View Single Post
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 4th June 2007, 06:54 PM
jetset's Avatar
jetset jetset is offline
Meister Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 10,366
WTGs: 0
WTGd at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks: 876
Thanked 2,943 Times in 1,387 Posts
Nominated 7 Times in 2 Posts
TOTW/F/M Award(s): 0
Reputation Points: 15694
Rep Power: 161
jetset has a reputation beyond reputejetset has a reputation beyond reputejetset has a reputation beyond reputejetset has a reputation beyond reputejetset has a reputation beyond reputejetset has a reputation beyond reputejetset has a reputation beyond reputejetset has a reputation beyond reputejetset has a reputation beyond reputejetset has a reputation beyond reputejetset has a reputation beyond repute
LOL - the DoJ has never let something as unimportant as the validity of online gambling law to slow them down....

Seriously - the UK analysts are saying that this is all about business rather than law.

Being scared to enter the US; having the possibility of a legal threat impeding possible merger and acquisition deals and investors unhappy with the Damocles sword effect of such a threat are all good business reasons for trying to cosy up to the DoJ.

It may mean paying a fat settlement to clean the slate a la Sportingbet's $400 000 to get Peter Dicks off the Louisiana hook, but weighed against a better share price and more investor confidence that may be a small price to pay.

The Party Gaming statement said that it has initiated the contact, but some sources are suggesting that this was triggered by the DoJ attempts earlier this year to get some of the big online gambling companies and financial outfits to give them information.

It's interesting to speculate on exactly what sort of information Party Gaming might be prepared to divulge.
__________________
jetset
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jetset For This Useful Post:
lots0 (4th June 2007)