Tapie Still Awaiting Response from DOJ, Full Tilt Players Still Anxious
Ten days ago, PocketFives brought you an articlenoting that the lawyer for Groupe Bernard Tapie, Behnam Dayanim, was optimistic that a deal with the U.S. Department of Justice could be finalized within two weeks. With only a few days left to fall within that time line, PocketFives has learned that Tapie is still awaiting final word from the DOJ. At stake is the reimbursement of U.S. and non-U.S. poker players, who are growing increasingly anxious to be repaid. Read player reaction.
Dayanim told PocketFives in an exclusive interview on Tuesday, “We are waiting to hear back from the DOJ and still hoping to finalize an agreement. It takes time. We have an oral understanding with the DOJ that we’re trying to reduce to writing.” When the agreement will ultimately receive a John Hancock from both parties remains to be seen, as next week marks the Thanksgiving holiday in the United States, during which government agencies like the DOJ will be closed.
Laurent Tapie, Managing Director of Groupe Bernard Tapie, told iGamingFrance in the beginning of November, “Payment terms are set. We will draft an agreement to be signed within 15 days to come and we will issue a statement shortly that will provide more information.”
On whether Tapie will be able to strike an agreement within Laurent’s original two-week time frame, Dayanim predicted, “I’m still optimistic it will get done quickly. Certain factors are outside of our control, but the estimate Laurent gave is a reasonable one.” After Tapie comes to an accord with the DOJ, the company will need to finalize its acquisition of Full Tilt Poker. Additionally, it is assumed that the Full Tilt Board will need to approve the sale.
According to an e-mail from Full Tilt Poker’s Ray Bitar (pictured) that circulated online, the DOJ would likely handle reimbursing players from the United States, while Tapie would assume responsibility for refunds for non-U.S. players. Dayanim explained why the two pools are likely to be separated: “There are two big differences between U.S. and Rest-of-World players. One difference is that the DOJ views the activity of Full Tilt in offering wagers to U.S. players as being unlawful. It doesn’t take that view with ROW players.”
On the second major difference between U.S. and non-U.S. players, Dayanim noted, “From Tapie’s perspective, there’s a difference in that the ROW players we hope will continue to be players with a re-launched site. By contrast, Tapie will have no further interaction with U.S. players. ” As you’ll recall in a separate feature article on PocketFives, the DOJ overseeing Full Tilt payouts could have major tax consequences.
Finally, we asked Dayanim about the general time line moving forward. How long would Tapie need to re-launch Full Tilt once both deals were in place?
“It’s a two-step process,” Dayanim explained. “The first step is an agreement with the DOJ. The next step is an agreement between Full Tilt and Tapie. We still need to get the first step done. Then, there needs to be a period of due diligence. Once that period closes, if we close on the acquisition, then we’ll be able to get the site running in short order. In terms of reimbursing players, it all depends on the details of the agreement with the DOJ.”
In other Full Tilt news, according to eGamingReview, Bitar, Chris Ferguson, Rafe Furst, and Howard Lederer (pictured) have all signed waivers of service on charges that they masterminded a global Ponzi scheme. EGR gave its interpretation of the legalese: “The filings mean the quartet are not required to appear in person to acknowledge the complaints against them.” Dayanim called it “non-news.”
Also in recent days, the DOJ responded to complaints issued by two Black Friday defendants, arguing in the process that online poker is subject to the UIGEA: “In operating for profit websites where players wager against each other in poker games, the poker companies are unquestionably engaged in the business of betting or wagering.” The DOJ added, “The defendants’ argument has no basis in the language, structure, or legislative history of the UIGEA.”
