Thursday, December 4, 2008

Clonie Gowen Suing Full Tilt Poker For $40M.

clonie gowan Clonie Gowen, the now-defunct and former member of Team Full Tilt Poker, announced this past week that she is bringing forth a $40,00,000 lawsuit against FTP for breach of a contract. The lawsuit states the Gowen is owed her fair share of a 1% ownership stake that was apparently promised to her over a phone conversation with Full Tilt executives.  However, this not-so-apparent “oral” agreement was never signed into a legal contract, which unfortunately for her might prove troublesome when it comes to actually proving a contract breach (note the keyword: contract). The supposed oral contract took place in 2004 with several FTP executives, however, despite not having any legal backing put on paper Clonie still went on and promoted the Full Tilt brand on tournament circuit around the world.  The promotional ads she did for the company definitely increased fanfare not just among online poker players, but also women poker players.  She was 1 of only 2 faces on Team Full Tilt Poker who were women - the other of course being cash game legend Jennifer Harman - and she did an excellent job of making people aware of the online mega site, even though she was doing it for zero compensation. In 2007, Howard Lederer supposedly offered Clonie Gowen a distribution check of $250,000.  For what ever reason or another, Gowen denied the check!  Other poker media outlets who have been covering the story still don’t have an explanation behind that, nor has Clonie herself commented on it as well.  In either case, she still went on and continued to wear FTP gear around every event she played - despite denying a supposed payment from the company and still not being paid a single cent since 2004! After Full Tilt let go of Clonie Gowen on November 11th, 2008, she went and filed the suit just a few days later in a Las Vegas courtroom.  The suit itself will most likely be settled out of court, mainly because Full Tilt Poker most likely doesn’t want the financial information of their company to be a matter of public record, nor do they need any more reason to be under the close microscope of the U.S. government.

No comments: