Is there a new company or did they simply step into the existing company?

You don't need to explain to me what happens to creditors in bankruptcy situations - I know all this, it is part of my job. However, having the same classes of creditors treated equally (i.e. being paid out at the same time and equally in proportion to the amount owed) is absolutely standard and not what has happened here.

It is a completely different and new company, they have nothing to do with the previous owners.

I realize that you are trying to sound really knowledgable by referring to "classes of creditors", etc. But you apparently either don't realize that the newer players are not creditors or don't realize that the older players are being paid out under one set of rules.

Creditor: "a person or company to whom money is owing." New players are creditors - they are owed money by Juicy Stakes.

I did not know that Juicy Stakes is a new legal entity and different from the one that was operating under previous management.

I was not trying to sound really knowledgable, but it was nice to give you an opportunity to try and be vaguely insulting. Thanks for the lectures on insolvency related stuff, where you must have been trying to sound really knowledgable and not trying to shed some light on a subject or engage in debate.

"In the beginning you played a bit, but when you realized that you basically didn’t have to play anything but could still withdraw the maximum every week you stopped playing. That is when we had to put the FPP requirements on your account to be able to continue to process future withdrawals. These requirements will stay in place for you."

not true,You care to share the many emails i sent you guys that i couldn't play on the account because i had to much money in it and was a big winner and thus would never actually lower my account if i played much. We needed to work something else out.
I asked you guys to create a new account so i can play or raise my limits or this or that option, u declined all avenues and this was me offering to play in good faith for site long before you ever demanded i play with the 2500FFP requirement. i then even played on network thru ur intertops brand to help because i didnt have 50k in my account their to try and draw down.

I can 100% guaranteed you that if you didnt have a 1/week cap i woulda been playing this whole time as normal. cracks me up u dont see my POV. i am a huge winner with years worth of withdrawals without any play. You must be joking on why i didnt add to the problem with years worth of cashouts stacked up and play some more

Bottom line: you insituated policies(1k/week cashout 2500FFP later) that drove customers away and forced the big balance players no choice but to not play. how could we? You then Blame us for not playing when our hands were tied with years of cashouts backlogged

Can you guys just go back in time so he gets nothing back. This is very painful because to him, the're against me, that makes them against everyone. It sounds like all you do is cry and they have gave you practically everything back and while all you do is try to tarnish their reputation like a child, guess it's tantrum time.

Give me a break. The new players are not creditors. The only reason that the older players can even be considered creditors is because the old company ran off with their money. If you claim that you know about these things then it shouldn't be hard for you to post exactly what laws and court rulings demand that Juicy handle the withdrawals of players from the prior owners exactly the same as players who signed on after Juicy bought the company. Simply looking up the word "creditor" in the dictionary just doesn't cut it.

Sites can and have always ammended the limits and ways withdrawals are made to individual players using their own descretion. If a site provides one player with the ability to make a large withdrawal via wire it doesn't mean that they have to allow all similar players to withdraw via wire. It's absurd to claim that there is some sort of legal restrictions that would tie their hands in such matters.

If I'm being vaguely insulting, it's because you are showing a vague knowledge about these things while claiming to have expertise in these matters.

They are creditors of two separate companies (so it appears now, I was not aware of this previously). Any player with money deposited on a poker site is a creditor of that company.

Do they have set limits of how much can be paid out to players or can they process withdrawls without limits?

From what I understand players are told there is a maximum they are allowed to cashout monthly because of constraints and scrutiny for usa facing. Never heard of this being an issue with bitcoins. Bitcoin processors also don't take 3 months and more to cashout due to constraints placed on processors like other sites are claiming.

Not to beat a horse to death but is Juicy looking to make bitcoins an option? If so how long until the arrivals of bitcoins?

I have to side with timebomb in having unreasonable expectations placed to get his balance from previous ownership. I also thought that if a company buys out another company it is purchasing its liabilities as well as its assets. Making a player compensate those liabilities by generating income (rake) is bad business practices on the part of Juicy. I have seen other poker sites impose this limitation on players when buying out a poker site and it usually didn't end well. Pokerstars certainly didn't inflict this type of hardship on previous players of sites it took over .

Only in a very general sense are they creditors. But that isn't what you have been talking about. You've been specifically speaking of creditors from a bankrupt company. Those can't be lumped into the same pile as current customers.

Also I think that dwelling on this really detracts from the absurdity of what TickinTiMeBomb is trying to do in this thread. He is blatantly trying to blackmail the company into giving him his $8k without any playthrough otherwise he intends to damage the company. He has spent 7 months trying to get them to give him money that he can playthrough in 2 months. They've already given him almost $50k but for some reason wants them to give him his final $8k his way or he claims that he will bad mouth them until they give in.

