Not only that but it would be far more difficult, and potentially far more expensive, to pay back 'deposits' over balances.

Total deposits [All players] will be greater than Total balance [All players]. He'll clearly want to pay the smaller figure. I don't think he'd get away with paying winning players deposits and losing players balances.

DJ,whats up in Ireland?Any news from pocketkings?

The person I had contact with in PK is no longer trust worthy coduresa and fed me some untrue info as a level, I will have no more info other than what I get here sir sorry

If you keep reading bull****, don't be surprised that more is produced for you. That site is worthless. Stop posting links to it. Stop reading the articles.

What a useless article. Horrible hatchet job on Laurent, and the two "lawyers" seem not to have heard about the DoJ's forfeiture allegations.

That is why I posted the link for speculation and perusal and debate

The shortest post I have seen from you DTM ,,, direct and to the point, good man yourself

i didnt think about it but before i thought maybe tapie was scared to buy ftp because of future lawsuit but if he buys the site and make a condition that every player who open their account and want to use their balance have to sign a contract that wont let them sue ftp in the future it fixes the problem.

Thanks for the links. I watched the piece with interest. While it is certainly more complete than the gaming-awards article, I'm not so sure it is entirely free from bias. The production obviously had the cooperation of Tapie and his circle (who probably subscribe to the notion that there is no such thing as bad publicicty).

Tapie certainly is exceptional. Perhaps you like the description of him given by Alain DuHamel about half way through part three: "un personalité hors norme, or en dehors des clivages habituelles". It's a neat summation, but it falls short by not providing any attributes of the man. As the title of the piece says, he's an adventurer. He's a man of many accomplishments, and many deficits, but his image in France may be bigger than his actual record.

Now that I've watched the piece I certainly know more about him. It hasn't changed my impresson of Tapie very much though. The major addition it has made to my mental profile of him is that his M.O. of skirting truth and principle in the pursuit of self-interest is lifelong.

My impression of him is of a consummate self-promoter who lives to play to an audience. He'll tell them whatever he thinks will let him win from them what he wants. He's audacious well beyond the point of imprudence. He seems to me to be an opportunist with little respect for the truth, the law, or propriety. He's in it to win it (for himself), and will go big rather than go home.

In short, I am now more convinced than ever that Bernard Tapie is exactly the sort of man I do not want owning a poker site that my money is on.

Well, given that some people idolize Jesse James and Frank Abagnale, I wouldn't be surprised.

did i speak to soon ?

just kidding around

I'm brief when there is little of substance to which to respond. (I mean the article, not your little joke. )

No, he's right, you should try re-reading my post that you quoted until it sinks in.

Before you go too negative on Tapie, consider the alternative: The GBT deal fails, DOJ goes through lengthy forfeiture proceedings, which are particularly drawn out, the FTP principals now having no incentive to cooperate; eventually DOJ sells the software at fire sale prices to a purchaser who re-brands it. After a long wait, players receive a small percentage of maybe their account balances or maybe their deposits (DOJ's ponzi scheme assertion would suggest a percentage of deposits returned to all depositors).

It's hard for me to imagine Tapie's moral character not being better than a bunch of guys who were thought of as degenerate gamblers, too lazy to work for a living and willing to steal from anyone until they became overnight heroes and celebrities. Hopefully, regulatory bodies will keep all the operators from raiding player's accounts.

I hope GBT succeeds.

I think tapie would probably out duels the worlds most enteresting man tbh

stay thirsty my friends !...

I wonder if this stalling process is all a scheme by those associated with Full Tilt to keep buying time any way possible so they can try and think of how to get off the hook for all the crap they have put the players through. They know what's going on, and always have, but they are professional spin doctors essentially and do not have any empathy for anyone vitimized in this fiasco. A lot of the pros won't pay back becuase they are pretty much crooks to begin with. Then there are those who are pretending to co-operate, but really only care about their reputation but not the players. From a more optimistic standpoint, Tapie does seem determined to create FTP2. I'll believe it when I see it though (and that includes returning full player funds).

Directors are responsible to shareholders. They are not responsible to creditors (in this case poker players).

If a company declares bankruptcy the fiduciary responsibility shifts to people who are owed money.

Depending on the distribution directors might have some responsibility but it would never be to random people who are owed money like poker pokers. The responsibility would be to shareholders of FTP.

