Maybe he figured out he wasn't gonna get paid either.

Or maybe he found some good reasons not to be their lawyer through all the insights he gained from 2+2ers.

Which one? Howard or The 40 Year Old Virgin pic of the author?

Can someone confirm my understanding of a few things?

Right now, the fate of the FTP money seized on bf will be decided in civil court. (Will this extend to the funds frozen in foreign accounts?)
That trial starts soonish. FTP could have not formally responded and forestalled that trial for a while, but as part of the agreement with the DoJ the trial will start whether any of the defendants are their or not.

Any player wishing to make any claims on those funds would gave had to file a claim already. (did TT file one on behalf of the class action members?)

So, barring people who are motivated not to set foot in the US (?) showing up for the civil case, all the seized (and frozen?) money is effectively gone from FTP's perspective.

Is that all about right?

I mean pulling some numbers out of my ass.

Will not count the first 3-4 years the site launched as I will assume ftp was expanding and reinvesting their dividends into the company. But even in the first 3-4 years, they were still raking about 300-500k/day
In the past 3 years, they had to be clearing 1 million/day from cash games alone.
+ tournaments and sng's which I won't include as I will assume they covered operating expenses.
How someone can mismanage a goldmine like that is just beyond belief.
Funny thing is, I remember back in january about pleading with ftp about the dangers of allowing players to continue playing on credit as I had read about people running tabs while having bankaccounts closed, and they just brushed it off.
I've already written off my roll and I would just consider it a huge christmas present if I get it. I also created a canadian account after BF(bad decision). I really love ftp's software and hope they comeback But I really just can't see ftp paying U.S players anytime soon if ever.

if you mean re: non-US players having not filed a claim:

If you're a non-US player I believe it is somewhat different if your funds or a proportion thereof (or evidence later is discovered) the restrained monies under restraint/consideration in the US DOJ case.

At the time all statements were that non-US players were free to play and transact as legal in their own countries.

At no time was notice given that 3rd party foreign players needed to file a claim - either in ROW newspapers or as when they initially seized the domain names and replaced with the FBI notice a similar notice could have been placed informing players. iirc the US forfeiture notice on US Govt. site was only discovered or leaked 1 day by 2p2ers before it was removed.

If your a European, article 6 of the European Convention human rights requires right to a fair trial i.e. due notice and process.

So in summary you haven't missed a claim deadline as if we consider the average 3rd party Euro player in this case - they were neither informed nor were led to believe that needed to make a claim to the US court.

There is a Canadian class action lawsuit different from the TT one (which can only allow US players as it stands) that as I understand it allows all similarly situated players so ROW and US players are potentially members of this class.

I have a question - with 2 pending class action lawsuits where US players can be members of either but not both surely seems to create an issue?

I'm a US player.

Yes and no. The US Court can issue a judgment that includes FTP's foreign assets (even those not currently frozen). But a judgment is merely a legal right, the money does not magically appear in DOJ bank accounts. To get the actual money held in foreign accounts the DOJ will need to take any judgment it gets and move to enforce that in the courts of the country where the banks holding the assets are located. How the foreign courts will treat that DOJ judgment is a matter of some speculation.

Sort of. FTP can appear in the civil case as a corporation seeking to protect corporate assets. IIRC the DOJ agreed to give FTP until the end of September to file a formal claim and answer regarding the seized funds and other assets sought to be forfeited. An actual trial over ownership of these assets could occur relatively quickly after that, or could be delayed significantly either because of the pending criminal case or the need to engage in extensive discovery.

There is a provision for filing a late claim, and there are theoretical circumstances that could develop which would easily justify filing a late claim (like an FTP ledger book miraculously being produced showing how all or some of the money in frozen account "x" belonged to a list of specific players).

The class action lawsuit plaintiffs did not file a claim. The class action lawsuit is only against FTP and its purported owners. TT has stated many times that he believes players have no claim to the money that is frozen by the government.

No. In the civil case it is possible for the business to defend itself without Bitar or Burtnick ever setting foot in the US (although there are clear practical limitations to that strategy).

Whether FTP (or for that matter Stars and Cereus) decide to default, deal or litigate in the civil case is a matter of wide-open speculation. The only thing I will say is that default appears not likely given that the companies have already engaged lawyers and made certain limited deals with the DOJ.

Skallagrim

Thanks Skall,

This is a pretty complex situation. I wonder about two things: Just how much money is tied up that has a chance of being recoverable by FTP, and how that plays (assuming it is a significant amount) in the ongoing dance between potential investors and the FTP. If there is some chance of recovering that money after a purchase of the company, then that is definitely worth something, but then again if the DoJ has to approve any deal then could they make forfeiture a requirement of their approval? Or would something like that be illegal (as it essentially would be extorting FTP to surrender their right to a trial).