Well, her cause of action and the case itself is fairly straightforward. I was expecting something much more complex.
Essentially, at the inception of Full Tilt, she was approached with an offer to become a member of Team Full Tilt given her capacity as a poker pro. She would promote the brand, play in tournaments, be in commercials, etc etc, and in exchange she would receive a 1% interest in the company. (Realize, the "company" is a collection of companies under the "Full Tilt" brand.) Other pros (Phil Ivey, Gus Hansen, John Juanda, etc.) have the same agreement.
Fast forward a few years. She hears from another pro that "distribution checks" (based on the 1% ownership interest) were being given out.
On multiple occasions.
She thinks... where... are... my... checks? (It is alleged that she is the only pro who did not receive compensation.)
Lederer offers her $250,000.00 in past compensation.
The company is worth an alleged $4,000,000,000.00.
She declines.
She continues to be a Full Tilt Pro, and eventually, Full Tilt eventually removes her as a pro.
Her suit is based on breach of contract. A mediator will review the agreement. Discovery will be produced regarding Full Tilt's accounting, specifically, payments made to the pros. Her lawyers will say, "See, WTF, they didn't pay our client!!" The Full Tilt lawyers will point to an obscure clause in the agreement and argue that she somehow breached the agreement and therefore is not entitled to compensation.
Sometime thereafter, the case will settle.