Dr. Laila Mintas counterclaims against PlayUp’s restraining order

Dr. Laila Mintas counterclaims against PlayUp’s restraining order

A Nevada judge has refused a technology supplier’s emergency application for a preliminary injunction against Dr. Laila Mintas, saying that the group’s former PlayUp CEO was not responsible for the breakdown of a proposed sale and was “made the scapegoat. 

The ongoing legal battle arises from Mintas claiming breach of contract by attempting to harm the business and finally “engaged in action directly in violation” of contractual conditions by causing the collapse of a proposed sale.

PlayUp – Dr. Mintas Fiasco 

Judge Gloria Navarro, however, denied Dr. Mintas’ motion for a preliminary injunction last week, stating that his defense successfully demonstrated “that it was just as likely, if not more likely, that Daniel Simic’s actions caused the negotiations to come to an end irreparably.” Mintas’ defense earlier claimed that Daniel Simic, PlayUp Global’s CEO, “got greedy” and led the transaction to collapse.

According to a prior filing, Simic informed Dr. Mintas via email on November 9, 2021, that he wanted to require FTX to acquire a company purportedly unrelated to PlayUp, PlayChip, for an additional $105 million and to pay a $65 million incentive to Australian “key staff,” including $25 million to himself, bringing the total acquisition price to an additional $170 million.

Dr. Mintas’ conversation with Sam Bankman-Fried, CEO of FTX, allegedly jeopardized the potential purchase after she was urged not to attend a meeting between the parties in the Bahamas.

Following this meeting, FTX wrote the company to confirm that it had decided not to pursue an acquisition in its entirety. Navarro, however, remarked that this was not submitted to the court even though it was “clearly pertinent to the matter at hand and casts a considerably different perspective on things.”

“This email reveals that Mr. Simic amended the deal during his meeting with FTX with Costa,” Navarro noted. “You know, and it’s simply more plausible at this time, in my opinion, that Dr. Mintas was acting in her executive capacity and was scapegoated.”

She said that an initial injunction was issued because the “danger asserted by the plaintiff appeared to be quite genuine at the time” and that such an order appeared warranted in the circumstances. However, Navarro stated that PlayUp “failed to establish that the defendant violated the employment agreement’s non-disparagement provision.”

Dr. Mintas’ legal team has responded to this recent development by reiterating that she “vehemently denies their charges and will actively defend herself against the remaining claims and litigate her counterclaims.”

The Countersuit 

These include counterclaims for fraud, slander, and abuse of process, alleging that sports betting operatior PlayUp “abused and manipulated the legal process to launch this case and secure a preliminary injunction.”

Mintas asserts that the global defamation has resulted in “irreparable harm to her reputation, income loss, and devaluation of her shares, among other damages,” and that PlayUp and Simic “made false and inflammatory accusations against Dr. Mintas, labeling her irrational, corrupt, incapable, and incompetent.”

In addition, she endured “extreme or severe emotional distress” as a result of the unnecessary stress, and the corporation “is guilty of oppression, fraud, and malice” because it “never meant to engage into a new contract.”

The defense intends to assert that an Australian restraining order “is without force and effect,” adding that the firm “is still attempting to silence Dr. Mintas.”

About Lou De Aguila

Lou Aguila is a news and feature writer for Golden Casino News. For over a decade, Lou has published news and featured articles for some of the most reputable sports betting and online casino sites in the world, including BetNow.UK, VegasOdds, and BWin. Apart from being a hardcore live casino punter, he also covers sports stories in North American leagues from time to time.