Quote:
Originally Posted by t_roy
How much you wanna bet that what they did was illegal?
What I'm willing to wager is dependent on what the odds are. "How much you wanna bet" is a meaningless schoolyard question.
If you're so sure you're right, offer me large odds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by _dave_
I don't think so. From IoMGSC:
Do you have a link for that?
Because while I agree this is close to what we want, I'm unclear as to the difference between the "licensee" and the "operator." Is Pokerstars the licensee or the operator (or both)?
What does section 4(a) mean when it says, "guarantee any outstanding debts"? To "guarantee a debt" has a specific connotation; it doesn't seem to apply here so the word "guarantee" is not unambiguously defined.
I'm not trying to be a nit; as I pointed out above, the word "segregated" doesn't exactly mean what everyone thinks it means, and all these sorts of legal definitions are full of similar weirdly-defined terms. Since a later paragraph suggests interest is generated (in that the licensee is allowed to keep the interest), it stands to reason that the bank is reinvesting the funds somehow; it may just be that the IoM regulations shift the burden of maintaining working capital ratios to the banks in which Pokerstars is forced to deposit. I am extremely skeptical that at some point there was an Isle of Man bank which kept millions (billions?) liquid just in case there was a worldwide rush on Stars dollars, as people generally can't resist touching big pots of money. Is some IoM bank really just holding all of Pokerstars' money without reinvesting it and paying millions per year for the privilege? I doubt it.