New Thread on 2+2's Statement Re the PPA

[Hock_]

Wow, that memo from Greenberg Traurig is incredibly half-assed. I really hope 2+2 didn't pay much for it. My guess is that it probably involved a whopping 5 hours of work -- a document search, a couple of phone calls and a visit to PPA's office. There is no real analysis and absolutely no indication that the lawyers have any real understanding of the issues whatsoever.

Maybe Mason doesn't realize how poor this memo is, but it's sad that 2+2 is going to base its position such a critical issue on this useless piece of work.

[MagCFO]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, that memo from Greenberg Traurig is incredibly half-assed. I really hope 2+2 didn't pay much for it. My guess is that it probably involved a whopping 5 hours of work -- a document search, a couple of phone calls and a visit to PPA's office. There is no real analysis and absolutely no indication that the lawyers have any real understanding of the issues whatsoever.

Maybe Mason doesn't realize how poor this memo is, but it's sad that 2+2 is going to base its position such a critical issue on this useless piece of work.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know a lot of people that have no problem getting in touch with Michael B. I wonder if he even knew about the inquiry from GT. It sounds like they didn't even speak to the president of the place, who is located in San Fran, not DC, that's probably why they didn't find him.

I agree the reports sucks pretty bad.

It doesn't even mention when they visited DC. If Congress wasn't in session, I'm sure no one from the PPA was there.

These questions certainly need to be addressed by the PPA, but I agree, the due diligence looks pretty weak IMO.

I know how big law firms work, and I can promise GT called some intern in the DC office and said "run over here and see if anyone is there." The intern came back with "no, no one was there" and that gets turned into "no one is ever at the DC office."

[BluffTHIS!]

Hock & Mag,

Even if they did just spend 5 hours of research, the key point is that they didn't find the first thing they needed to research further. Which is public documentation by a non-profit organization whose legal status and financial documentation is supposed to be public. If they had found that, they could have looked further to verify that documentation. But when the first test is failed, then there isn't really any need to dig further. What do you suggest they should have done? Tapped their phones?

[WhatDoesCallMean]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you suggest they should have done?

[/ QUOTE ]

visited their registered head office rather than a rented office in DC which i assume is only used for convenience when they're in town?

just throwing it out there - my opinion is split down the middle on the whole thing. im just a european hoping that things get sorted. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[Hock_]

The stated purpose of the memo was: "to undertake a review and analysis of the Poker Player's Alliance (PPA) in order to determine whether Two Plus Two should advocate for your patrons, support and membership in that entity." The memo doesn't undertake any real analysis that would permit a reasonable answer to that question.

If the memo concluded that no further analysis was necessary because they couldn't find the proper documentation that would be one thing. Instead, they made a poor attempt to find a few pieces of paper and, when they didn't, jumped to a number of conclusions that really don't get anywhere near the heart of the issues that should factor into 2+2's position.

[autobet]

I just got of the phone with Jason of the PPA S.F. office. He said they are looking into how to respond to the letter from the 2+2 lawyers. He also said they never called the SF office. I called and he answered on the third ring.

He said the President spends a fair amount of time in the DC office. He also spends time in the SF office and a lot of time traveling...makes sense that he might only be there 1/3 of the time or something like that.

In defense of the 2+2 lawyers, the PPA website Contact Us tab only lists the DC office. (You can find the SF address on the brochure you can print out) However, the Contact Us page only lists the SF 415 area code number, not a number in DC. I think at one time they listed both addresses on this page.

[BluffTHIS!]

Hock,

It still remains that the following is true:

1) PPA has refused to make publicly available on their site necessary legal and financial data;

2) PPA has refused to change the above position.


So any failure to find that info or contact them when someone went to one of their offices, is on the PPA. And the main conclusion, which it is very proper for an attorney to make based on the above, is that such an organization couldn't be recommended for support. This is the same as any other organization whose bona fides can't be verified due to that own organizations failure to make available necessary information.

And note that I really want the PPA to succeed, which includes the PPA prez coming here and addressing this in this thread. If he won't do that, then they really can't be taken seriously anymore IMO.

Also note that Allyson Jaffrey Schulman is on their board. If she were asked to do a due diligence examination of an organization, and found the same state of affairs as with the PPA, I can't see her recommending her client support such an organization without exposing herself to a malpractive suit.

The legal and financial transparency issues with the PPA are the real issue here, not 2+2's stance on same.

[Hock_]

I don't disagree about the transparency issue at all. My problem with the memo is that it appears to be the sole basis for 2+2's decision regarding whether or not to support the PPA. The memo's diligence as to the paperwork issue is a joke. And the analysis never considered key issues such as whether PPA's objectives are reasonable/attainable; whether they have done a decent job representing poker players; what will happen if 2+2 does/does not support PPA, etc., etc.

The memo's investigation was not competent and its analysis of the substantive issues that should be driving 2+2's position (assuming the paperwork issues can get sorted out) is non-existent. Speaking as a former big-firm lawyer, if my name were on that memo I'd be embarassed. And if I were the client I'd be pissed.

[okietalker]

The simple fact of the matter is, PPA still could get an endorsement by 2+2. All they need to do is take care of all the transparency issues and the information disclosed will be the determining factor as to whether or not 2+2 publicly endorses the PPa or not.

I for one, would like to thank Mason for taking the time and under going the expense of getting the report he did get.

IMHO, the responsibility for the reports lack of substance falls directly on the PPA. If the PPA had been more transparent from the start, then, 2+2 may have already publicly endorsed them.

I guess I just see this in much simpler terms than most of the other posters in this thread.

2+2 has proven to me that they are a class act by doing what they have.

PPA has proven to me that they need to get with the program ASAP. I would like to believe they are an honest organization, but would also like the proof to verify this myself. Was it Reagan who said "Trust, but Verify" ?

Thanks for letting me share my thoughts.

[MagCFO]

I totally agree that there is a transparency issue that needs to be addressed, but to me, it's pretty obvious the GT due diligence was very weak.

There are no statements at all from Michael B. Did they even speak to him?

They didn't even talk to anyone in SF, where the PPA spends most of it's time. The GT letter acts as if the DC office is the main office, which it is not. And, when was the DC office visited? During a congressional session or not? Pretty important piece of information...don't you think?

I just think it will come out that:

A - no one from GT even spoke to Michael B about this issue before releasing the letter

and

B - they visited the wrong freak'n office and didn't even realize it.

Both of those things like really bad for GT IMO, and I have a family member who works for GT, so I have no agenda against them.