I don’t agree with Daniel about it ruining her for poker, but maybe he just means that it is very tough for the average tournament player to make enough to pay the bills without any sponsorship. I don’t get the feeling that Clonie supplements her income with side game winnings, although she does make something from poker boot camps.

For all the criticism about her play, she has won two decent tournaments this year and three (out of three) Poker After Darks. That makes her sixth on the all time money list for women in poker. I wouldn’t count invitational events, but even without them she would be in the top ten.

I vaguely recall her telling me a few years back that she thought she was going to get some stock, but I would have thought she would have gotten that cleared up within a year of representing the company. It certainly seems strange to bring it up after all these years.

I’ll invite Clonie to post here, although I assume her lawyers will advise her not to. Just in case, limit the unwarranted personal attacks that always come off as misogynistic so I can sell her on the fact that these are forums where people will give her a chance to state her case without bashing her for no reason.

Update: I just got off the phone with Clonie.

1. She always thought she had a piece but was told because of the grey area with poker that there were reasons that things weren’t in writing.

2. She has been pursuing her piece in writing ever since the distributions went out a year and a half ago.

3. She had been negotiating in private but she was unable to get anything done so she had to get a lawyer. (Full Tilt offered a settlement that she rejected.)

4. She also questioned why poker players were named in the suit, but her attorney told her that it had to be done that way since they were owners and also so that their paperwork could be subpoenaed.

5. Daniel doesn’t like her. (no kidding!)

Barry

Ed, I think you mean grey.

I don’t think they’re doing anything illegal either, but certain folks in the DOJ definitely do. And they are scared of that … which is why the PokerStars top dogs won’t even travel to the United States, for fear of arrest, and people from PartyPoker are negotiating with US authorities for pre-UIGEA immunity.

I’m not saying Full Tilt has anything to hide — after all, they were ready to go public right before the UIGEA — but for whatever reasons, not discussing the ownership structure and the legality of what they do have been important tenets adhered to by all who receive a paycheck from the company.

1. The need for a valid “methodology” of proving the value of her damages

Methodology is not a legal term. But the idea promulgated on TV that you simply go into court, claim “the company is worth $X so pay me part of that,” and then you collect based on that big number, is really absurd. Instead, you have to have something logical that says you have been damaged in that amount.

If she’s really been damaged, it’s by the loss of a distribution. But when she equates “distribution” with total company value, it’s transparently absurd. And using an absurd argument in court does not get you into “someplace in the middle” – instead, the decider of facts tends to look and take the other side’s view in full at that point. The most she can recover will be the top number she can PROVE, not the number she tosses against the wall and gets disregarded entirely.

2. “It’s not uncommom to award, say, $4 million compensatory with $36 million in punitive”

Yeah it is indeed rare. It isn’t rare on TV drama, or in chat room discussions about law, but punitive damages require patterns of abusive behavior to (a) get awarded, and (b) get upheld on appeal. This is a simple he-said, she-said tort disagreement about what (if any) compensation she was entitled to under an agreement not even in writing. Even SHE says they pay the ones they feel they owe even when nothing is written. I see nothing in the case that has even a lottery-ticket chance of adding anything “punitive” to her claim.

You go to court when two sides disagree. But the side with the deep pockets does NOT routinely tend to get “punished” when they lose just for believing in and defending their point of view.

3. “But overall … to be the only one of the original team to not receive any payment? That seems plausibly fishy.”

Perhaps. But it also could lend credence to their counter-allegation that they do pay the ones they owe. When it comes to contracts, the devil is in the details of how they are entitled to the compensation. What are the details here? What are the recollections of others? Does her deal differ, or did she fail to live up to her deal somehow?

What was she required to do? Was she entitled to 1% ownership, or to 1% of the profits? Can she be terminated if they want? Can she quit? Is there a non-compete? What are her duties in regards to the day-to-day operations of the site, if any? What were the duties of others?

