Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedsToBeSaid
I've seen no evidence that the DoJ will pay US players in full under the current deal. If the fund does not have the full amount, payment can't begin in a timely fashion. Therefore, the solution on offer represents no value to US players that need the money to move forward. They will be broke or no longer in need of the money when it is paid. There is no reason that the only people that should suffer any real price are US players.
I'm mostly with you up to this point. A few minor quibbles:
The amount of money in a remission fund will not affect the timing of its availablility. The money will only become available after all related litigation is completed. Litigation against individuals will likely take longer than litigation against the companies. Litigation against owners who have not yet been charged with anything by the DoJ will take longer still.
Eventual partial payment may be of some value to at least some US players.
It is not fair for US players to be the only ones who suffer, but there
are reasons why it may happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedsToBeSaid
No deal should be constructed which does not force the owners to pay what they owe to the players.
I'll take that to mean what you think they owe. You probably know that it is my postion that AORN non-director owners legally don't owe players anything That could change in the future if new facts come to light. Until it does, I don't think you would find any value in a deal which forces the owners to pay nothing.
My problem with this approach is I don't see how there is any legal avenue currently available that would cause non-director owners to pay anything to players in general. Anything that did become available would almost certainly take even longer than the current DoJ process. For instance, class action lawsuits usually take longer than the most probable current timelines for the DoJ civil suit, and individual members of the class almost always only end up with a fraction of their fair share of a settlement. The lawyers end up with a big fraction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedsToBeSaid
The gap to pay US players is less then 70m. That is 7 months of dividends all from when the company was clearly insolvent. It represents 15% of dividends paid to all owners, which does not including loans or salary. It represents 39% of the money paid to the board of directors.
You've just proven that financial practiality won't be the chief barrier to the sort of payment you'd like to see. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean there will not be other barriers, and ones that might be insurmountable.
I understand your frustration, and think it may be justified. It is related to why I often choose to refer to 'the legal system' rather than 'the justice system'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedsToBeSaid
Not paying US players is completely disgusting. Supporting such a deal is unconscionable.
I don't think anybody is talking about a deal which pays US players nothing. I would hope that the DoJ wouldn't even try to find some way to disqualify US players in general from being victims qualifying for remission. I'm not sure I understand what is unconscionable about supporting the best deal possible, even when that deal falls short of being ideal. You will note I have suggested a possible way to improve (from the point of view of maximiszing certainty of payment to US players) upon the deal currently on the table.
Don't get me wrong. I don't like it when my negative predictions prove correct. I wasn't happy that the individual defendants were dismissed from the Todd Terry civil suit. I just think it is important to have a realistic appreciation of possible outcomes. I know that speaking unpopular truths is not a path to popularity, but I believe the readers of this site are better served to have a range of informed views, not just popular views.
I think it is highly unlikely that the DoJ will retrieve the full value of the improper distributions from the directors. Given that, I wish it was possible to begin attempts now to recover the remaining amounts from shareholders. I just don't see how that can be legally achieved. Fortunately for you and other US players, I'm not a legal expert, so there may well be something I have overlooked.