Full Tilt Poker fights back against DOJ
Earlier this week the Justice Department (DOJ) sued the owners of the online poker website Full Tilt Poker for allegedly defrauding its thousands of online poker players out of more than $440 million. But the card sharks arent going down without a fight.
September 23, 2011 at 03:52 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Earlier this week the Justice Department (DOJ) sued the owners of the online poker website Full Tilt Poker for allegedly defrauding its thousands of online poker players out of more than $440 million. But the card sharks aren't going down without a fight.
On Wednesday, lawyers representing Full Tilt say the company didn't run a Ponzi scheme, as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara claimed in a press release. Rather, the gambling website merely may have been a mismanaged business operation.
“A Ponzi scheme requires an investment vehicle in order to receive a certain rate of high return,” said Jeff Ifrah, an attorney for Full Tilt CEO Raymond Bitar. “None of those things happened here.”
According to the Wall Street Journal, the “Ponzi scheme” label is troubling to Full Tilt because it could mean that it will lose its license to operate outside the U.S.
The DOJ claims Full Tilt's board allegedly misrepresented the security and availability of players' funds, which were purportedly used to pay the board members and owners. The government claims the scheme took place between April 2007 and April 2011, when the company stopped operating in the U.S.
Earlier this week the Justice Department (DOJ) sued the owners of the online poker website Full Tilt Poker for allegedly defrauding its thousands of online poker players out of more than $440 million. But the card sharks aren't going down without a fight.
On Wednesday, lawyers representing Full Tilt say the company didn't run a Ponzi scheme, as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of
“A Ponzi scheme requires an investment vehicle in order to receive a certain rate of high return,” said Jeff Ifrah, an attorney for Full Tilt CEO Raymond Bitar. “None of those things happened here.”
According to the Wall Street Journal, the “Ponzi scheme” label is troubling to Full Tilt because it could mean that it will lose its license to operate outside the U.S.
The DOJ claims Full Tilt's board allegedly misrepresented the security and availability of players' funds, which were purportedly used to pay the board members and owners. The government claims the scheme took place between April 2007 and April 2011, when the company stopped operating in the U.S.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Apple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Coinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute read
Baker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1'David and Goliath' Dispute Between Software Developers Ends in $24M Settlement
- 2Supreme Court Takes Up the Corporate Transparency Act: Recent Litigation and Potential Next Steps
- 3Brogdon: The Final Nail in Corbin’s Coffin in Premises Cases
- 4What to Know About the New 'Overlapping Directorship' Antitrust Development
- 5'Quiet, Appropriate End:' NY Court of Appeals Formally Removes Erin Gall From Bench
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
