% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Zynga, Inc. Message Board

  • uneditedpoet uneditedpoet May 14, 2013 10:40 AM Flag

    Atlantic Club has a great argument not to continue sale to Poker stars

    This article articulates why Jersey is not going to welcome Pokerstars

    Atlantic Club casino owners ask court to allow negotiations with other buyers
    Tuesday May 14, 2013, 9:18 AM

    Sentiment: Buy

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Wow!!!! Very impressive blue, social, and uh huh. You guys must have earned law degrees as a hobby. LOL! Seriously if I ever need legal advice I know where I am heading first. But I think when this boils out no matter whose right or wrong, who can make the law fit, and what details are presented in court., The argument which is in the best. interest of New Jersey, its citizens, employees, and tourism revenue will prevail. Funny how that will find a way to work itself out.

      Sentiment: Buy

    • the way i read the suit poker stars did everything correctly and were remodeling the poker rooms etc It looks to me that they sold the casino to cheaply. All the speculation was that sold the casino at least 5 million too cheap

    • The most persuasive argument by the Atlantic Club related to the temporary restraining order is that it gives PokerStars a unilateral option of several months to purchase the casino when they are unlikely to be granted a license, and that PokerStars was willing to assume the risk of the end of April deadline.

      B's need to recognize.

      • 1 Reply to uh_huh_yeah_01
      • I could be wrong, but I think the issue the court will consider is the weight of a 3rd party contingency on the well being of the seller.

        In other words, yes, the contract was clear that the deal could be terminated if the buyer is unable to obtain the license from the state of NJ, or in this instance the 3rd party. But as long as the buyer is willing to move forward at the same consideration, money, is the seller harmed?

        The answer is no. The seller receives the same compensation as the original terms.

        So in order to form an argument that would in my opinion be successful the seller in this case must show that the employees are "stake holders" and that the 3rd party license is there "consideration" in the terms of the contract, and since they have not received there payment the management exercised their clause to terminate on behalf of these stakeholders.

        I'm a bit worried because in the brief notes we've seen it does not appear this line of argument or thinking is being used.

        But nobody can out guess the court... LOL

2.42-0.01(-0.41%)Aug 27 4:00 PMEDT