obligation exists. You were certainly fall under this definition, as unfair as it seems at face value.

I just realized something yesterday that infuriated me to no end. A few of us have speculated that MGS might be a secured creditor of Tusk. If they are, that means that MGS will likely get paid any money Tusk owes them before players see a dime! And if they aren't secured creditors, but rather are unsecured creditors, they are going to be paid out at the same % that players eventually get.

I hope that some of this comes to light when documents begin to be released by the liquidator. If MGS takes any money from this before players and does not redistribute that money back to the players, we as players may have cause of action against MGS. At the very least, it will become serious PR ammo against MGS and we will have to try again to get the word out to players on other skins.

Not saying that this is the case, or if it is that MGS will keep the money, but to this point MGS has done zero and given zero indication that it will help players in any way.

But it seems that the player balances were held in trust 2006. Can Tusk change that without notifying MGS and the Poker sites? My guess is that they can't do that without violating some kind of agreement. Have MGS or Battlefield Poker or any other site been informed 2006 or later that the player balances no longer are held in trust? And for what other reason than financial difficulties could they break up that "held in trust arrangement" (bad english, sorry)? And wouldn't the Poker sites and MGS stop doing business with Tusk if they were in financial troubles and wanted to get their hands on the player's money? I know nothing about the jurisdiction connected to these things so I have to rely to what I hope is common sense. Are my assumptions naive or even stupid?

I'd imagine that writing "held in trust" on that expert's report and the funds actually being held in trust in a legal sense are very different things.

Why on earth did he wrote that the funds were "held in trust" if they weren't? Where did he get that from? Kind of hard to see a reason to write such a thing if it didn't meant something. Hard to make up such a formulation if you don't know what it means...

Unfortunately MGS think you are stupid and are punishing you by not refunding you...