Edge sorting: Phil Ivey loses
Quote: AxelWolfI still want to know if you were an employee I'm some company if they could then still confiscate the money? I see no difference between winning at poker tournament for an employee VS selling a product for a company. As far as I'm concerned they're only entitled to whatever Commission or profit that person earned from the sale or Tournament winnings.
Its just not a simple answer.
An employee most certainly could have his wages garnished, yes.
There are legal restrictions to how much. For example, garnishment for public assistance owed is usually set to 50% of check after taxes each check till paid off. I think back child support is 60 or 75% . Back taxes might be 100% Different states may have different laws for the local garnished wages.
BUT this is not a simple employee case.
How many employees have to fork over $50,000 in order to have their job?
That would be more comparable to an LLC situation where individual investors join forces temporarily with certain legal protections. And LLC protection is pretty strict which is why they are popular.
One could also look at this as a loan scenario. However I dont believe so. There were no interest payments to be made and no payment requirements if Ivey lost. That does not qualify as a loan in my book.
Clearly the money was handed over due to Iveys skillset. So basically they were purchasing or paying a wage to an employee to obtain a skillset they believed would turn a profit.
And if you look at it like that, then ONLY the wages paid to an employee would be garnished.
For ex. If you stsrted a company for $50,000 by giving it to an IT guy to build a website and website returned s profit of $125,000, and the IT guy got a percentage deal,, I think everyone on here would agree only his profit percentage should be garnished. NOT ALL the profits including the initial investment return.
Quote: beachbumbabsMy question is, there's an entry fee. You can't count as winnings getting the fee back, so how can Borgata take back the replacement of the entry fee? The IRS acknowledges that, so why wouldn't Borgata only be able to garnish the amount over the 50k?
Borgata’s claim wasn’t to Ivy’s winning but to Ivy’s assets. So they had a claim to Ivy’s buyin even before he gave it to Borgata. That someone loaned him that buy in just means that Ivy owes more money to more people.
Quote: AxelWolfI still want to know if you were an employee I'm some company if they could then still confiscate the money? I see no difference between winning at poker tournament for an employee VS selling a product for a company. As far as I'm concerned they're only entitled to whatever Commission or profit that person earned from the sale or Tournament winnings.
Here’s the distinction. An employee selling a product earns just a commission. The company he sells for gets the revenue. The customer writes a check to the company not the salesman.
Here, Borgata owed Ivy the whole amount of money. Borgata didn’t owe the backers anything.
Make sense?
In theory a casino could recognize backing relationships and step into the middle of them, so that the casino would agree to owe the backers directly (in addition to Ivy). We’re that to happen, then the backers wouldn’t be unhappy creditors of Ivy. They would be paid creditors of the casino.
Quote: AxelWolfI still want to know if you were an employee I'm some company if they could then still confiscate the money? I see no difference between winning at poker tournament for an employee VS selling a product for a company. As far as I'm concerned they're only entitled to whatever Commission or profit that person earned from the sale or Tournament winnings.
Yes, they could garnish your wages. That is very common incollection of debts.
Yes, I completely understand that they can garnish people's wagesQuote: DRichYes, they could garnish your wages. That is very common incollection of debts.
They should only be able to take whatever his cut is supposed to be, minus the investment.
I understand in this situation it seems a little fuzzy. But moving forward, if it becomes an employee at some company or whatever... would they still be able to confiscate anything above his actual wages/earrings? They certainly shouldn't be allowed to.
Quote: AxelWolfYes, I completely understand that they can garnish people's wages
They should only be able to take whatever his cut is supposed to be, minus the investment.
I understand in this situation it seems a little fuzzy. But moving forward, if it becomes an employee at some company or whatever... would they still be able to confiscate anything above his actual wages/earrings? They certainly shouldn't be allowed to.
No, they would not. (They could get financially penalized for not complying but thats different)
I think the fuzziness here is who was Iveys employer?
WSOP or the backers.
DRich is arguing Ivey had the deal to play as a contestant with WSOP. Therefore they are his employer and the backers are an independent creditor
The Backers are claiming they are his employer in essence by hiring him to enter the WSOP, financing him with their cash and a predetermined salary (percentage of success) as wages.
Most likely existing laws defining the rights of backers in staked games will probably make the case go one way or the other
Only if the casino hosting the poker event let the “company or whatever” enter the event so it owed Ivy’s winnings to the company or whatever instead of Ivy.Quote: AxelWolfYes, I completely understand that they can garnish people's wages
They should only be able to take whatever his cut is supposed to be, minus the investment.
I understand in this situation it seems a little fuzzy. But moving forward, if it becomes an employee at some company or whatever... would they still be able to confiscate anything above his actual wages/earrings? They certainly shouldn't be allowed to.
Quote: unJonOnly if the casino hosting the poker event let the “company or whatever” enter the event so it owed Ivy’s winnings to the company or whatever instead of Ivy.
I dont think its that cut and dried.
Otherwise there would be no merit to the court case.
I know you feel there is no merit
But the high powered attorneys representing the backers dont feel that way.
Apparently they are not some small outfit but top gaming attorneys in Nevada. According to the article
Quote: darkozI dont think its that cut and dried.
Otherwise there would be no merit to the court case.
I know you feel there is no merit
But the high powered attorneys representing the backers dont feel that way.
Apparently they are not some small outfit but top gaming attorneys in Nevada. According to the article
I was responding to Axel’s specific question about how you could garnish proof a backing arrangement by turning it into an employer/employee relationship.
The current dispute is one of the priority between two creditors. One with a judgment and garnishment order from Nevada vs one with the protection of the Nevada law protecting backers. It’s an interesting one, but I do think that the backers are unlikely to win. They have a long putt to make.
I say that without being a Nevada lawyer or having done research into Nevada law in these points. So I could be wrong. I say it only from my general knowledge of how creditor priorities tend to work (that’s something I know quite a bit about).
