PM me if interested in joining potential class action suit v. Neteller

[[Phill]]

Huge came to a logical conclusion i had never thought of.

If they were holding back US funds voluntarilly, ie stealing them, the FSA would never let them continue doing business with UK customers, or at least not with their seal of approval.

[huge]

[ QUOTE ]
Huge came to a logical conclusion i had never thought of.

If they were holding back US funds voluntarilly, ie stealing them, the FSA would never let them continue doing business with UK customers, or at least not with their seal of approval.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I swayed one mind, my rant was not in vain ... (sniff)

[YoAdrian]

being protected my UK law this lawsuit will fail.

For all you lawyers I suggest you check out UK law before you call this an easy win!

And im ready to give 2-1 on the odds!

[JohnGalt69]

[ QUOTE ]
being protected my UK law this lawsuit will fail.

For all you lawyers I suggest you check out UK law before you call this an easy win!

And im ready to give 2-1 on the odds!

[/ QUOTE ]

Will UK law govern this suit? Class actions in the UK are pretty much impossible, but I'm sure OP wasn't planning on relying on UK law. Just b/c they're incorporated in the UK (and regardless of whatever contractual terms there are) the choice of law here is far from obvious. I bet a U.S. court would take jurisdiction. And UK courts probably would enforce a foreign judgment. You'd have to be a real expert to say for sure.

[mo42nyy]

[ QUOTE ]
Good luck. If I was neteller I'd tell you americans to f off and take the money. Sue your government and do something worthwhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

does it hurt to be this dumb? Im honestly curious.

[phish]

If you were trying to get a large group of plaintiffs together to file a MASS TORT action, I would be sympathetic to you. But you won't do that because you know there's little profit for the lawyers in a mass tort type action for this kind of case.

Instead you are going the class action route. It is so typical that whenever a large company gets into trouble (especially if it's relatively high visibilty) for the class action jackals to swoop down and try to shake them down for a few million. And these settlements (few go to trial) almost always end up with the lawyers getting multi-millions and the 'plaintiffs' getting pennies.

Other than the phen-phen case, I challenge you to name me one class action suit/settlement where the plaintiffs got more than a token amount. And even in the phen phen case, most of the claimants with serious claims would likely have done much better in a mass tort or in individual suits.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[If you are a lawyer, go on LEXIS or Westlaw right now and see how long it takes you to find a case where a US court had jurisdiction over a non-US company on the basis of the company doing business within the US. It won't take you long. Remember, in your first year of law school, studying something called the "minimum contacts doctrine" in Civil Procedure?

[/ QUOTE ]

"International Shoe" FTW!!!!!!!!!!

BTW, lol @ the gaggle of college dropouts in this thread attempting to drop their knowledge about federal jursidiction & class action suits based based on the half-episode of Ally McBeal their girlfriend made them sit through.

If you want to be included in the potential suit, contact OP, if not, resume your former hysterics.



[/ QUOTE ]

International Shoe is for State Court Jurisdiction or for diversity actions between parties in different states. The proposed lawsuit is Federal Court all the way.

[Catt]

Hi! I don't have a strong opinion on the legal remedies available to US residents whose funds are currently "trapped" by Neteller -- I simply don't have any expertise or insight to add to others' views on the situation. However, I was intrigued by your post. You state:

[ QUOTE ]
Being an Attorney and Professor of International Law I find most of the comments in this thread to be misinformed. A lawsuit against Neteller is feasible and could be filed in England (where their stock is traded) regardless of the DOJ seizures.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would the exchange on which Neteller's stock is traded afford jurisdiction in England? I'm not terribly familiar with the LSE's listing requirements, and the LSE may very well require a consent to service and consent to jurisdiction in England.

[ QUOTE ]
Neteller is liable for lost funds, punative damages, and yes legal fees incurred for witholding or not releasing its clientele's funds in a timely fashion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not disagreeing, but pursuant to which contracts, which regulations, which legislation, and which tribunal's determination of things like "punitative damages" and "lost funds" and "timely fashion."

