Dr Laila Mintas comes out fighting with PlayUp fraud and defamation legal challenge

Ex-PlayUp US CEO Dr Laila Mintas has filed a countersuit against her former employers detailing allegations of fraud, defamation and corporate sabotage by the operator’s board of directors and CEO, Daniel Simic.

The countersuit comes less than a week after a Nevada judge annulled a restraining order against Mintas by PlayUp following allegations of corporate sabotage and confidentiality breaches made in relation to a $450m acquisition of the firm by crypto-exchange FTX Limited.

This order was initially granted on a temporary basis, pending the submission of additional documentation from a number of executives from within PlayUp, as well as Mintas herself, which has since been received.

However, in hearings which took place last week, Nevada Judge Gloria M Navarro dismissed all claims made by PlayUp suggesting the firm had not adequately demonstrated its case, instead siding with Mintas.

Buoyed by her victory, representatives for Mintas filed the countersuit that detailed numerous allegations against PlayUp’s board of directors and, in particular, PlayUp’s global CEO, Daniel Simic.

In a 39-page legal document, Mintas denied all allegations made against her by her former employers, suggesting her work had been “frustrated” by the board and specifically Simic, essentially stifling progress in the US market.

Simic allegedly delayed payment of invoices, interfered in hiring practices and tried to “undermine her authority” and humiliate her in front of third parties and team members.

Mintas alleges that PlayUp orally agreed to a new two-year employment contract with her but later reneged on the deal despite delivering numerous assurances that one would be reached. It is additionally alleged that PlayUp repeatedly cancelled board meetings aimed at pushing the agreement through.

Further, the suit alleges PlayUp engaged in fraudulent conduct and embarked on a programme to “irreparably” damage Mintas’ reputation.

These allegations include shutting off her access to her PlayUp email account and informing people and third parties during negotiations that she was “on vacation” when in fact her contract had expired.

The suit suggests that Mintas was targeted after she highlighted the conduct of Simic and interference in the US operations by the Play Up board. All overtures of finding a “friendly solution” to the impasse were refused by PlayUp’s legal representatives.

The most damning allegations made in the suit concern the FTX deal and alleged involvement by Simic in sabotaging it, conduct which began when FTX’s board of directors insisted Mintas remain with the company as a condition of the $450m deal.

“FTX’s advisor, Chris Grove, informed her that FTX thinks she is the “jewel of the company” and that FTX wanted Mintas to stay on for at least 24 months, which is reflected in the term sheet for the deal with FTX,” the suit alleges.

Allegations against Simic suggest that he attempted to introduce a so-called “side deal” into the FTX transaction for a third business, PlayChip, at a cost of an additional $105m, despite the PlayChip business having “nothing to do” with PlayUp.

It was later established that Simic, along with two other members of PlayUp’s board, were directors of the PlayChip business and could have potentially benefitted from the side deal at the expense of PlayUp’s shareholders.

Mintas was later “frozen out” of negotiations with FTX, including a meeting in the Bahamas between the two businesses, with Simic attempting to introduce clauses to include eight key Australian employees into the predominantly US-centric deal, despite FTX’s focus only being on PlayUp US.

This focus, as well as the exclusion of key personnel, in a veiled reference to Mintas, later led FTX to pull out of the deal, as it detailed in an email explaining its rationale.

“The current US team has been incredibly important to getting the market access agreements. To our surprise, key personnel from the US business are not a part of the future plans of the business,” FTX wrote.

“There seems to be mistrust and lack of communication between the US and global business. The global leadership has conflicts of interest with other business activities, for example, PlayChip. This could be competitive with PlayUp and may have legal ramifications.

“There is discontent within the team and the board on the valuations. We don’t want employees to feel that they’ve had to forgo better options and therefore aren’t motivated to work under FTX,” the firm added, ending its interest in the deal.

In addition to the allegations of fraud, the Mintas countersuit suggests PlayUp perjured itself in court proceedings by withholding key evidence and submitting false statements in its suit, asserting that Simic and PlayUp continued to “threaten and disparage” her in the lead up to the hearings.

The suit calls for declaratory relief as well as the payment of $75,000 in damages to Mintas.

The case continues.