More Leyser-Gold drama

[goodsamaritan]

[ QUOTE ]
What did Leyser give as consideration. He failed to get real celebrities and could only manage a few "b" list celebs. Gold wanted "A" list celebrities to wear Bodog logo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well Gold wasn't able to get ANY celebrities. If Leyser hadn't gotten those B-list celebs, then Gold might not have gotten the seat from Bodog at all. The consideration is not lacking because they were b-list celebs instead of a-list celebs. It was enough for Gold to get a free seat into the WSOP and that is all that matters.

I think the most likely scenario here is: Gold made a deal with a guy who he didnt know that well and figured it didnt matter cause he'd probably just bust anyway. Then he ended up winning the 12 mil and Leyser started being annoying, so Gold decided to stiff him.

[Howard Treesong]

[ QUOTE ]
Are u asking for a prop bet? I'll lay 3k with your odds that Leyser doesn't win 6 million. We can have an elder poster hold the money in escrow.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll bet, but not that proposition. Under your theory of the case, Leyser gets zero -- and that's the position you've taken here.

Under mine Leyser gets something but Gold can deduct for his expenses, taxes, the ten percent for his other friend, and the like. I have no firm conclusion that Leyser gets the whole six.

I'll bet that if there's a judgment from the trial court, it's in Gold's favor and that Leyser gets an award of money damages. I'll also bet that any such award will ultimately be held up on appeal. I'll put $1K on it. Shaniac can escrow, if he's willing, although I'm willing to consider Brandi Hawbaker as an alternative.

No bet if the thing settles. That's the highly likely outcome, of course.

[NoSoup4U]

[ QUOTE ]
This is slam dunk for Leyser. Junior law students can argue over whether there is "consideration", but the judge in the trial has already ruled there is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm also of the opinion that Leyser is in good shape, but this significantly overstates the case. The judge has merely ruled that Leyser is likely to prevail on the merits. He has not heard all of the evidence and it is possible that some of it could change the outcome. For instance, someone from Bodog could testify that the celebrities were not a factor in the deicision. That would change things a lot.

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone have a PDF of exactly what the judge said?

[/ QUOTE ]

The judge's comments in court are not filed in Pacer. The only real source we have is newspaper reports and witness acounts like Seif's. There is a subtle point here which is that the judge could have just ruled without making comments about Leyser's likely victory. When he talks up Leyser's case in open court, that is a bit stronger than simply ruling.

However, sometimes judges make comments that are intended to push the sides into settlement discussions. It is possible that he doesn't really think the outcome is clear, but he wants to induce Gold to settle. I've seen cases where the judge seems to express doubts about one side and then completely changes his view depending on who he is trying to pressure at that point in the case.

I wouldn't read too much into his comments. It is in Leyser's favor that he open expressed scepticism about Gold's claims, but it is far from certain what will happen.

[NoSoup4U]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think it matters what a low level judge thinks? Like I said before, if all the facts are out, Gold should win. Even if the current judge rules against him, the appeals process will favor Gold.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my opinion, this is completely wrong. As I presume you know, the appeals process is only concerned with matters of law and the decision of the trial court is final with regard to matters of fact. If the trial court determines that there was in fact consideration and that Gold is lying about it, an appeal is a very low percentage thing. Contracts law is pretty settled and I don't think we are likely to see significant appellate issues in this case. Similarly, if the trial court finds as a fact that there was no consideration, I can't imagine how Leyser will get past that.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no consideration and no reliance

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if you are privy to private facts, but thus far Leyser has expressed a very clear position with regard to consideration that is supported by some evidence and entirely consistent with other evidence. Gold's claim that there was no consideration at all is inconsistent with some evidence, somewhat contrary to common sense and he has been caught in several misstatements/lies already.