I'm not sure when he played on Juicy, but it seems like he had no problem at all accumulating his bankroll at a time when he wasn't able to withdraw any money at all. But now he is outraged that he can only withdraw $1k a week. I really have to wonder what is going on there.

So the company previous to juicy declared bankruptcy? Sorry If I am not understanding you correctly. I don't get why ticking time bomb would have to play thru to get the balance of his money off. He already paid rake.

Oh damn, new mgmt.? I remember when I first started playing online, juicy stakes was the worst option. The software and cards were ugly too. Worth checking out now? I mean I have no use for these ****ty sites anymore with Jersey a 30 minute path ride. Just curiuos though.

No. Therefore all debts from the previous operator are valid.

We have no idea whether the previous company declared bankruptcy or not. Hoopie had said that he knew what happens to creditors in bankruptcy situations. I was clarifying, in that paragraph, what we were talking about when we were referring to creditors.

The company was completely broke. The point that I made in an earlier post was that Juicy could have bought the assets via bankruptcy if they so chose. It's really a trivial point as to whether they did or not in discussing Juicy's responsibilities in terms of ethical business dealings. Again we have no idea about any of the legal processes that played out in this purchase. My point in discussing this subtopic is that posters should stop posting as if they know what the actual legal obligations and agreements involved are.

Barcelona World seems to claim that he knows; but a couple of months ago Barcelona was plastering the threads with declarations that Merge owned the Curacao Gaming Commission. And if I remember right, he was also claiming that Lock and Merge had the same management. So take his statements for what they are worth.

Opposed to:

Hello,

So new accounts are still limited to $1,000 weekly cash outs? so if I deposited $10,000 before I start winning anything going to take 10 weeks to get my initial deposit back? That's not good news.

Matt

Juicy Rep. Please clear up how 2500FFP penatly isnt stealing my 8k on site? According to your math i would get 1800 in RB alone by the time i cleared the 2500FFP mark and my max withdrawal is only 1k. Now add in winnings from a winner player.

Fact is i have no problem with playing. They obvious are unaware or dont give a **** and that 2500FFP is too high and doesnt work for me or them long run.

Now that i pointed out(have done this many times in past) that 2500FFP is stealing my money and you do nothing to compromise you are then ok with stealing my money with whatever justification you want. Lets call a spade a spade. Who would want to play for a site that trys to steal a players money and scape goats it as something else. Stop playing ignorant, the policy= None of the "handfull of older players" get any more money. how much is this total 200k,300k,500k 1mega leftover?

Come clean and either change the policy or just admit your not playing the old players in a round about way. Own it.

P.s. to all the posters taking juicy's side please post me a Screen Shot of >20k in your account ill give you 100 free roll for doin it. Im willing to wager most of you dont even have any real money on the site. Your opinion is invalid if your not in same boat

I'm still waiting to hear why you accumulated such a big bankroll at a time when the previous owners weren't giving withdrawals.

That doesn't matter. They decided they would pay out via play-through, i'm aware they could have scrapped everything but they didn't (a cool thing for them to do)

But if the withdrawal limit is 1k and he needs to earn 2500 fpps per cashout, and in the process of collecting the necessary 2500fpps he earns more than 1k in rakeback alone then he is never actually getting money off the site.

Hell he could lose a little money each month, cash out the 1k max and then STILL have more money in his account than when he started the month.

It matters a great deal. During that time there was a lot of buying of funds for pennies on the dollar and there was a huge amount of chip dumping. I'd like to know if he is a profiteer who obtained funds at his own risk or if he is actually the victim that he is portraying himself as.

Also you are failing to acknowledge that he has actually received over $30k of his funds via playthrough and now for some unknown reason is refusing to playthrough the final $8k.

i never bought funds Juicy rep can confirm that. All the money i had in their i spent many hours of my life grindin to attain. Thats why im fighting so hard to receive it

I never had a play thru because if i did i would have never been able to actually lowered my balance as is the case now.

Can you change your account to a non-rakeback account?

i prolly could ask to change but that doesnt make raking 5k week to get 1k cash fair. thats 40k in rake to get my 8k that's just unreasonable price gouging. 8k rake for 8k would be fair imo as they wont lose anything and breakeven for my remaining balance. not bonus'ing 32k in rake profit for my remaining 8k balance

Supernova elites on pokerstars dont even rake 5k week and they get unlimited withdrawal options.

While I may not agree with with the playthrough, I can understand it... but the amount that you need to rake, on top of paying pretty high withdrawal fee for each withdrawal, is what I really find asinine. Having a playthrough equal to your balance... or, as you said, raking for your balance. But 5x rake + almost another 1k in fees (plus whatever you win at the table) is crazy.

If I remember correctly the rep said that non-rakeback players only had to rake about 300 or 400 dollars, depending on the games played, to accumulate 2500 points. That's a lot less than having to rake 5,000 dollars.