FTP never declared bankruptcy.

http://www.bankruptcylitigationblog....creditors.html

It appears to me like 100% of your post is made-up. Laws are not created based on what "part of the world" you live in.

Then how are laws created?

I hope Tapie succeeds in getting the deal through, too. There is no question that Tapie is the best hope most people with a balance on FTP have of seeing the greatest part of that money again. That doesn't make him a good long term risk however.

I have no problem seeing him as having a moral character on par with or below that of degenerate gamblers. This is partly because I see degeneracy as morally less reprehensible than deliberate conning such as what Tapie tried to do to Bokassa or what he did with the OM. Frankly I think he would fit in quite well with many of the poker personalities - the types who ran FTP for instance. I think he is less of a match for the Scheinbergs. I'd rather have my money on a site run by drab, prudent businessmen, than by flamboyant personalities whose personal weaknesses get the better whatever moral judgement they may have.

If a company goes bust without the directors being involved in criminal wrong activity, that’s different to the directors making illegal payouts to shareholders.

While it may (or may not) be changing to more corporate and "suitish types," historically gaming has not attracted the most drab, prudent (boring) personalities. I understand why prudent men may make better businessmen but, IMHO, only a risk taker is going to re-start FTP.

lol ft money

What you say up to this point is generally true. (I could get picky and point out that the US statutory duty of directors to shareholders is absent in many countries involved in this case, that many countires hold that directors have a fiduciary duty to the coproration, that directors have duties in addtion to those to shareholders and the corporation, etc.). It seems to be clear in law that, once in insolvency, directors' fiduciary duty is to creditors. The whole point of the artcicle you linked to seems to be that the exact point at which the shift of fiduciary duty occurs is a matter of developing law. The question is whether there is any fiduciary duty to creditors before formal insolvency but after the corporation has de facto entered a failing state.

However this issue, and all of your otherwise true statements above are entirely irrelevent to the point I was making. I don't believe I ever said that directors are responsible to the creditors. (Any payment from directors to players ought to be understood to be indirect.) Directors are responsible to the corporation, in law, and possibly to the shareholders, for the improper distributions they authorized. They are also legally responsible to the state for making these improper distributions and to the players, not as creditors but as fraud victims. This is the nature of the charges against directors that were added in the ammended civil complaint.

What are you on about? (Or perhaps I should ask "What are you on?") There is nothing made up.

I guess you must have missed the point. Directors authorize distributions. If those distributions are improper, the directors are personally on the hook for them. They owe that money to the corporation. Players are owed money by the corporation. If the directors had not authorized improper distributions, the company would be that much less in debt. If the company recovers the amount of improper distributions from the directors, the company will have that much more in assets to be seized by the DoJ and possibly then paid out in remission to players.

Excuse me? Last time I checked each sovereign country made its own laws. For instance, in Canada, directors have no fiduciary duty to the shareholders or to creditors before insolvency, but they do have fiduciary duty to the corporation. (See SCC Peoples v. Wise.)

If directors, or their equivalent, declare and authorize dividends or distributions that leave an organization unable to pay its known creditors then the directors are very likely to have personal liability for the amount of dividend or distribution that is excessive. In the case of the FTP organizations the creditors would most certainly include players with account balances.

Laws are usually made by nation states, the existence of which generally has a geographically connection. I would conclude that most laws do have a connection with where you live. For example, within the United States there are, from state to state, substantial variations in the law regarding director liability for excessive dividends.

While it's a little picky, it is not without merit to recognize that there is a difference between improper distributions and excessive distributions and also between being insolvent and in bankruptcy.

Agreed. I guess my point is that the sort of person FTP players need to rescue their balances is not the sort of person that will provide players with the greatest safey for their deposits in the future. Even among the range of people actually running poker sites, Tapie will be closer to the higher risk end of the spectrum.

This sentiment is partly in response to the posters in here who proclaim their newfound loyalty and support for Tapie and all things French. It's ridiculous. Tapie isn't doing anybody a favour. You don't owe him anything. It just happens that his interest temporarily aligns with those of players. After the deal goes through, he will be trying to take as much player money as possible. So will any other poker site you deposit on. The question is, once you have your roll back, what is the best place to have it. FTP will be a greater risk than some other sites, due to the nature of its ownership.