though the discusssions might be interesting from a generic legal perspective, current risks for Stars have more to do with what regulators think vs legal system in Canada.

Gaming Commissions are independent bodies, and do not adhere to same set of standards. rules of evidence, due process, etc etc as courts.

Courts take forever. NJ or any other jurisdiction could rule today, tomorrow, or at anytime that Baazov must be fired from company if Stars wants to maintain their license. They could simply find Baazov a person that in their sole determination does not possess good character or integrity. end of story.

As far as employment agreements and such, almost all employment agreements and contracts for regulated gaming companies have standard clauses dealing with any impact on companies gaming licences.

I suspect several gaming commissions where Stars is currently licensed is now reviewing the AMF report.

Another random fact, I have actually sat on a jury that gave a not proven verdict. It should really be abolished to be honest.

just read that, jury nullification is such a dumb idea

Another interesting development: Amaya sued in U.S. court by investor, accused of defrauding shareholders by concealing insider trading conducted by its chief executive.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle29488050/

Yeah the Not Guilty verdict is horrible as it still casts a shadow on the person given it.
Its very rarely used, except when the judge gives the Jury instructions that if the juror believes he's guilty but can't prove it. I wish we Scots never ever had it.

I wasn't referring to whether Baazov can be fired or not at all. I was just talking about the concept of innocent until proven guilty. It's the clauses in Baazov's contract that will determine his future at Amaya. A company can keep a CEO even if the CEO murders someone if they want. On the other hand that can ask for his resignation simply for not presenting the image they need.

Generally when a CEO is fired, it's more like a buy-out. The CEO is given a lot of money to leave his position and generally it's officially done in the form of a resignation even though it's really a forced resignation. Unless the CEO did some blatant infraction like a racist comment or a sexual assault I don't think that guilt or innocence determined by government or society really needs to enter into it.

What will determines whether Baazov can stay at Amaya will have more to do with whether his image is a liability to the company than his guilt or innocence in a court of law. He can be found not guilty of all charges yet find himself being forced to resign simply on the basis of the skeletons in the closet that have been recently made public. If it looks like Baazov's role as CEO gives adversaries in California, for example, ammunition to contest licensing, Baazov will probably be out of a job.

Amaya hired Paul Leggett after BlackFriday despite the fact that Leggett had scammed people into thinking that UltimateBet was under new ownership when in fact it was still being run by Scott Tom, one of UB's founders and alleged superusers, right up until the end; not to mention that he didn't pay players' their funds post BlackFriday. Amaya knew he was slime when they hired him. It was only because pre-buyout Amaya was trying to get a license in New Jersey that they asked for Leggett's resignation. Leggett's actual guilt didn't matter until he became an actual liability to the company. Leggett left the company amid glowing praise from Baazov.


Again, I did not state that people who are held on bail are determined not to be fully innocent. Having to post bail or not being given the option to post bail has absolutely nothing to do with the determination of their guilt or innocence. If someone is brought in for questioning, for example, that has nothing to do with determining guilt; that's just part of process. If someone has been treated unfairly, he can always sue once that process has run its course.

The case of jury nullification referred to in that article is where a jury refused to convict someone of (accidentally) killing a person, at a time when the punishment for any killing was mandatory hanging. You're saying it was dumb that the jury did that?

So murder isn't a sackable offence but racist comment is? What if the CEO murders a black person?

Political correctness gone mad.

A CEO is the face of a company. It is largely all about image. Obviously, in reality, if a CEO murders someone, he's going to get fired. But it wouldn't necessarily be directly because of the crime of murder, it would be because the CEO was making the company look bad.

What if the CEO murdered Hitler, but somehow did it in a racist way though?

Still having trouble understanding your main point. It still sounds like you're trying to say that you believe the law REQUIRES the Amaya board to continue to pay Baazov his salary, until the court finds him guilty.

The Bill of Rights were just set in place to prevent the government from unjustly depriving people of liberty, so they're required to follow a distinct set of procedures, such as proving guilt behind a reasonable doubt before an accused can be put in jail. What gives them the legal right to require people who have merely been accused of a crime to post bail is the fact that they've already demonstrated there's reasonable cause to believe the accused is guilty.

It's a lower standard of proof, with less evidence, but certain rights of the accused have already been limited, with just an accusation.

The board's decisions will be based on corporate law (their duty to shareholders), not criminal law, that's correct.

Well, if Hitler was the CEO of Amaya that would probably be OK, unless it hindered Amaya getting licensing in New Jersey.

The law doesn't require anything. It's all up to contracts written up within the company.

You mean Not Proven?

It's used a lot and in the case I was sitting on the judge just made the jury aware there were 3 possible verdicts and unfortunately the cowards on the jury went for Not Proven, when the guy was very clearly guilty. Being involved in the jury discussions actually shook my faith in the justice system.

That's correct that the standards used in criminal trials have no bearing on the board's decisions on what to do with Baazov. Their decisions will be based on their legal duty to do what's in the best interest of shareholders, and they will have to abide by any employment contracts they have with Baazov.

There hasn't been a lot of evidence released yet, but if more is released that makes it seem like he's guilty, it's possible the board might decide to stop paying him before the court's rendered a verdict.

It appears you're agreeing with my point then, given you're expressing an opinion (on his guilt/innocence.) Good stuff.

People have opinions as to his guilt or innocence and should be able to express them. My problem was with some people in this thread who were coming up with rationales as to why it was wrong for other people to consider Baazov innocent until proven guilty.

Because of his connections with Leggett, I've criticized Baazov as being a shady character since the day he took over PokerStars. But that's just my opinion.

This innocent/guilty criminality derail is approaching politard status imo.

not just your opinion. pretty much fact.

it passed derail status days ago.

It's always helpful to remember that American law and precedent ends at the US border ...

Oh dear, I bet this heretical proposition will cause confusion at some fellow Americans

I'm saying that it's dumb that a jury has the ability to subvert the laws of a land for their subjective ethical beliefs (juries in general are a bad idea IMO, but at most they should be restricted to actual findings of fact). It's a flagrant violation of the rule of law.

What can be the consequences of a class action ? I don't knnow anything about all this. Does it change anything regarding the security of our bankrolls ?
I have friends who cashed out big parts of ther rolls and I have no idea if it makes sense or just paranoia.
No brag here but I'm worried because I have a pretty massive bankroll.

Welcome to America we rule this Country


and imo, lol that you other worldies thought you may just stroll in Americas back door, even is just little poker players

I think I disagree.

I disagree. The world is not strictly black and white, a lot of grey in there.

Derail: Back in the 80's there was this case in Louisiana where the guy's 10 yr old son was kidnapped by his karate instructor. They caught the guy and the kid in California a couple of weeks later. They flew him back to La. While walking through the airport, the kid's father is pretending to be on a pay phone. He turns, shoots and kills the suspect.

Rule of Law: without a doubt it was first degree premeditated murder. The type of crime that could get someone the death penalty.

The guys takes a plea deal and receives probation. Guess the prosecution thought it would be hard to get 12 people and no fathers on a jury.