Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

msnbc
Not exactly unexpected

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

Doyle has 700 million dollars?

I wonder if he's good at poker or if he's just running good....

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

He doesn't, it was a pump and dump. The SEC is just trying to find out which of Doyle's friends acquired a few million shares of WPT stock right before the news came out.

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

[ QUOTE ]
Doyle has 700 million dollars?

I wonder if he's good at poker or if he's just running good....

[/ QUOTE ]

Doyle's sample size is too small. He has only been playing for like 50+ years. In order to be statistically correct he would have to play for 178 years, 7 months, 13 days, 4 hours, and seven minutes. It's too early to tell if Doyle is truely a winning player in the long run. He truely might just be a bad player on a winning streak.

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doyle has 700 million dollars?

I wonder if he's good at poker or if he's just running good....

[/ QUOTE ]

Doyle's sample size is too small. He has only been playing for like 50+ years. In order to be statistically correct he would have to play for 178 years, 7 months, 13 days, 4 hours, and seven minutes. It's too early to tell if Doyle is truely a winning player in the long run. He truely might just be a bad player on a winning streak.

[/ QUOTE ]



Yeah, especially since he primarily plays B&M and we all know that you only get about 35 hands an hour there. I think Gigabet may be the world's only proven winner since he's been 8 tabling for years. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

Is it illegal to do such a thing ? I mean how would they prove this ... Seems like it would be just 100% circumstancial evidence without any witnesses.

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is it illegal to do such a thing ?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't be serious!

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is it illegal to do such a thing ? I mean how would they prove this ... Seems like it would be just 100% circumstancial evidence without any witnesses.

[/ QUOTE ]

...just ask Martha Stewart.

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is it illegal to do such a thing ? I mean how would they prove this ... Seems like it would be just 100% circumstancial evidence without any witnesses.

[/ QUOTE ]

...just ask Martha Stewart.

[/ QUOTE ]

They never proved Martha did anything like this. They nailed her on a bogus "lying to a federal investigator" charge because they couldn't make the insder trading charges stick.

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

[ QUOTE ]
They never proved Martha did anything like this. They nailed her on a bogus "lying to a federal investigator" charge because they couldn't make the insder trading charges stick.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, just responding to the poster who asked if insider trading was illegal.

okay, I change my comment to "just ask Samuel Waksal" (the guy who pled guilty to insider trading charges in the Stewart case).

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

Please tell me you are like 22 years old and that your youthfulness is why you are so naive.

[ QUOTE ]
Is it illegal to do such a thing ? I mean how would they prove this ... Seems like it would be just 100% circumstancial evidence without any witnesses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

[ QUOTE ]
...just ask Martha Stewart.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're ignorant.

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

He can make a bid, that is fine. It is only illegal if he has no intention to actually buy the company, or if he tells his friends that he is going to make a bid before he does it, then they act on that information. If he had every intention of buying it if the shareholders accepted, I think he will be ok. To prove that he knew that someone else would act on information he provided may be tough.

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...just ask Martha Stewart.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. A poster inquiring about the legality of insider trading could not be aided by a comparison to the most well known insider trading case ever? I do agree, though, and I thank you for your feedback.

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

Doyle is clearly the target of the investigation. Read the SEC release here. The SEC is trying to use the crime-fraud exception to pierce the attorney client privilege, which means that they are arguing to the judge that the law firm was in a criminal and/or fraudulent conspiracy with Doyle to violate the securities laws. Bottom line: SEC has already subpoenaed all trading records in equity and options for WPTE for probably 6 months prior to the tender offer, and they will track down every single sizeable purchase or sale in the ticker. Each of the individuals involved with these trades will be subpoenaed to testify as to whether they had any connection to Doyle. Some may be offered immunity deals to tesify against Doyle. If there was any improper trading in WPTE, it will be discovered. If Doyle was involved, he is going to prison.

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

Bottom line: If the revered Doyle Brunson -- the Godfather of Poker and greatest living legend -- did something so that either he, his friends, or his family could profit from the manipulation of the WPT stock price...Then he should end up in jail, playing for cigs just like any other low rent crook.

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

Not exactly the first time questionable activity has been directed at Doyle.

