Ok, I'm not sure if the laws say exactly what I said, but close enough.


Well, the company may be able to just fire such a person of course. I'm not saying it is necessarily fair, but if the employment is at will employment, then a company can fire such person whenever. Baazov, specifically, probably has a detailed employment agreement that sets forth in what situations and how his employment can be terminated.

Lower status employees who are just at will employees would probably just be fired pretty close to immediately if charged with a serious crime. I'm guessing.

I'm not saying he shouldn't be fired for good reasons.

I'm saying that people who think he shouldn't get paid because he is under investigation wouldn't like it if I charge them with murder and they lose their job. Sure it might be profitable for the company to do so but that doesn't make it fair.

If the government could simply accuse CEOs at random causing them to lose their jobs, is that something you want as a possibility because I certainly don't. Again I'm not questioning the legal side but it seems unethical to me not pay someone when someone is not proven guilty yet.

Since when does ethics come into the equation when referring to Amaya?

I agree it's a crappy thing to do and I'd like to think that many companies would stand by an employee but the reality is governments don't often accuse people... let alone criminally charge someone without probable cause.

Baazov isn't the victim here. And he had no problem dolling out the same to others when the shoe was on the other foot.

'Innocent until proven guilty' means they can't yet put the person in jail to serve time, until there's been a trial and the person's had a chance to wage a defense, and has been found guilty.

Law enforcement IS allowed to do certain things, based solely on the fact that someone's been accused (their case isn't dismissed), like require someone who's been charged to post bail, remain in the state, etc. Because it takes a certain amount of evidence to charge the person in the first place.

Also, just because a person's found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean the person's been found innocent.

Innocence is presumed from the get go.

Google says nowhere in Canada has "at will" employment laws so it may well be the case that "having been charged" is not sufficient cause to fire someone.

As for the Isle of Man, they only abolished birching as a judicial punishment in the 21st century, so god knows what little protection people working there have.

what charges is he likely to face?

edit: I mean what is the possible sentence?

Obviously innocent until proven guilty is a thing, but there is also obviously something offsetting about (presumably :P) guilty scumbags getting rewarded with a CEO's salary and not even having to do his job anymore.

I mean its very possible to get annoyed that this poker destroying scumbag is drawing a great salary for nothing, while understanding the principle of innocent until proven guilty etc. He's still being unjustly rewarded for his ****ty actions which imo understandably is annoying to people.

Bazoov and Shelderson Anderson in cahoots to destroy online poker? ((2+2 )/4) * 4) * 22 = 4 right?

so it's a *thing and the counterargument is basically random rant?

Can someone (a lawyer if possible) who understands the complicated legal status of online poker in Quebec/Canada make a comment on whether this insider-trading case could affect the ability of Pokerstars to continue to operate in that country?

It's a "thing" in a court of law.

But an employer doesn't need to prove a criminal court case against a person in order to fire that person.

Per the (unaswered ) question from earlier - has Baazov ever been required to report his Amaya stock transactions, either/both as an insider and/or >10% holder? Other corporate officers on the insider roster?

Seems really weird that it's hard to find anything online about their purchases/sales.

Well this is all going to depend on the laws of the country (where I'm from - the UK - there's stronger employee protection than in the USA). With that said, in the UK you have to show just cause for firing someone, and given it's innocent until proven guilty just an accusation of a wrongdoing wouldn't be just cause, I think.

Whether he's facing any serious financial hardship is irrelevant to whether he should be paid or not.

The first scenario (being found guilty and keeping the money) is just one of those 'costs of doing business' things.

Exactly. Everyone who thinks they know what can or can't be done with Baazov, doesn't - unless they've seen his contract. But I'd be surprised if they didn't have to have a little more cause than him having been charged with a crime.

Right. I can tell you from first-hand experience on the employer side of the teacher example that the suspension would be with pay until the investigation is complete.

Agreed.

Exactly.

I get why people are frustrated that he's still being paid, but that doesn't change the fact that it's completely standard.

