im not to educated in the workings of a public company going private but i cant help wonder. if baazov has like 18% of the shares or whatever (sorry off the top of my head not going back to reread for the number)

wouldnt some of whatever number he buys the company for go right back to his pockets? 21$ a share or whatever for all of his shares. wouldnt that mean him and his investors if hey own significant amounts just have to come up with less cash if they want to include their share buyout funds to fund the takeover? i know it gets very complicated (at least can) and depends on the structuring of the deal the buyers work out amongst themselves and eventually w amaya. just basically wondering if say they settle on a buyout of 21$ a share does that mean even baazov will get that for all of his shares?

you are pretty much on the right track.

the insiders taking it private, who also hold shares, would need to buy that many fewer shares.

technically they " could " get cash for their own shares, but would be sort of like buying a car from yourself.

I tend to agree that the lenders from the 2014 transaction would probably be part of the consortium offering to take the company private. IOW, this offer is being billed as Baazov's, but that's really just short-hand for "Baazov + others". If those "others" are indeed the 2014 lenders (who are still owed ~$2.6 Billion), that opens up cans of worms of all sorts for various shennanigans, given that those lenders and their affiliates also in many cases have an equity interest (and substantial voting rights) in AYA. I'm hoping a competing bid comes in if for no other reason than to keep some measure of transparency. If you let Baazov and his hand-picked "independent" board sit down behind closed doors with BlackRock, GSO, and PointState, the only certainty is that every other investor is gonna get pwned hard.

On this topic, a question: if 2014 lenders are indeed part of the proposed buyout and are current shareholders themselves, what does that mean as far as voting rights when it comes time to approve a buyout offer? Glaring conflict of interest, but they're still shareholders and have a right to vote, right? Baazov + GSO + BlackRock + PointState control over 50% of shares outstanding so can't they essentially do whatever they want? What's to stop them from pushing through some crazy preferential agreement that F's over all other shareholders?

Don't know answer but the preferred shares, which are probably a huge % of what investment banks and subsidiaries own, do not have voting rights afaik.

stock market are funny. the guy speak about intent an acquisition while drunk in a party and now the market upswing for a whole week.

Anyone with good knowledge of M&A want to chime in on this?

no real idea on m and a, but even if they did i would guess they would have to pay everyone else at par?

Not sure if that's right, but would be a bit weird if they could just to decide to pay all other sharholders at .01 cents on the dollar if they felt like it

thank you

If Baazov did aquire Amaya he would be taking on all current debt as well, correct?

Like almost every other aspect of this supposed deal, its unknown. if its not paid off, or converted to equity then it stays on the books. there are likely change of control provisions in the loan agreements.

This sure was a lot more effective (and cheaper!!) than increasing his stake in the company by <1% buying up shares.

Does this sort of move scare off short-sellers in the future for fear of being spite-called in a similar way, or does everyone carry on as before regardless.

Market carries on as it always does. Some people believe deal will not happen (or has a high enough probability of not happening) and short harder. Others get scared and sell their shorts. The market price ends up where all the people who have any money left balance out.

There's always a chance of unforeseen events affecting the price. That was true before Baazov's announcement and it will be true after, doesn't fundamentally change the nature or risks of buying a stock (though it puts a significant % of the value of the stock on whether or not the sale ends up happening).

holy crap the balls on this guy..he´ll be on the top 50 billionaires list in 5 yrs

Leveraging the leverage

The new 2016 normal in bizzaro land

**** baasov and **** blackstone

zero hedge

Three words:

Free

Cash

Flow

Yeah we'll see. Net income as near as I can tell is less than 20% of revenues and that doesn't even include debt principle payments. Can anyone who knows summarize their amortization schedules in less than a paragraph?

Cash traffic is down 10-15% this year. They continue making highly controversial moves that a lot of people believe will not just be bad for their customers but ultimately terrible for Amaya itself.

The problem is even though the business prints money in a free cash flow sense you can't have a bunch of noob clowns running it. I don't see any reason to think if Amaya busts their roll that the bond holders will be any better positioned to pick up the reins.

Its a great business right now if you ignore all the debt. But these guys have a proven talent for reverse alchemy. Full Tilt is a smoking hole and now they're running those same plays they got creamed on over at Stars. If stars implodes to 20% of its current self, I'm not sure of how great a business that would be anymore, even debt free.

If he does bust stars....in terms of not being able to be the interest rather than runs off....how safe are players funds?

Forgetting all this financial stuff to do with Amaya, your funds are not safe on any poker site from what I have been reading lately. Only keep on what you need and make regular cashouts.

Funds are in trust, so it would certainly be fraud to access them for running costs. The main risk to funds is that the financial institution(s) that hold them go bankrupt. The original Pstars banked with RBS (until RBS told them to gtfo post UIGEA) and that had to be rescued. There is a school of thought that next time there will be no rescues.

Yup.

Pls link what you have been reading?

Which trust

Thought the were regulated by the Isle of Man clown club?

I went through to try to find a high-level article that encompasses everything flawed with the current poker economy and found this diamond.

http://alphavulture.com/2015/02/03/a...owth-business/

They mention the U.S. market as one of 4 vital components to its "strong growth" which most U.S. poker players realize is still at least 3-5 years away for federal regulation

Then it goes on to mention why your money isn't safe at its current multiplier because of the cannibalization of the current player pool due to GTO bots (and imo collusion and hackers are an issue too) making it a risky venture not just for the player, but for investors as well with an amazing analogy:

There is a reason that people don’t play chess or backgammon online for money