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

It's totally illegal to make an offer to jack up the stock price if you have no intentions to really purchase the company. This is highly illegal [censored], keep in mind Martha Stewart went to jail for something even lesser (if i remember correctly she was not involved in the actual manipulation of the stock only benifited from the information). Things don't look to hot for Doyle when u consider he used a criminal/divorce law firm to prepare documents for a $700MM bid. Most people typically contract a well respected M&A group at an investment bank to provide analysis and help determine a suitable offer, with minimum retainer fees that can often be as much as $1MM. Even tho relatively speaking this $700MM is considered small in the business world, I think it's fishy to have hired a joke of a law firm to handle your business (Goodman & Chesnoff PC). Also from what I understand the Goodman, comes from the same family as the corrupt vegas mayor that was detailed in positively 5th street. Lastly, the timing is bad, cuz if Doyle does go to jail it'll take about 2 to 3 years to go through the court process, just in time for when America wakes up with it's inevitable poker hangover.

-ed

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

a very succinct post---and right on target. i think a whole lot more should be said about many of the 'poker heroes'. you'd think we were taking about danial boone, or jim bowie. and people think it's cute when they here that so-and-so left town just one step ahead of the law. i don't, and i think there are a number of rather common criminals and hustlers among the poker elite. i hope folks w/ good sources of information will follow this story.......b

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

[ QUOTE ]
He can make a bid, that is fine. It is only illegal if he has no intention to actually buy the company, or if he tells his friends that he is going to make a bid before he does it, then they act on that information. If he had every intention of buying it if the shareholders accepted, I think he will be ok. To prove that he knew that someone else would act on information he provided may be tough.

[/ QUOTE ]

My hunch that I'd wager on is he traded no stock and tipped no one and will walk away clear and clean. He's not that dumb and it's not worth it. (you could say the same was true of martha and look at her, but I doubt martha really got it and she wasn't an archtect as doyle would have to be.)

What's the legal basis for charging someone with an insincere takeover bid? I'm curious because I just finished a securities reg class (like 2 days ago) and, because I haven't had M&A, I wasn't able to get beyond the 10b-5 insider trading issue (or section 14 tender violations if it had been that). In general contract terms if you make an offer you can withdraw it before it is accepted. and an acquisition couldn't be accepted until the share holders vote on it. (I imagine a bid would normally be kept open as an optoin for a period to allow you to go through the process without risk of it being pointless?) but I understand you don't necessarily want people to be able to monkey around with fake bids. Is this federal statuory law--which?--or Delaware? ... ? tx.

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

To clarify once again, Martha Stewart did not go to jail on insider trading claims. Rather, she was convicted of obstruction of justice/lying to investigators investing what happened. If he was guilty of that too, Doyle Brunson would be subject to similar charges.

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

I just finished the same class and am wondering the same thing. We definitely didn't cover insincere offers like this.

Michael

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

First Matusow in jail. Next Doyle. Then who? DanDruff!

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

[ QUOTE ]
To prove that he knew that someone else would act on information he provided may be tough.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not when they roll over on Doyle to lower their own sentences.

[ QUOTE ]

My hunch that I'd wager on is he traded no stock and tipped no one and will walk away clear and clean. He's not that dumb and it's not worth it. (you could say the same was true of martha and look at her, but I doubt martha really got it and she wasn't an archtect as doyle would have to be.)


[/ QUOTE ]

you doubt Martha "got it"? She was a licensed stockbroker who passed many more securities exams than you have. She should have been smart enough to know her actions weren't insider trading, or smart enough to consult with her lawyer to confirm that, but instead she lied to investigators so she could go to prison.

People panic when they make stupid mistakes.In Doyles case, you contend he's smart enough not to trade the stock or tip anyone, but dumb enough to make a bogus offer for a public company using a second rate law & PR firms without preparing to answer questions about it the very next day? Yea, right. If he was in the clear, he would be carefully explaining to investigators he didn't trade the stock or tip off his friends, not hiding behind the fifth amendment.

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not exactly the first time questionable activity has been directed at Doyle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like what?

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

I'm an M&A/Securities lawyer. Here's the relevant law on the issue:

Rule 10b-5 -- Employment of Manipulative and Deceptive Devices
----------
It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,

(a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
(b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or
(c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person,

in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.

