Clonie vs. Full Tilt
We all knew something fishy was going on with Clonie and Full Tilt, right? And we’ve always wondered how exactly Full Tilt operates — seriously it’s kinda a mystery, even to people who work for them — and now, with Clonie Gowen suing four different companies connected to the game so many play with the pros, we should find out quite a bit of interesting info.
As far as I know, this is the first time any online poker biz that operates in the grayish world of processing money from American players (really really light gray, but still … ) will have to show its stuff publicly. Even Ultimate Bet/Absolute, with all the audits and investigations hasn’t really had to show anything it doesn’t want to to anyone outside its own semi-corporate family.
Um, hole-card cameras in the courtroom?
Gowen v. Tiltware LLC, et al.,
Plaintiff: Cycalona Gowen
Defendant: Full Tilt Poker, Tiltware LLC, Pocket Kings Ltd., Kolyma Corporation, A.V.V., Raymond J. Bitar, Howard Lederer, Andrew Bloch, Phillip Ivey, Christopher Ferguson, John Juanda, Phillip Gordon, Erick Lindgren, Erik Seidel, Jennifer Harman-Traniello, Michael Matusow, Allen Cunningham, Gus Hansen and Patrick AntoniousCase Number: 2:2008cv01581
Filed: November 14, 2008Court: Nevada District Court
Office: Las Vegas Office [ Court Info ]
County: Clark
Presiding Judge: Judge Robert C. Jones
Referring Judge: Magistrate Judge Robert J. JohnstonNature of Suit: Contract – Other Contract
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
They’re talking about it on 2+2, and the summary of her allegations below comes from the Hendon Mob:
In the complaint, she alleges the following —
In 2004, Clonie was offered (and accepted) 1% ownership of Tiltware and FTP in exchange for being a celebrity representative…
Has worn FTP merchandise and promoted FTP in exchange for that ownership interest (no other compensation)…
In May 2007, all Team FTP members received distribution checks but her…she demanded distribution owed to her, refused…
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…
Clonie estimates company worth $4 billion…
Despite not being paid, continued to work and promote company until November 11, 2008, when she was informed that FTP would issue a press statement informing public she was no longer a Team FT Pro…
Still has not been given reason all other Team FT pros given distribution but her…
Claims against all defendants:
1. Breach of Contract — claiming damages of $40 million…
2. Breach of Fiduciary Duties
3. Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
4. Unjust Enrichment5. Fraud/Intentional Misrepresentation (alleges Bitar contacted her in 2004 and told her they wanted her to be “the FTP female pro”…then in May 2004, attended meeting at Golden Nugget in Ivey’s Suite…majority of Team FT was there, and Lederer led the meeting…He informed group that their ownership interests were not only in FTP but also in Tiltware, and Tiltware would charge FTP a high leasing fee.
Go Batfaces!
Kevin Mathers says:
November 15th, 2008 at 7:53am
It appears there isn’t a written contract for that 1% from further reading of the 2+2 thread. If Jennifer Harman wasn’t sick in 2004, does Clonie get the “female pro” slot?
Kevin Mathers says:
November 15th, 2008 at 7:56am
Above comes from post 67 in the 2+2 thread, but it also states that no one else has a written agreement for the 1% stake in Tiltware.
DanM says:
November 15th, 2008 at 8:03am
I’m pretty sure Clonie was the original “female pro”, and Jennifer was added on afterwards. Sadly, Pokerati’s v.1 and v.2 archives are in deep freeze, so I can’t easily search much old stuff we had about her.
Kevin Mathers says:
November 15th, 2008 at 8:11am
When Clonie was signed with FTP in 04, Jennifer was ill. Clonie gets her FTP deal after winning WPT Ladies Night. Her tournament “success” at that point was finishing 2nd at a $75 NL event and 10th in a $500/rebuy WPT event during season 1, where you saw her on a zip line in Costa Rica. I’m sure you know more about her from her timing playing in Texas, but she parlayed 2 minutes on the Travel Channel into the Ladies Night appearance, and then to superstardom.
DanM says:
November 15th, 2008 at 8:15am
Oh, I know that much, indeed. I use her timing fortune/deftness to make fun of Tom all the time.
DanM says:
November 15th, 2008 at 8:34am
On the 2+2 thread, where they compare her record to Phil Gordon’s … funny … it reminds me of teams fighting to stave off relegation in soccer.
California Jen says:
November 15th, 2008 at 8:43am
From a non-legal standpoint, it sounds like she has a reasonable case here. But I sense that it will end like the WPT lawsuit – with a settlement. FTP probably thought Clonie was bluffing, but now that they know different, they might offer her something so they don’t have to give up any info in a public court setting.
Gotta say… Go Clonie.
DanM says:
November 15th, 2008 at 8:49am
I think so, too. Paperwork or not, seeing her in all the commercials, on Poker after Dark and countless other Full Tilt productions, it should be pretty easy to show that she likely wasn’t the only Team Pro (as posted on the website) that wasn’t at least a part owner.
But I’m biased … so hey, isn’t that a great picture?