If none of those sort of details were ever fleshed out and agreed on, legally there was almost certainly never even an oral contract. That’s not an opinion, that’s contractual law. It takes a meeting of the minds, and consideration changing hands, to create a contract of any kind.

4. “And if the others ARE owners … then I think a good lawyer could make the case that Full Tilt had a duty to clarify that she was the only one of the original team that wasn’t an owner.”

Arguable in court. But very strong counter-arguments are easy. I think I’d argue the other side if I wanted to win.

I don’t know the lady at all. All I know of her is what I’ve seen of her on TV. But she doesn’t strike me as the sharpest crayon in the box, and it would be easy to surmise that she heard half the story – or she heard what she wanted to hear originally – but didn’t grasp the details.

4. “She has the right to bring every person who was in that room at the Golden Nugget to the stand, and no matter what gets concluded from that testimony, Full Tilt will have to explain how it IS structured …”

She can call witnesses and defendants. No question about that fact. But a fishing expedition to air the underlying structure of the company is probably not going to get her (or us) much past her specific role in the company. She doesn’t even have a contract.

I really don’t put much stock in the idea that the company must be doing something illegal, and will pay whatever amount to avoid going to court. They are easy targets, if they have shady structure. I would suspect they have all the details well-vetted long ago to satisfy tax and legal issues.

5. “I think a settlement is inevitable.”

I’m sure it depends entirely on how entrenched she gets in her demands, versus the strength (or lack thereof) of her claims. There’s a nuisance level to any lawsuit, and it’s always cheaper to pay the plaintiff the money you’d otherwise pay in legal defense. As I read it, the Nov 2007 offer (“Nov 6, 2007, Lederer offered to pay her $250k for her past performance on behalf of company, she refused cuz only fraction of what was owed to her”) appears to be in that vein.

total speculation, but while the defense to that would be “well hey, different market rates for different celebs” … the answer to that is, “yeah, women draw a much higher market rate.”

***but she also has to have a valid METHODOLOGY that will support the judgment she seeks***

I’m not sure I understand this methodology concept. that’s a newish legal phrase to me.

***If she claims she is owed $40 mill based on the VALUE of the company, she’s never gonna win. ***

Ah, but that’s where the punitive damages come in. It’s not uncommom to award, say, $4 million compensatory with $36 million in punitive. And I don’t think showing work in the 1-digit amount (or 7, depending how you look at it), is gonna be too tough a stretch.

***given his rock star status in poker circles, it’s not unreasonable to believe he would KNOW what sort of ownership shares***

True enough, but then again, the ownership structure of Full Tilt has been such a closely guarded secret. some reasonable conclusions have been surmised … but if anyone not involved with Full Tilt truly knows anything, then that is the best-contained secret in all of poker.

***the example you cite tells me you have only a vague whiff of how these cases really work***

i am not a lawyer, and though i have read probably 25,000+ pages of legal documents in my life, relative to several hundred million dollars worth of jury awards, i will surrender this point to you. “vague whiff” works for me, for in legal circles i don’t even qualify as a donkey yet.

Thanks for the coffee case link. I think that case did make sense … but my facts on it were a little rusty, as I hadn’t given it much thought this decade.

***Based on what we are seeing, Clonie’ claims have every appearance of being weak and bogus. I can poke lots of logical holes in her story,***

I see a few weak spots in her case, too. But overall … to be the only one of the original team to not receive any payment? That seems plausibly fishy. If the others were not owners, why did they receive so much more payment than she did? Perhaps she owes money back for all those buy-ins she didn’t cash with? I think the fact that she was one of the lowest-two performers at the table helps her case.

And if the others ARE owners … then I think a good lawyer could make the case that Full Tilt had a duty to clarify that she was the only one of the original team that wasn’t an owner.

The fact that these questions exist, regardless of the answers, are why I think a settlement is inevitable. She has the right to bring every person who was in that room at the Golden Nugget to the stand, and no matter what gets concluded from that testimony, Full Tilt will have to explain how it IS structured … and from there, the DOJ has all they need to ALLEGE that Full Tilt is an American company profiting off gambling on an offshore site, and facilitating money transfers made illegal by the UIGEA.

