Execution Pokerstars. Apparently, payment is not voluntary (page 65)

I find it all the more interesting what the casinos that belong to 888 plc are doing. Because this is a company on the stock exchange and they cannot simply deny that money was sent to the parent company and therefore the subsidiary cannot pay.

There must be reserves, they now know how much it all is and what is to come

https://www.ra-goldenstein.de/neuigkeiten/eugh-befasst-sich-mit-rueckforderungsanspruechen-aus-illegalem-online-gluecksspiel/

Well, things are looking good for consumers :)

Hello,

please don't confuse. It is precisely here that the BGH suspended the decision because under the Akt.-Zchn. C-440/23 - proceedings have been pending since July 2023 :

"By decision of January 10, 2024, the Senate suspended the appeal proceedings pending a decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C-440/23 on a request for a preliminary ruling from the Civil Court of Malta dated July 11, 2023. The preliminary ruling procedure concerns in particular the question whether Section 4 Paragraph 4 GlüStV 2012 was in conformity with Union law. "

Source: https://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/SharedDocs/Press Releases/DE/2024/2024009.html?nn=10690868

In my opinion, the ECJ's decision will certainly come this year - and then the next "slap" by our BGH!

( Italics and underlining by the author)

That's not what I meant either. It was just a matter of having two files at the BGH that are also listed under certain numbers. The fact that one was dropped is old news. It's all ok. In addition, this is taken care of 1:1 by a lawyer.

I'm just glad that I've been through with the rubbish for a long time. Continued good luck to you.

Hello,

smile, these are "provisions" for claims that are "certain" but lie in the future.

Every "corporation" (GmbH, AG, Ltd. etc.) must form this . This is then taken into account in the income statement and balance sheet. What I want to say is: The money for all pending lawsuits, whether already completed or new, is already "reserved" through these "provisions"!

I know that they have to form them and I have already heard from various people that casinos have formed them in millions...

but so much for the people who think you can't understand it.

It's not that easy with the big ones

I also know of examples where casinos did not take any of the lawsuits into account in their balance sheets and justified this with the words "they would be irrelevant in terms of size and unfounded anyway"...

That's exactly how it is, that's what I've been saying all along, when money goes to the parent company, the Ltd., for the reason that you want it to be settled. Then this is delaying insolvency and fraud and the parent company is then liable for what they have done. Listed companies in particular are strictly monitored, just like Wirecard. The horrendous provisions do not remain hidden.

3rd part

https://youtu.be/dQCkN4coNc0?si=OUVFrRc_aNieg0Dt

Please, I really don't mean any harm to you, I just don't like making "out-of-the-blue statements" and have never thought anything of "regulars' table discussions" in which everyone has the fastest, most powerful, fastest car that only has 3 liters Gasoline consumed per 100 km and "hearsay" is part of it.

Then please give at least one of your examples, the company and the balance sheet / the P&L (profit and loss statement) that you have seen, and the explanation/explanation (the appendix to the P&L).

It is simply the case that the "non-hiring" could not simply be explained with such absurd claims as "they would be irrelevant in terms of height and unfounded anyway". No managing director (unless he had previously been a "gatekeeper" by training and didn't even have a secondary school diploma) would claim such sheer nonsense and certainly not carry it out!

There is no "margin of discretion" for setting/or not setting "provisions" (that is a legal term(!)) but rather clear regulations.

If you had any form of business administration or at least commercial training, you would know this. I can tell from your words: That's not what I think is good for you!

The reason is simple: the liability of the company's managing director/board of directors, who are generally not idiots, which is shown by how difficult it is to get the money despite winning lawsuits, because they of course rely on excellent lawyers , before you do anything that could be dangerous to you, both financially and personally!

Thanks. Well, nothing really new.

Worthless yes

will definitely take some time

If the proceedings in the Higher Regional Court are suspended, what happens to the interest? Will they also be paused for the period in which they are suspended?

Good Morning! So far, every German OLG has refused to stay the proceedings. I don't know of any decision from an Olg. Even if the Federal Court of Justice has decided to suspend proceedings, the Higher Regional Court does not have to adhere to it. There is now a cross-court agreement in Germany, among the OLGs, when it comes to suspensions. You can, but you don't have to. Has your higher regional court decided on a suspension?

Greetings from Bremen

I think that most of the proceedings in the Higher Regional Courts relating to casino slots will now be suspended.

For data protection reasons, I do not want to provide any information about my procedures.

Does anyone have any information about interest rates or a source?

So don't assume that the Higher Regional Courts will suspend it because they are guided by THE ECJ case law from 2009 Carmen Media / Portugal. The European Court of Justice did not decide again on a per-player basis until 2022.

I do not assume that. But interest continues to accrue even during the suspension phase. Once THE lawsuit is filed, the interest begins to accrue. You cannot calculate interest during the gamble phase, i.e. before the lawsuit.

Didn't mean to spy on you, sorry if it came across that way.

greeting

The Münster FG has decided that the interest rate of 0.5% per month for suspension interest - unlike interest on arrears - does not raise any constitutional concerns. The Münster FG heard two cases on the question of whether the decision of the BVerfG v. July 8, 2022 (Ref.05.04.2023

The Münster FG heard two cases on the question of whether the decision of the BVerfG v. July 8, 2022 (ref. 1 BvR 2237/14, 1 BvR 2422/17) on the amount of back payment interest can be transferred to the interest payable for the duration of the suspension of enforcement. The BVerfG decided that due to the low interest rate phase, the level of back payment interest from 2014 is unconstitutional, but the law will only be inapplicable from 2019.

But...I unfortunately have to contradict you, the self-proclaimed self-taught law expert. I don't really care whether you believe it or not, but I have downloaded several annual balance sheets directly from Malta, in which this tenor is written in black and white. However, I will not say which companies are involved, as I do not publish details of ongoing proceedings. These companies don't care that something like that is illegal, just as much as everything else they do isn't legal. and please no long blocks of text and lots of talking about it now, as you do throughout. you don't have to believe me. so give it a rest. 😉