It is a bit confusing to me given that a bunch of smaller companies make ftp as a whole, so it seems hard to tell how this information relates to the situation as a whole, but these numbers are pretty eye opening. Very low profit, very low cash on hand.

How important is pocket kings in the grand scheme of ftp in terms of its day to day operations?

Distributions to shareholders would not (or should not) be accounted for as administrative expenses. Administrative expenses are operating expenses or a part of operating expenses and include the costs of doing business such as employee salaries, rent, etc. Distributions to shareholders are not an operating expense--they are a reduction to equity.

Apologies for returning to this subject but I think I need a little clarification.

Have the player funds been stolen? (I say yes)

If they have been stolen then where are they? (I say with hindsight that they were paid to Shareholders as dividends in a private company)

Why do the shareholders have to know that the dividends were stolen money at the time for them to be given back? (I say they didnt have to know at the time but that now that they do know they are in possession of stolen money they have to give it back).

Can someone explain to me in law why knowing that you have something that rightfully belongs to someone else which was stolen means you are allowed to keep it?

This is actually a pretty interesting point... kinda like buying stolen property. It doesn't seem logical that they would be able to keep the dividends. The hard part comes in trying to prove what was stolen. Their negligence in not keeping player funds segregated complicates this infinitely, it basically seems impossible to do.

I might be wrong here, but prooving the shareholders knew the dividends were the direct proceeds of criminal activity would be very difficult to the required standard of proof.

It doesn't matter whether they knew it was stolen or not. In the vast majority of instances like this I'd be willing to bet the person being paid has no idea.

Edit: Did a little research to see how this is being resolved in the Madoff case. Interesting article:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...eeping-it.html

They can t be recalled but you could take action against the directors who issued them. If issued after the company got into trouble, then you would go after the directors who issued the dividends. You would sue the director, not have the dividend recalled. Whether the director received any part of the diviend or not, you can sue him for it.

In a way the law is setup in a way to rpevent directors from issueing dividends when the company is going under. The director would know they would be sued if they issue a dividend when the liquidator takes over the company to wrap things up.

You need to refer to it as not getting the dividend recalled, but sueing the directors that issued the dividend.

A cut and paste of general information. Not from exact US or Irish law

Can directors get into trouble paying a dividend?
Yes, in two circumstances directors may become personally liable to compensate the company for the amount of the dividend paid.

It is an offence under section 254T to pay a dividend except out of surplus assets. The claim arises when dividends are paid and the company has not earned sufficient profits to support the dividend.

The second is where dividends are paid while the company is insolvent and the company is later wound up. This could result in an insolvent trading claim being made against the directors.

What happens if this section is breached?

A breach of the section can lead to an action against the directors for compensation in the amount of the dividend. That is, directors may become personally liable to the company for the amount of a dividend, whether or not they received any part of that dividend themselves. Compensation is sought to bring the company back into the position that it held before paying the dividend.

What can a liquidator do?

A liquidator can seek compensation from a director in an amount equal to the amount of the dividend. This claim can be made whether the director was a shareholder or not, or received any benefit from the dividend or not. This section does not allow the liquidator to commence proceedings against the shareholders that received the dividend.[/B]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where is kevmode's full tilt shill defense of the day? Gonna spin this positive yet?

Cliffs on last 10 hours?

Anyone know Kristin Lawson?

Looks like a new Class Action is out there with RICO.

Damn, these FTP pros are going to have some nasty legal bills for a while.

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/new...v06087/384210/

Awesome, at least I'm getting some justice for all my lost cash. Apply the pressure relentlessly IMO.

see my other post. Dividends can not be recalled. But you can sue the directors that issued them

What's wrong with you and the rest of the haters?

Nothing bad can possibly come of being positive - so chill out. If you guys are so doom and gloom, why do you even come to this thread? If it is so obvious that we have a 0% chance of getting our money back, then what can you possibly learn from this thread?

Presumably, My West Nook is a corporate entity that pays PK to do all the stuff that PK does--provide customer service, work on the software, and just generally run FTP.

It's very easy to read too much into those docs. They're mostly just about money moving from one FTP company to another.

Different company.

Again.. wrong company. Pocket Kings doesn't hold player money. (Well.. nobody held much player money I guess, but Pocket Kings wasn't the company that was supposed to hold it.)

You have to read these recognizing that it's a company whose entire purpose is to serve the companies that own it and it's only one piece of FTP's financial data. It's also likely a piece that deliberately doesn't contain anything that FTP didn't want to be public.

Nope. It just means that FTP moved that amount of money between two companies over that time period (May 1st 2009 to April 30th 2010) in such a way that it counted towards the gross profits of PK.

This is not true, again.

Any news on today's hearing?

+1

From the law suit:

Orly?

look at your K + L key , not hard to imagine how that one happened.

TBC...

they come here because they've been getting owned by us winning players who actually have money on the site for so many years and gone busto so many times ... and now is their time to get the "last laugh" if you will.

It's a law suit, it should be grammatically correct, especially in naming a defendant.

Don't want to give Howard any outs.

i have said this many times. And I 100% believe there is an element of truth to this. Major schadenfreude going on.

The busto fish are jealous at us winning players, and delight in our misfortune, and get glee in knowing that if they lost, well, at least we lost too.

You are posting like you know all the facts.

As already stated indictments could already be under seal and for all you know they have a cooperating witness who has suplied all the evidence they need.

Its fine to have an opinion but dont state it like its a 100% fact without rock solid evidence to back up your claims.

this would be awesome