Frankly, I’d love to see that case come to the fore and see Full Tilt win! but defeating the Feds might likely cost 10s of millions with jailtime being at risk.

To take it just one step further, might it be kinda funny if Clonie won her case — saying she was an owner — and that unleashed the DOJ, which won their case against Full Tilt, at which point Clonie would then go to jail, too.

It’s just too wacky … no one’s gonna let it get that far.

On the minor details you wanted to focus on, yeah okay whatever, although those distinctions won’t sway the final result here. You’re right that it’s technically a “distribution” and not a dividend that we’re talking about here. But I wanted to use more generally understood terminology, because more people will be familiar with dividends (which are similar, but not identical to be sure) than partnership distributions.

In any event, the point I made was that it’s illuminating (and very flawed) that she bases the value of her alleged missed distributions on 1% of the (supposed) market value of the site. That valuation would be a totally irrelevant number in a partnership distribution (just like the size of a dividend is irrelevant to the value of a stock). And it isn’t an irrelevant point, because she not only has to have an actual loss she can prove, but she also has to have a valid METHODOLOGY that will support the judgment she seeks. If she claims she is owed $40 mill based on the VALUE of the company, she’s never gonna win.

On Negreanu, you’re right in that on closer reading he isn’t even an owner here, so has no ownership stake whatsoever. Nevertheless, given his rock star status in poker circles, it’s not unreasonable to believe he would KNOW what sort of ownership shares (if any) were being tossed on the table by this specific group. If you were trying to create a poker web site, wouldn’t you try to snare him also? If you were a close friend who was participating, wouldn’t you tell him and try to get him onboard if the deal was extraordinarily sweeter than expected?

Finally, when you say “But if you think she’ll get “slaughtered” in court, with all due respect, you don’t understand the American judicial system” then I’ll tell you, the example you cite tells me you have only a vague whiff of how these cases really work. Does she have a “blind luck” chance of collecting some money similar to the oft-cited McDonald’s case? Sure, at least in theory. But her chances will be limited by the strength of her arguments, not on some freaky spin of the judicial wheel.

I’d invite you and the others here to actually look at the FACTS in the coffee case, which when you look closer all of a sudden you might understand how perhaps that case did indeed make sense after all. http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

Based on what we are seeing, Clonie’ claims have every appearance of being weak and bogus. I can poke lots of logical holes in her story, and with her admission she has absolutely nothing in writing, her saying “But so-and-so without a contract got some money” can actually cut against her even further. So as I said earlier, seeing lack of logic and weak arguments paraded in the claim itself(!), if THAT is the level of her case that she is hoping to collect on, it’s a quixotic lottery-like quest and she’ll get slaughtered.

And she is suing everyone on “Team Full Tilt” because its her contention that they are all owners, not just endorsers.

I’m not saying she’s got a rock solid case … but let’s assume she’s on the wrong side of it … can you imagine working “on the come” under the belief that you would be paid later … only to see all the others on “Team Full Tilt” get paid eventually, and you are the one who doesn’t?

That would totally suck — because it would mean you are working under misperceptions for years, or you are being screwed!

And as to Negreanu’s own percentage, as far as I know, he owns 0 percent of Full Tilt, the company that competes with PokerStars, the company he represents.

And I can only imagine that he might be assuming she got 0 percent because he got 0 percent of PokerStars … but he got in with them WAY later. Clonie got in with Full Tilt at the groundest of ground floors. Under what terms, of course, is now for the courts to decide.

But if you think she’ll get “slaughtered” in court, with all due respect, you don’t understand the American judicial system.

Remember when that woman got $3 million for spilt coffee from McDonald’s? It wasn’t because a jury believed her medicals were that high … it’s because the courts awarded PUNITIVE damages — so a big company wouldn’t see paying off such a woman as merely the cost of doing business. They came up with that number because $3 million was McDonald’s one-day profits (or maybe one week? i forget) on coffee.

