I don't think all the paperwork has been signed for the deal yet (doesn't the FTP board still have to approve); I would expect that any employee recalls and licensee applications would not occur until Tapie has full documentation and approval of the sale, and possibly not until he actually has material control of all the assets.

.

wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

<3 RJ, seriously, <3

is he on perma or a vacation>?

+1

people need to mellow out.

I'm not discussing the specifics his or anyone else's ban in public.

Everyone should know that repeated infractions can result in temporary or permanent bans and I'm leaving it at that. Move along, there's nothing more to see here.

You are the one who appears confused.

i stated they were removed from the BoD of FT. I never referred to the PPA at all.

Since pretty much everyone thinks poker in US will be legalized sooner or later....what do you think the chances that FTP (and that glorious software), ever make it back in the country. At first glance, it would appear that it makes no sense for casinos/gov't to allow it to soak up the US player base. BUT if they can partner with GBT, then everyone's happy? Who thinks this will happen within 2 years?

I got my info from shareholders at the time it happened (months ago). I also know who replaced them on the BoD but it isn't necessary to post that info here.

Where did you get your info?

Ferguson is owed ~$60mm by FT and controls ~20% of the votes.

You don't think he'll have any interest in the new company?

Are we allowed to laugh?

if he is a board member he will NOT be able to own any shares

if he is ONLY a shareholder he will be able to own shares

GBT MUST be the MAJORITY shareholder

Will he have to petition the DOJ for payment?

The quote was the opinion of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American Bar Association says:

http://www2.americanbar.org/calendar...to%20help!.pdf

The only mention I saw: "Ifrah said the deal specifically permits the re-entry of Full Tilt Poker into the U.S. marketplace if online poker becomes legalized and regulated. Full Tilt Poker will still have to apply for a license and be approved."

http://espn.go.com/poker/story/_/id/...completion?ftp

It's dividends he didn't bother collecting. He left them up with the company.

anybody hear anything about U.S. players will only be able to get back money they deposited and not money won?

The DOJ's handling of US player cash outs has yet to be fully detailed but until hearing otherwise I'd cautiously assume they're not going to do anything too crazy or unexpected.

No, but if the DOJ felt victims were only entitled to their deposits they could have made things much easier on themselves and drawn up the contract such that Tapie was responsible for the US debt.

They could not however draw up a contract to make Tapie legally liable for winnings which the courts might view as unlawful debt, so the fact that they constructed the deal the way they have is a positive indication that the DOJ feels victims are entitled to their winnings.

I don't have time now to do this justice, but I'll try to paint the broad strokes. Well, the opinion of the NACDL is not consistent with the provisions of the Regulations which you linked to. So either the NACDL is wrong, or the DoJ is not following the Regulations. Maybe that sort of thing happens in the US, I wouldn't know.

No, that that's not the ABA saying that. The ABA's website is just hosting the document. If you would bother to read the second line in the document, and the associated footnote, you'd find the document was the personal opinion of Jack de Kluiver, who last spring happended to be Acting Assistant Deputy Chief, International Unit, Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, Criminal Division, United States Department of Justice. I'm willing to believe his personal opinions are more reflective of reality than the NACDL piece. He would be somebody who was temporarily in a position two rungs below the guy we were talking about earlier - the Chief, AFMLS, who implements the remission process, decides the outcomes of petitions and has no discretion of the sort you were talking about.

As you point out, Mr. de Kluiver says that the USAG has a certain type of discretion wrt remission. (If you search my posts to find the earliest mentions of remission, you should find me mentioning the AG having discretion. I fear that at that time I may have thought it was almost as broad as you do now.) It is not the sort of discretion you were talking about - to decide whether players qualified as victims, or to decide how much to give an individual qualified victim. The discretion of the USAG is to decide whether to use the remission process in a particular case. And while the USAG does technically have such discretion, Mr de Kluiver points out that it is "DOJ’s policy to recognize claims of legitimate victims whenever it is practical and in the interests of justice to do so." Once there is policy, the exercise of discretion is never truly "unfettered".

So, you're still wrong. The DoJ can't act on its personal whims regarding whether players should be paid. If the USAG has reason to believe that it is not in the interests of justice or practical to provide remission to anybody, then remssion won't be available at all, to anybody. Otherwise, as long as there are forfeitures, and victims of a crime related to those forfeitures, then the remission process will be in place, and nobody in the DoJ will have the discretion to decide whether players get paid or not, no matter what their desires are regarding paying players.

If you look at the terms of the DoJ/GBT agreement, consider the policy and read the reports of the PPA's meetings with DoJ officials, I think you should resonably conclude that a remission process will be in place in the FTP case, as long as there are forfeited assets related to a crime which caused victims to lose money. IOW, for all practical purposes we are past the point where the USAG's discretion could have been exercised.

Just hypothetically, if the Attorney General decided to 'twist' some regulations as you seem convinced they would need to do in order to pay us, who is it you believe is going to stop him? What possible court procedure would intervene? Congressional impeachment?

I guess all points and that stuff will be down the drain, don't see the government worrying about that. There has to be warehouses of Fulltilt branded clothing stored away somewhere still. Would be easy to get rid of the electronics and things not branded. I wonder what happens to all that stuff, the new company gets it.

If FTP ever kept "warehouses" of their store items then it wouldn't take 2 months to get anything from it. Anyway wasn't the FTP store outsourced to another company that someone's brother owned?

Confirmed.....another profit hungry enterprise of the Lederer family

May be DoJ got plans for an FTP store of their own

i hope they give it to charity...

edit: ha would be a sick joke if someone who lost his house over this got a full tilt shirt from the shelter...

No sweat on this, some folks have simply used deposits and balances as interchangable concepts in their articles and 2+2 posting. It will be balances before shut down (If FTP kept adequate records) and they likely did (but who knows for sure?)