[NoSoup4U]

[ QUOTE ]
No: the reasonable likelihood of success on the merits can and usually does involve weighing facts. It isn't like summary judgment, where the Court has to asssume one side's evidence is right. In this setting, it's a substantial indication that the trial judge believes Leyser and not Gold. Given that this same judge is the ultimate trier of fact, that's a really bad development for Gold.

The judge is saying exactly that he thinks Leyser is going to win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite so, but at this point we only have a limited subset of the facts. It is at least possible that Gold has some evidence that is not yet on the record that will change the judge's mind. There is still almost a month of discovery ahead of us.

The wildcard, in my opinion, is Bodog. If they are willing to state unambiguously that they gave Gold the seat without regard to any celebs, it would be extremely damaging to Leyser's case. However, one suspects that if Gold had the ability to secure such testimony from Bodog there would have been an affidavit to that effect already filed.

[maurile]

Good points by both Howard Treesong and NoSoup4U.

[Howard Treesong]

[ QUOTE ]
. . . one suspects that if Gold had the ability to secure such testimony from Bodog there would have been an affidavit to that effect already filed.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the key practical point. Gold has a relationship with Bodog; if he could have gotten this evidence, he very likely would have.

[NoSoup4U]

[ QUOTE ]
Leyser should have realized the deal Gold was offering a bad deal for himself and a great one for Leyser.

Basically, I think Leyser accepted a highly advantageous freroll, knowing that it was probably too good to be true but assuming nothing special would result from it, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm reluctant to post this, because I have no corroboration for it, but this is News, Views, and Gossip. I received an email from someone unknown to me who purported to be a friend of Leyser. In this email, I was told that Leyser believed that he was going to get to play in the Main Event in exchange for finding the celebs. In his mind, getting half of Gold was not "a highly advantageous freeroll" but a very poor substitute for his own seat in the Main.

[Ruprecht]

Hello.

Although this is a high-profile case, there is nothing groundbreaking-- just simple contract law. Since the judge has given his opinion that the plaintiff is likely to prevail, Mr. Gold will likely be making an offer to the plaintiff before trial begins. (Note that the judge's comments strongly indicate that the alleged contract is indeed legal under Nevada law-- he would not have made such comments if the validity of such a verbal contract was in question).
Also, it is reasonable to believe that all of the key facts have been presented. Mr. Gold has been deposed, and neither clients nor attorneys want to take chances on any trial if they can knock the case out in pretrial hearings and motions.
As for consideration, the judge seems to believe that the plaintiff would not have made efforts to get celebrities without having been offered something in return, and the answering machine tapes correlate the plaintiff's argument, which is that Mr. Gold offered half of his winnings, or thereabouts.
Even if Bodog representatives say it was not necessary to get the celebrities,it may be moot. If Mr. Gold believed it was necessary, or if Mr. Gold believed that there may be FUTURE benefits to himself (maybe a seat in next year's event, for example, or future business with Bodog), then it is reasonable for the court to conclude that the offer to the plaintiff was not a gift.
Also, once the trial court has ruled, it is not an easy matter to get the decision reversed. This would be especially true in this case, which is just plain old contract law. The likelihood of a reversible error would seem small, and again, the reason is that this is simple contract law.
That's why the judge made his comments about who is likely to prevail-- to give Mr. Gold an opportunity to reach a settlement with the plaintiff. I think it is a pretty good bet that such a settlement will be reached. It is also a good bet that the plaintiff will receive an amount in the neighborhood of 2 to 3 million. Mr. Gold's lawyers know what the judge was telling them, and the plaintiff would likely prefer 2 to 3 million in hand, rather than trial. But if Mr. Gold's offer is too small, the plaintiff will take his chances at trial, since he has the odds at least slightly in his favor, given the comments of the judge.
A settlement will be reached.

[Jooka]

[ QUOTE ]
The wildcard, in my opinion, is Bodog.

[/ QUOTE ]


question about bodog getting involved, since what they do is somewhat illegal in the US wouldnt they want to stay clear of this?