Thanks for your reply Elsa. A couple of points in reply.
In regards to Ferguson, I am just appealing for a little calm. In my opinion, if I understand his position in the company correctly, he has at best been negligent. His true involvement and level of knowledge into the operations is yet to be revealed. He cannot use 'I didn't know what they were doing' as an excuse for a clean slate however.
Regarding creditors, the company funds frozen by the DOJ are not being queued up for a tax debt. It's for a potential fine which may be applied as a result of pending legal action. The debt, at this precise time, does not exist to the U.S. Government, it exists to the players and presumably other creditors such as suppliers etc (I think the AGCC are actually on the list as well for some unpaid bills). I'm not up on American Law and have a vain hope this should make a difference. If FT go bust now would this change where the players are in the queue?
Thanks for your reply Elsa. A couple of points in reply. In regards to Ferguson, I am just appealing for a little calm. In my opinion, if I understand his position in the company correctly, he has at best been negligent. His true involvement and level of knowledge into the operations is yet to be revealed. He cannot use 'I didn't know what they were doing' as an excuse for a clean slate however. Regarding creditors, the company funds frozen by the DOJ are not being queued up for a tax debt. It's for a potential fine which may be applied as a result of pending legal action. The debt, at this precise time, does not exist to the U.S. Government, it exists to the players and presumably other creditors such as suppliers etc (I think the AGCC are actually on the list as well for some unpaid bills). I'm not up on American Law and have a vain hope this should make a difference. If FT go bust now would this change where the players are in the queue? Posted by TommyD
Hi Tommy
Last part first - I'm not up on American law either but there will be very similar rules to this country. I don't think it will make any difference to where the players stand. The state creditors always come first. I'm sure there will be tax evasion in the mix somewhere and that's a state matter. Regardless of the amount owed the state will take their dues. Next in line will be preferential creditors - banks etc who have security charges against the company and the directors. Suppliers may take priority if they have any form of security or tenure of assets. Customers ie. the players will be last in line. It may be different in the states but I doubt it.
As I mentioned in the earlier post there is a difference of responsibility in the roles of Directors and Shareholders. Directors are responsible for the day to day running of the company and therefore any debts etc that may be incurred. It would require, for example, the signatures of Directors to open a bank account. Shareholders would normally have no executive control unless they were both Shareholder and Director. With regards to Ferguson, if he was purely a shareholder then yes, the statement that he didn't know what was happening and had no control would be valid. That I'm sure will be something the DOJ will investigate and something his defence will strive for in order to remove his responsibility. As an added complication there is a time limit for ex-directors to be responsible after resignation and a lot will depend on when certain things happened.
As regards the debt not existing to the government I don't know. If there is a suspicion of tax evasion then the assets could be seized to cover that debt. If the assets were seized purely as a measure to ensure any future fines are paid then that may be the norm in the USA. If it is then nothing changes, the government will want their pound of flesh before anyone else. The rest will fight over the scraps. Suppliers will be better placed to get something (assuming there is something left after the state gets it's dues) than individual players. The more information comes to light the worse the players position appears to be.
At the end you mention what would happen if FT went bust now. My understanding is that they are. Any company which cannot fulfill it's financial obligations and service it's debts, the Directors have by law to place the company in administration. FT appears to be in that position and has ceased trading. There may be offshoots that have sprung up but they are separate entities. Every company is a separate entity in it's own right. The different companies may have the same board of Directors but a Limited company in the UK and an Incorporated company in the states are separate entities. As far as I can see the original FT set-up is bust.
In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites : You're quoting me from months ago and it still holds true. I think that in itself proves your point. Posted by TommyD
Sorry didn't notice the date . I thought it was a new post on the resurrected thread. And that article by Jesse May is a great piece. I read it without noticing who wrote it and assumed it was just another embittered poker pro. When I saw it was Jesse May I really felt how badly he feels let down.
In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites : Sorry didn't notice the date . I thought it was a new post on the resurrected thread. And that article by Jesse May is a great piece. I read it without noticing who wrote it and assumed it was just another embittered poker pro. When I saw it was Jesse May I really felt how badly he feels let down. Posted by FlyingDagg
same here fd,felt for him, seems really upset about it all,i don,t know but he might be good friends with some of them
Comments
Thanks for your reply Elsa. A couple of points in reply.
In regards to Ferguson, I am just appealing for a little calm. In my opinion, if I understand his position in the company correctly, he has at best been negligent. His true involvement and level of knowledge into the operations is yet to be revealed. He cannot use 'I didn't know what they were doing' as an excuse for a clean slate however.
Regarding creditors, the company funds frozen by the DOJ are not being queued up for a tax debt. It's for a potential fine which may be applied as a result of pending legal action. The debt, at this precise time, does not exist to the U.S. Government, it exists to the players and presumably other creditors such as suppliers etc (I think the AGCC are actually on the list as well for some unpaid bills). I'm not up on American Law and have a vain hope this should make a difference. If FT go bust now would this change where the players are in the queue?
Hi Tommy
Last part first - I'm not up on American law either but there will be very similar rules to this country. I don't think it will make any difference to where the players stand. The state creditors always come first. I'm sure there will be tax evasion in the mix somewhere and that's a state matter. Regardless of the amount owed the state will take their dues. Next in line will be preferential creditors - banks etc who have security charges against the company and the directors. Suppliers may take priority if they have any form of security or tenure of assets. Customers ie. the players will be last in line. It may be different in the states but I doubt it.
As I mentioned in the earlier post there is a difference of responsibility in the roles of Directors and Shareholders. Directors are responsible for the day to day running of the company and therefore any debts etc that may be incurred. It would require, for example, the signatures of Directors to open a bank account. Shareholders would normally have no executive control unless they were both Shareholder and Director. With regards to Ferguson, if he was purely a shareholder then yes, the statement that he didn't know what was happening and had no control would be valid. That I'm sure will be something the DOJ will investigate and something his defence will strive for in order to remove his responsibility. As an added complication there is a time limit for ex-directors to be responsible after resignation and a lot will depend on when certain things happened.
As regards the debt not existing to the government I don't know. If there is a suspicion of tax evasion then the assets could be seized to cover that debt. If the assets were seized purely as a measure to ensure any future fines are paid then that may be the norm in the USA. If it is then nothing changes, the government will want their pound of flesh before anyone else. The rest will fight over the scraps. Suppliers will be better placed to get something (assuming there is something left after the state gets it's dues) than individual players. The more information comes to light the worse the players position appears to be.
At the end you mention what would happen if FT went bust now. My understanding is that they are. Any company which cannot fulfill it's financial obligations and service it's debts, the Directors have by law to place the company in administration. FT appears to be in that position and has ceased trading. There may be offshoots that have sprung up but they are separate entities. Every company is a separate entity in it's own right. The different companies may have the same board of Directors but a Limited company in the UK and an Incorporated company in the states are separate entities. As far as I can see the original FT set-up is bust.
I don't think the doj has any interest in the players at all.
The money was frozen/confiscated as the proceeds of crime,e.g. money laundering.
If a drug dealer is busted they do not give any money confiscated to the addicts he sold the drugs to.