Just did a google search, to see if there were any other CEO's that had been charged with crimes, to see how other companies had dealt with the situation. And there's a surprisingly large number of CEO's who have been charged with crimes


Found a story of a CEO of an art gallery that was charged with fraud for allegedly taking $500k from the company, and the board chose to put the CEO on paid administrative leave in that instance. There the board had no idea anything was afoot, until they were contacted by police who suggested they do an audit, which wound up uncovering missing funds.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...raud-1.1193731


In contrast, another company spotted some ethical violations after launching some sort of internal investigation, then paid the CEO $5mil to leave and handed their findings over to authorities, and the CEO was charged with fraud after that.

http://www.thestar.com/business/2012..._to_leave.html

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...ged-with-fraud


Guess the standard for deciding what to do about Baazov might be based on (1) the Board's duty to shareholders, vs (2) avoiding a wrongful dismissal, or breach of Baazov's employment contract.

And in Amaya's case, they did that internal investigation and didn't find any evidence of wrongdoing. But in one of the articles someone posted, thought there was something about that the AMF was relying on conversations recorded from wire taps. So maybe as more evidence gets released, it might be possible the board might revoke pay at a later point?

thank you baazov for steping down, i made 16.5% on my investment in 2 days because of you

This gives an idea of some of the issues http://www.bizfilings.com/toolkit/sb...rceration.aspx

My opinion (IANAL but I employ people):
His employee contract might not be as important as people think because generally companies are not able to put employment contracts in front of employees that waive their employee rights in the relevant jurisdiction - including the protection from termination without cause. Otherwise there is no such thing as employment law, only contract law. So the relevant local law is more important.

At least where i am in Europe the relevant local law is that you can treat incarceration (including awaiting trial) as unexcused absence and follow normal procedures to fire someone who stop showing up to work but you can't fire someone just for being charged.

From the AYA press release. Board clearly states the AMF investigation uncovered more stuff not previously investigated by Board.



Regulators might force the Boards hands. Regulators might not take as long as court case in Canada. They could quickly determine Baazov can no longer be involved with AYA (including compensation) if AYA wants to maintain licenses.

Not sure what Baazov's net worth is, but I assume vast majority of his net worth is in AYA stock, which I don't think he can trade at the moment. Depending on how he's handled his personal finances over the last few years, the continued salary might be more meaningful to him than most think. Cant even imagine what is monthly legal bills are.


Not 100% sure with how things work in Canada, but since AYA is on Nasdaq, ALL transactions for insiders/officers must be reported om Form 4 and filed electronically within two days of transaction.

https://www.sec.gov/answers/form345.htm

Officers must also file a SEC form 144 announcing intent to buy/sell prior to transaction

https://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/rule144.htm

Im not a SEC reporting guru, but don't understand how/why the Form 4 for previously announced small purchase of AYA shares by Baazov does not show up in Edgar.

I hate when people say someone is innocent until proven guilty. Wrong, if he is guilty he is guilty before, now and after the case. His ACTUAL innocence or guilt doesn't suddenly change after the verdict. The courts say "presumed innocent until proven guilty." They are not saying he is innocent, they are saying lets presume he's innocent. Additionally, the word presumed means: "suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability." If you are judging someones innocence or guilt based on probability, then he should be presumed guilty since most cases end up in a guilty verdict. Therefore it should be changed to presumed guilty until proven innocent. This is more accurate of what peoples views are when somebody is charged with a crime and rightfully so.

Yeah but this cat's *** York gang bankin all over sh*t. Pretty sure he could could get Goldman-Rothschild Offbooks Capital to let him hold a couple mil till the third collateralized by his (stochastic?) 20% or whatever AYA stake.




Damn, you actually read all that, or just responding to above poster? Did you ever figure out the loan amortization schedule?

very true. even if he ends up in jail he is still on ultimate freeroll on *20% of AmayStars. ZERO cost basis.

p.s. according to his latest 13D filing. Baazov owns 24,951,547 shares of Amaya ... 18.6% of company.

I already knew basics for SEC reporting for inside transactions, so just linked in response to question in case others wanted more details.

Loan docs? even the smart people cant figure those out, so no hope for me there.

Or perhaps it should not be changed to that, because that could lead to a horrible state to live in.

If it necessarily has to be changed because of semantics, then it more appropriate to change it to "Treated as innocent until proven guilty".

stock trading seems funny lol.

bazoov say i will buy: market price jump
bazoov say i will quit: market price jump