[ QUOTE ]
For example say a foreign bank [. . .]

[/ QUOTE ]

What is foreign? Are you an "Attorney" in the United States, in the United Kingdom, or elsewhere?

[ QUOTE ]
[. . .] that you have funds in was shut down by authorities for improper banking practices. All fund holders regardless of where they live or government restrictions would have a right to litigate for their loses in a court of law.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree that this is probably a desirable policy approach, how can you express an opinion with respect to any "foreign" account? Doesn't one's right to petition a court of law depend quite substantially on one's access to the courts of one's local jurisdiction? Given your status as "Professor of International Law" I think you'd have some interesting observations about procedural and jurisdictional impediments and opportunities in a case such as this, instead of a blanket approach to one's right to avail onself of litigation.

[ QUOTE ]
While I see difficulties in pursuing this in the US, [. . .]

[/ QUOTE ]

What difficulties? I thought that persons "regardless of where they live or government restrictions would have a right to litigate for their loses in a court of law." Do the UK courts permit redress from any number of locations, or must one appear in the UK actually before the court?

[ QUOTE ]
[. . .] regardless of a US law firm in conjunction with am English firm could easily file suit in Great Britian under their laws. Since Neteller's stock is traded on the AIM in England they are bound by their laws regardless of where they are located and/or incorporated. This is fact and something Neteller agreed to when they applied to be traded on the London Stock Exchange.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh - I almost repeated myself needlessly.

Why, in the course of your post, do you apparently make distinctions between "England" and "Great Britain" -- we're lead to believe that a suit is "feasible and could be filed in England (where their stock is traded)" and that an "English firm could easily file suit in Great Britain under their laws" and that "since Netller's stock is traded on the AIM in England they are bound by their laws regardless of where they are located and/or incorporated." And why did you capitalize "Attorney" and "Professor of INternational Law?"

I've never worked with (or spoken to) anyone authorized to appear in courts of law or offer profesional advice on UK law that would take your approach to capitalization, that would offer such sweeping declarations on a litigant's rights, that would offer clear viewpoints on liability of an actor such as Netller in the circumstances you describe, that would seemingly make distinctions between "England" and "Great Britain" in the way you did (though the distinctions are NOT small or irrelevant to the discussion), that would profess a view that trading on an aexchange subjected the stock-issuer to local / national commercial laws of the exchange's locale, or that would assert that listing on an exchange like LSE (let alone applying to list) would subject a stock-issuer to the local commercial laws of the exchange.

I'm all for a free-wheeling discussion -- I'm adamantly opposed to someone pretneding to be someone or something that they're not and attempting to use the perceived authority of that pretend something to influence the discussion. Don't be a douche.

That's insulting by me, I acknowledge.

[GrannyMae]

[ QUOTE ]
Im in, i got three fiddy locked up in there, lets get them bastages!! I will pay 5% of any monies received in excess of my original balance. And I ain't just pontificating!!

[/ QUOTE ]


nh

i may be in love.

[GrannyMae]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not being from the USA I don't know how this would work but as there are a lot of lawyers on this thread would be intersting to hear any views and other opinions.

Imagine player A deposits 500 into a site from neteller then later withdraws back into neteller 2500 from the site. Therefore there is a taxable gain of $2000?

If a class action lawsuit only returns a certain % is the player still also liable to pay tax on the full $2000? So could end up costing them more money than they have in Neteller in the first place.

What sort of percentage of players do you think have fully paid tax on their winning transactions in neteller? Are the non tax payers going to be in for a big shock once all the EFT and other banking records the DOJ have been after have been reviewed?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been wondering this myself ... what kinds of tax audits are going to be triggered by this mess? It's likely to get a lot messier for a lot of us before it's over.

[/ QUOTE ]








all your audits are belong to us.