Full Tilt Poker Showdown On 19th September

The next big date in the Full Tilt Poker saga timeline is September 19th in London, when the Alderney Gambling Control Commission (AGCC) revisits their 29th June decision to suspend the gaming licence of the beleaguered online poker room .
On 26th July, a public hearing then took place but an adjournement was quickly granted in order to allow Full Tilt to finalise a sale it said it was close to completing at the time.
Since then, however, that particular deal seems to have fallen through with Full Tilt now saying that they have a number of other potential investors showing interest in the company with:
“At least six of those groups, including hedge funds, operators of other internet businesses and individual investors, have visited Dublin to inspect the operation.”
Nonetheless, with details as sketchy as ever there seems to be no reason to delay proceedings further with the AGCC hearing set to resume on schedule, albeit four days later than the date initially set.
Recently, Full Tilt paid the AGCC £250,000 in overdue licensing fees fuelling speculation that the poker room may be granted permission to open outside of the US once again.
However, in order to stand any chance of getting their suspended operating licence back, Full Tilt will still have to satisfy the AGCC on a range of questions related to the April US DoJ indictments against 11 individuals associated with the company, on bank fraud, money laundering and illegal gambling charges.
In addition, with no concrete details on potential investors in sight and no refunds avaiable yet for players, the chances of Full Tilt Poker resuming operations any time soon are as distant as ever. Compounding the company’s woes further is the fact that two Full Tilt lawyers recently step down as ‘attorneys of record’ leading many to speculate the company may now be having trouble paying their lawyer fees, too. As lawyers David Deitch and Jeff Ifrah explained:
“Continued representation of Defendants would create unreasonable difficulty for us to carry our employment effectively and would result in an unreasonable financial burden to our law firm.”