Nick Marchington Stake and Lawsuit

[Venice]

What do you think about this?

Nick Marchington sold his action for the 2019 Main Event, but then refunded it a few days before the Main Event started, as he realised he could sell the action cheaper somewhere else.

He then went on to final table the main event (9th in chips), and went on to finish in 7th place, winning $1,525,000

Then his original backers sued him for 10 percent of his win.

Feels like a freeroll, but do they have any moral/legal case ?

[DrJustice]

Originally Posted by Venice

What do you think about this?

Nick Marchington sold his action for the 2019 Main Event, but then refunded it a few days before the Main Event started, as he realised he could sell the action cheaper somewhere else.

He then went on to final table the main event (9th in chips), and went on to finish in 7th place, winning $1,525,000

Then his original backers sued him for 10 percent of his win.

Feels like a freeroll, but do they have any moral/legal case ?

Wait a sec he sold the action versus what conditions?
If he refunded his action, because he could get a better deal is in my book not done. What he could have done give his original backers the choice.

So in a nutshell no response from backers means a refund. But didn't make that choice.

His original backers have no legal ground when he informed them and refunded way ahead of the start. so if he refunded 48 ahead of the start of the mean event feels like enough time.
Business deals have no moral legal grounds. But it is bad practice to cancel an agreement and make a deal with someone else. Feels a bit sketchy to me.

[Venice]

The slight twist is that a couple of guys wanted cash for their refunds, and Nick could only sort that out after the tournament started (at the end of day 1, I believe....when he was already doing well)

[DrJustice]

Originally Posted by Venice

The slight twist is that a couple of guys wanted cash for their refunds, and Nick could only sort that out after the tournament started (at the end of day 1, I believe....when he was already doing well)

Now i recall this. It's still kinda strange, however i think if he refunded the funds after day 1 and he confirmed that he would take care of it after day 1 finished, then it shouldn't change the fact that he finished 7th. I reckon it could be settled by double or triple everyone their investment, just to be done with it.

They have no grounds in my opinion, still it's a bad practice.
It's a matter of when they agreed to pay him back. From what you said in the original message, he already ended the agreement and paid (some or everybody) back their investment.