California Jen says:
November 15th, 2008 at 9:39am
Did you take that photo?
IttyBittyWussy says:
November 15th, 2008 at 11:44am
I think TinyB should intervene in the suit to finally get his $200 back…
Bill Jones says:
November 15th, 2008 at 12:35pm
White Trash
DanM says:
November 15th, 2008 at 4:53pm
I agree that a settlement is likely. But still, relatively shrewd move by Clonie. I think she’s holding the nuts.
And yes, Jen, I’m glad you asked … I took that pic just for this occasion. Beyotch still owes me a bikini photo shoot, though!
Does anyone else know what Kyolma is all about? That’s a poker entity I haven’t heard of before.
DanM says:
November 15th, 2008 at 4:54pm
***I think TinyB should intervene in the suit to finally get his $200 back…***
For the record, it was $500, and he did get paid … it just took more than a year before his funds were transfered via Full Tilt.
California Jen says:
November 15th, 2008 at 5:04pm
Looks like Kolyma is a software publishing company? Hmmm.
http://www.downloadpipe.com/Kolyma-Corporation-publisher-1079871.html
Dan, one image for you – bikini shoot surrounded by millions of dollars.
DanM says:
November 15th, 2008 at 5:34pm
I don’t think so … Tiltware is the software maker. My take is that
Kolyma basically runs the website?
They are also somehow connected to Alderney, an island in the English Channel (right off the coast of France) with a population of 2,400 … and they run http://www.gamblingcontrol.org/ .
Kolyma, the word not the corporation, btw, is a region in far northeastern Russia, beyond Siberia (pretty much across the
streetstraight from Sarah Palin’s house).Ahh, I’m starting to get it already!
DanM says:
November 15th, 2008 at 5:36pm
BTW, IBW, good to see you around these parts! I thought you must have disappeared into an Omaha coma!
Nichole says:
November 15th, 2008 at 9:22pm
Honestly, you people SERIOUSLY think they would tell her they are officially cutting her without having things squared away? Seriously? I’ve been around a number of similar cases (although a less money involved), and unless the FTP and Tiltware crew are total idiots, I think there is more here to the story and she is simply disgruntled and fumbling right now. Being on the team is NOT the same thing as having a stake or ownership…look it up. Plus, right now all you are seeing are documents from HER side…remember that before you make any judgement and think about it before you start cheering for anyone.
This is just bad for the worls of poker, all the way around no matter who ends up ‘winning’ in the end.
MohawkDonkey says:
November 15th, 2008 at 9:29pm
Those bastards. They should pay her. She’s super hot and there’s no telling how much money FullTilt’s bringing in. I’m sure it’s not as much as Pokerstars but, it’s still a sizable fortune. Those greedy bastards.
ben matlock says:
November 16th, 2008 at 12:50am
Hey Nichole,
Which owner of FTP are you? Howard perhaps? I find it humorous you typed the exact same thing in on 2+2 and it was your first post ever. Good luck….this is gonna cost you millions….
DanM says:
November 16th, 2008 at 1:42am
Nichole, I am agreeing with most everything you say … but the perception that she was a part owner has been around for years (I know her well, and heard her discussing it with other co-owners nearby) … and plausibly I could see Full Tilt thinking, hey, if they papers aren’t signed, fuck her.
But we know it’s not always that simple.
Personally, on first glance, and with some Clonie bias because she’s been a pal for a while, I think she’s holding the nuts. I predict a settlement for about $2.5 million. It’s 10x more than Howard offered her (and his offer in and of itself suggests he knows he owes her something), and 1/10th to 1/20th of what she thinks her stake is worth.
And though I’m hoping for selfish reasons they get deep into the discovery process — because I’m honestly curious how a multibillion dollar grey-market enterprise works — I can’t imagine Howard wants the inner workings of Full Tilt’s set-up in the public domain, where he then might have to spend 10s of millions defending himself against other charges from entities far bigger than Clonie (the IRS, for example).
Again, this is pretty rampant speculation with very little information, but that’s my read pre-flop.
Remember, Clonie is suing a few of her close personal friends here — that can’t be easy! And she’s burning a huge bridge with one of the top 4 operations in the entire industry. So either she’s unleashed her inner stripper in a way that cuts off her nose to spite her face and is in the middle of a huge meltdown, or she’s deciding enough is enough, and is standing up to the biggest boys saying, “hey, I’m an American, and even though you guys operate in the unregulated offshore world, I have rights and am not gonna put up with being fucked around with. Just because you don’t like me anymore doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay me!”
We’ll see … having spent a week with her (offshore) a couple months ago, I can tell you we hardly did any coke or meth at all(!) and she was totally on her game. Not just playing poker — but as a celebrity representative (for PokerTek directly, and indirectly WPT Boot Camp and Carnival Cruises) with both regular-joe players and big corporate execs.
In fact, to that extent, if she can show any malicious behavior to push her out during her “down time” (from ’07 to ’08, when everyone thought she was all drugged up) though it’s a stretch, her attorneys could claim damages, saying Full Tilt business stresses and the subsequent damage to her reputation hurt her ability to earn an income not just on the table, but as an endorser. I’m not at all saying that’s the case, but it’s one that could be made pretty well to a jury of non-poker players, particularly in Clark County, where’d they be looking at a company that’s not operating as out in the open as the casinos LV residents are used to dealing with.
In fact, the more I think about it … maybe we should set the over-under on a settlement at about $4 million.
ben matlock says:
November 16th, 2008 at 2:21am
I’d take the over Dan, but it’ll never come to light of day if they settle. She’ll have to sign a non-disclosure agreement and we’re all left in the dark.
CzechGrazer says:
November 16th, 2008 at 2:27am
$4 million might be a good line… I’d take the over but not by much. But, as has been pointed out, if FTP is smart, they’ll come to a “mutual understanding” rather quickly, the case will be dropped and we’ll never know the amount.
Also, justified or not, her future endorsement opportunities with everything poker related is hurt… not just FTP.
DanM says:
November 16th, 2008 at 2:38am
***her future endorsement opportunities with everything poker related is hurt***
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.
Max says:
November 16th, 2008 at 9:00am
Looking forward to get the outcome. Afterall managing an image ain’t that easy.
ben matlock says:
November 16th, 2008 at 10:11pm
Kabooooom! And the hammer has been dropped:
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.
Pokerati | Texas Hold’em Blog | Semi-live and Unofficial at the WSOP » Blog Archive » RE: Clonie vs. Full Tilt Fake Lederer Responds, Real Negreanu Chimes in says:
November 17th, 2008 at 12:06am
[…] Clonie vs. Full Tilt (11/15/08) Posted by DanM on November 17, 2008 at 12:06 […]
ben matlock says:
November 17th, 2008 at 12:07am
So, the H.L. posts were a scam. Mod’s proved he wasn’t the real H.L. All the DN stuff is true though. Here’s a couple more posts and he doesn’t pull any punches:
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.
DanM says:
November 17th, 2008 at 12:17am
***is probably going to end up with nothing, broke, and out of poker within the next two years***
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.
Kevin Mathers says:
November 17th, 2008 at 9:26am
I find it a bit disappointing Daniel went with the dropping the Clownie bomb on her. Just when it appeared she was actually winning in open poker tournaments…
FGump says:
November 19th, 2008 at 12:06pm
The Negreanu bet is a sucker bet. How does he know Clonie didn’t get offered 1%? Because (1) he and the top pros are getting far less than 1%, and (2) he knows the size of J Harmon’s offered cut before they turned to Gowen, which was much smaller than 1%.
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.
DanM says:
November 19th, 2008 at 12:26pm
Dude, with all due respect, you’re a little wrong on some of these things … she is seeking “distributions” … not dividends.
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.
FGump says:
November 19th, 2008 at 2:23pm
DanM, I find Negreanu’s information and insight to be far more compelling than yours, because he understands that despite the oddball inequities in the US courts at times, you still have to have EVIDENCE and some FACTS on your side to win a big verdict. And he is basing his mockery of her case not on the vagaries of the courts, but on the fact that he knows more than we do. You’ve blown right past that innuendo in what he is saying (and in what he is obviously biting his lip and keeping to himself, if you read all his words on the subject.)
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.
DanM says:
November 19th, 2008 at 2:51pm
OK, Gump, let’s talk … you are
clearlypresumably intelligent (phew, glad i erased that part where i almost called you an idiot!).***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.
DanM says:
November 19th, 2008 at 3:04pm
BTW, might it also be possible that if it’s proven she’s not an owner, and is simply owed some money for her labor … possible discrimination issues if it’s seen that the men were paid at a higher rate than she was?
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.”
FGump says:
November 19th, 2008 at 4:34pm
DanM, point by point …
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.
Ed says:
November 19th, 2008 at 5:23pm
Poker is turning ghey. I am going to go into banking.
DanM says:
November 19th, 2008 at 5:42pm
>>>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.<<< 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.
DanM says:
November 19th, 2008 at 5:45pm
>>Poker is turning ghey.<< Ed, I think you mean grey.
Ben Matlock says:
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:35pm
Barry Greenstein’s post on pokerroad.com….
Pokerati | Texas Hold’em Blog | Semi-live and Unofficial at the WSOP » Blog Archive » Clonie v Full Tilt - The Saga Continues says:
January 7th, 2009 at 8:02am
[…] for Tiltware, the parent company of Full Tilt Poker, filed a motion yesterday to dismiss Clonie Gowen’s case against them for $40 million as a 1% owner of the company. For those interested in reading the motion, it can be read here. […]
Pokerati | Texas Hold’em Blog | Semi-live and Unofficial at the WSOP » Blog Archive » Clonie v Full Tilt - The One with the Amended Complaint says:
February 4th, 2009 at 9:25am
[…] Gowen filed an amended complaint in her lawsuit against Full Tilt Poker last month, according to Pokerlistings. The complaint added two additional defendants (Pocket Kings […]