Sensationalist Party Gaming Headline of the Week
 

My opening nominee is this gem, gleaned from ATEOnline:

Net Closing In For PartyGaming & 888? - 13/08/07

PartyGaming and 888.com could be hit by a £500m bill following the US Department of Justice's internet betting crackdown.

Sources in the US are claiming that The Department of Justice could try and claw back profits made by the two companies in America - $900m (£445m) in the case of PartyGaming and $120m (£59.5m) for 888.

The returns would severly hamper the companies' financial viability. "

.... 'Sources in the US' .... do they mean guys who are shorting Party shares on the AIM ?

If, on the other hand, this $500MM or so buys online poker generally a pass under the UIGEA going forward, it is money well spent. IF there is a kernal of truth to the report, then a deal likely is in the works along those lines for the payees.

Re: Sensationalist Party Gaming Headline of the Week
 

And to think a while back I actually mentioned your name and gaboonvipers in the same post [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] . I take it back completely now, Milton, this is the most optimistic spin on a poker story I have seen lately. I, however, just cant believe that this administration would ever do anything that a) makes sense and b) is favorable to poker.

Skallagrim

Re: Sensationalist Party Gaming Thread
 

You need to remember something really odd about the US Atty in New York at the press conference announcing Neteller prosecution. Namely, he explained why "good" companies, like Paypal/Ebay were not prosecuted because they disgorged profits.

The danger is that Party will throw US poker players under the bus to get off for $900 million. The hope is that they will instead get a "no violation" deal, not just a "no prosecution" deal. (Whether they also throw in the "uncoded transactions" angle would also be interesting.)

The US Atty in the SDNY is not the same guy as the US Atty in Utah or in Missouri.

A possible Party deal ??? (Caution, completely speculative comment to follow) The best possible deal would be, Party pays for a pass on uncoded transaction prosecution, gets a gratis pass for its Poker past under the Wire Act.

Keep in mind you are looking at over $1 Billion versus a prosecution for what ??? Party should improve upon the standard deal and get it sweetened enough to re-enter the US market.

Re: Sensationalist Party Gaming Headline of the Week
 

I read the article and it seemed to read that these 2 companies were willing to pay a large fine for violating unspecified US laws without being prosecuted. I don't believe the article. Paying these kind of fines without any prosecution would be violating shareholder interest even in the Isle of Man or Gilbralter.
Nothing was mentioned that the payments were fees to enter the US market.

Re: Sensationalist Party Gaming Headline of the Week
 

That there have been settlement discussions ongoing has been widely reported.

Consider the menu in the DOJ cafeteria in Lower Manhattan:

Column A = Wire Act

Column B = Possible prosecutions other than Wire Act would include processing uncoded credit card transactions.

Today's special offer:

Pay for one free pass from Column B, (credit cards), also get one from Column A, a Wire Act "poker only = no violation" Letter.

Result, past is clear and Party can re-enter the US market again.

Result = Increased Shareholder value >>> payment amount.

I do not think there is a shareholder issue with that result.

(Legal Disclaimer, I have no Party shares or options, nor know of anyone who does.)

Re: Sensationalist Party Gaming Headline of the Week
 

If payment of money could buy entry into US market, then Party would be smart to pay. I didn't read that proposal in the article. Of course, if Party Poker is permitted entry into US market, the how could DOJ continue to claim that online poker violates the Wire Act.
In addition, had anyone ever heard of a company paying a fine to DOJ for alleged past violations of US law in return for a favorable interpretation of US law by DOJ?

Re: Sensationalist Party Gaming Headline of the Week
 

can somebody put this is english plz?

Re: Sensationalist Party Gaming Headline of the Week
 

Payment alone is not going to 'buy' them back into the U.S. market.

If they agree to some type of settlement over uncoded or otherwise unreported payouts I would imagine it will include a non-prosecution agreement, like Neteller.

They, like Neteller, are publicly traded companies and these seem to be the target of the DoJ since they have more at stake then private companies.

BTW, if you won big at Party or 888 expect that to be disclosed just like our NT accounts. Remember, these talks started following the NT case where alot of information was given to the U.S. government concerning transactions.

obg

Re: Sensationalist Party Gaming Headline of the Week
 

There needs to be confirmation from Party on this. Their stock is way down since late April.

Re: Sensationalist Party Gaming Headline of the Week
 

The potential I see here for a deal has 2 parts:

1. Uncoded Transactions processing + waiver of prosecution in return for lots of money.

2. Comfort letter that poker alone does not violate Wire Act.

Setting the bar high on Part 1 will allow DOJ to collect "back taxes" on poker companies which ran uncoded credit card transactions. Thus, a free pass it is not.

DOJ Clarification on #2 should be free, look at the In Re Mastercard decision by the 5th Circuit; so what is the ethical issue you seem to discern ? It would allow Party to re-enter the market, sell itself to Harrahs or whatever else it has been angling for for the last year or so.

Are deals like this cut ? Uh ... in real life, yes. No one is doing anything unusual under this scenario;

Party to DOJ, you know that credit cards settlement is pretty genrous of you and we would like to take it, BUT we can't afford to do so because we lost our US market.

DOJ to Party, well, we know you are stand-up guys who came to us voluntarily to settle this credit card stuff, but you misunderstand the Wire Act ... It doesn't even apply to online poker, you should have asked us last year.

Party to DOJ : DOH!!!, okay here's your check for $X.