Section 14 -- Proxies
----------------------
(e) Untrue statement of material fact or omission of fact with respect to tender offer

It shall be unlawful for any person to make any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading, or to engage in any fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative acts or practices, in connection with any tender offer or request or invitation for tenders, or any solicitation of security holders in opposition to or in favor of any such offer, request, or invitation. The Commission shall, for the purposes of this subsection, by rules and regulations define, and prescribe means reasonably designed to prevent, such acts and practices as are fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative.

---
----
Bottom line is that the SEC will investigate. It will be hard to prove any wrongdoing under either of these rules. Unless they find a smoking gun (proof that he or someone he knows benefitted from shift in price; or that his intentions were to actually manipulate) he will likely get off without being charged ... so long as he doesn't lie during the investigation.

Looks shady and probably was shady, but without "real" evidence, nothing will happen.

Tortman

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm an M&A/Securities lawyer. Here's the relevant law on the issue:

Rule 10b-5 -- ...

in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.


Section 14 -- Proxies
----------------------
(e) ... with respect to tender offer

-------


[/ QUOTE ]

you missed the question. the other law student and I got this much. we agree that if he traded stock or tipped someone to trade stock, or it was going to be a tender offer, he'd have trouble with 10b-5 or 14e.

someone else above indicated that it was a violation of itself to make an insincere acquisition bid. that would not relate to either rule above, because it would not depend on there being a purchase or sale in relation, or there being a tender offer. what would it relate to? M&A common law, or more statutes we don't learn in securities reg? (as an _analogy_ , there is Rule 14e-8, not requiring trading as a predicate, but again with regard to a tender offer:

----------------------------------------------------------------
It is a fraudulent, deceptive or manipulative act or practice within the meaning of section 14(e) of the Act for any person to publicly announce that the person (or a party on whose behalf the person is acting) plans to make a tender offer that has not yet been commenced, if the person:

1. Is making the announcement of a potential tender offer without the intention to commence the offer within a reasonable time and complete the offer;

2. Intends, directly or indirectly, for the announcement to manipulate the market price of the stock of the bidder or subject company; or

3. Does not have the reasonable belief that the person will have the means to purchase securities to complete the offer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
but this wasn't supposed to be a tender, I don't think. (if so, he's obviously in trouble.)

I don't know where to look for M&A law.

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's totally illegal to make an offer to jack up the stock price if you have no intentions to really purchase the company. This is highly illegal [censored], ...

[/ QUOTE ]

what law?

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

[ QUOTE ]
He can make a bid, that is fine. It is only illegal if he has no intention to actually buy the company, ...

[/ QUOTE ]

what law?

again I don't know M&A law, but in general contract terms one's true "intent" is irrelevant in determining whether one can be bound (ie, you can be bound when you didn't really mean it)--objective theory.

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

According to the SEC's own blurb (http://www.sec.gov/news/digest/dig121605.txt - 3rd story down), they're investigating possible violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the 1934 Securities and Exchange Act, as others have correctly pointed out.

As far as other possible damages, the fact pattern wouldn't seem to support it. Doyle made an offer, WPT tries to get him for comment, and then there's no further communication. There's no completed contract, I would assume (WPT's communication sounds like a request to talk further, not an acceptance of the offer).

And common law or equitable remedies wouldn't seem to apply either - even if WPT did something acting in reliance of this offer to its own detriment, it probably wouldn't be reasonable to have done so just based on one communication of an offer, and a peculiar one at that.

But I'm in the same boat as everyone else. We don't know many of the facts crucial to determining what's going to happen to Doyle, if anything.

Re: Follow up to Doyles bid for the wpt
 

Doyle's son Todd is a very savvy stock market investor. I don't know Todd, but I know people who do, and they've told me he's made millions in the stock market.

So when Pappa asks his boy what he thinks of the WPT stock does he say, "I think it'll be worth a billion dollars five years from now," or does he say, "Dad, that stocks full of hot gas. They don't make any money, law suits are looming, and as soon as the 'poker boom' cools off it'll be worth next to nothing. Stay away from that turkey."

I tend to think it is the latter rather than the former.