Clonie is seeking punitive damages as well as “compensatory” damages … so if the courts decide she is owed ANYTHING beyond $250k for her time working for Full Tilt in whatever capacity, than they can also tack on punitive damages for far far far more.

Negreanu knows a lot about poker, but the Canadian clearly doesn’t understand American law.

If Negreanu is getting 1/4 of 1% or less, he’s no way Clonie gets a full point or anything even remotely similar.

In addition, Clonie’s understanding of business and tax issues is totally lacking. She claims she is owed dividends, but dividends are NOT based on the value of a company, but only on the income being declared by the general partner.

Also, Clonie is suing the endorsers, which are not necessarily the same as the site owners – a subtle indicator that she is fishing.

Clonie is hoping to get rich. Is she owed SOME money as an endorser? Perhaps. But she’ll get slaughtered in court and poerhaps forfeit what she is truly due, with her transparently bogus claims that can be easily disproved.

I will put up $1,000 to Negreanu’s million on that. Done deal. Daniel, please consider your wager massaged and accepted. Nov. 16, 2010 … let’s talk then.

Believe me on this one bro, she is drawing dead and just ruined herself. I’d bet a million dollars to your $1000 that she was never given 1% of the company. Actually that’s not fair to you. I’m not going to share anything more than that on an internet forum, but Clownie has officially lost her mind and is probably going to end up with nothing, broke, and out of poker within the next two years. It’s over for her. Good riddance.

and…

This link was posts on 2+2 the day it was filed. It was posted by an account with 4 posts, all coincidentally having to do with Clonie and FTP. Coincidence? No, it was her.

As or Clonie, naming random people associated with FTP in a lawsuit is extremely irresponsible and inappropriate. It’s like she’s just throwing darts and guessing. She’s not going to make any friends doing that. I mean, Mike Matusow? Like he needs to be on that suit, it’s ridiculous.

What Howard L. says:

Originally Posted by HowardLederer
I have personally given Clonie over 600K in cash over the last three years alone. I wonder if she has paid he taxes on this money? I never once offered her 1 percent of anything. For her to say otherwise is disingenuous and is really sad.

Team Full Tilt has decided to take this case all the way. There will be no settlement. This will just give us more publicity, and when online poker is no longer public enemy number one in a few months, it will make our brand that much stronger.

Clonie, I am really disapponted in you. What you really need is a good tax attorney for the 600K that you never reported.

Regards,

Howard

What Daniel N. says:

Or 3) She has gone absolutely ding bat crazy and is making things up. There is just no freaking way they’d offer her 1%, no freaking way. This feels more like crazy ex-girlfriend extortion than anything else. I really hope she doesn’t get away with this, luckily I don’t think she will. What an idiot.

It’s so obvious what she is trying to do. Who do you think posted the link on the internet? She wants to create a stir in the hopes that she can get some kind of home rum settlement figuring FTP can afford it and it’s easier to throw money at her and make her go away. All of it based on complete lunacy and lies. I hope she ends up with what she deserves: nothing. She’s ruined herself with this move. I’ll never speak to her again, and I’m sure I’m not alone.

Not true! I’ve got Pokerati patches just waiting for her! And heck, if I can get away with not paying her to wear them, we might already have a deal!

But more seriously, there are no endorsement offers for just about any poker players right now, I believe, unless you win-win-win.

Though everyone pretty much has their own deal with Full Tilt, all those non Team pros you see wearing their logos aren’t getting their buy-ins covered … they’re just getting bonuses if the get to certain depths in a tourney.

***http://FTP.***

Oh, also, just a technical glitch FYI, whenever you type in F-T-P in a Pokerati comment, for some reason the machinery translates it into a dead link … so when you see the http stuff in front of Eff Tee Pee, you’ll know the commenter was meaning to reference Full Tilt in an abbreviation.