PlayUp defeated in latest injunction appeal against former US CEO
Dr Laila Mintas triumphant in latest stage of long-running dispute against former employers over confidentiality breaches relating to FTX sale
PlayUp has lost an appeal to impose a preliminary injunction against Dr Laila Mintas after a Nevada court chose to uphold an earlier ruling in the long-running dispute against its former US CEO.
In hearings in Nevada’s Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, PlayUp sought to overturn a prior court ruling denying it a preliminary injunction against Mintas over alleged confidentiality breaches made while she was in charge of PlayUp USA and concerning a proposed $450m sale to FTX.
Explosive allegations made by PlayUp against Mintas include threats to “burn PlayUp to the ground” rather than sell the business to FTX as well as the attempted sabotage of the deal.
Mintas is also alleged to have threatened PlayUp’s reputation with commercial partners if salary and shareholding demands were not met.
New Jersey- and Colorado-licensed PlayUp filed for a temporary restraining order against its CEO in Nevada and Australia in a bid to prevent Mintas from publishing “false information” and trading in PlayUp’s assets in December 2021.
The filing for a temporary restraining order centred on claims Mintas breached her employment agreement during negotiations concerning the proposed sale, claims which were ultimately denied in a January 2022 ruling.
In a ruling issued by the Court of Appeal, judges suggested that the claim for a preliminary injunction had not met the so-called Winter test.
This test orders that plaintiffs must establish if there is a likelihood of an injunction award, that the plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm if relief is not granted or if the injunction award is in the public interest.
However, presiding judges suggested PlayUp had not met the likelihood of success test and should be denied.
“The district court expressly stated its view, based on the record at that point, that it appeared ‘more likely’ that Mintas had properly ‘exercise[ed] her executive responsibility and that she was turned into the scapegoat’ for the failed deal,” the court wrote in its summary document.
“It observed that there was ‘substantial evidence’ that her comments were not the reason the acquisition failed. The court also expressed doubt about the evidence offered to support the contention that Mintas had made a disparaging comment to the proposed purchaser of the company.
“Based on the district court’s assessment of the evidence at the time it considered the motion, there was no possibility of PlayUp establishing that it was entitled to a preliminary injunction under the sliding-scale standard,” the court concluded.
The court ruled that since there was no guarantee that one party would prevail over the other based on the merits of the case a preliminary injunction could not be granted. In addition, the court upheld the earlier ruling, suggesting this was not an “abuse of discretion” by the court.