PlayUp is in a predicament, confronting accusations of fabricating documents and expanding the reach of the Mintas case.

The most recent legal action brought by former PlayUp US CEO Laila Mintas against the gaming enterprise and its chief executive Daniel Simic asserts that PlayUp manufactured documents, drawing the Australian parent company into the legal dispute.

The revised lawsuit, seeking $100 million in compensation, outlines fresh allegations, including that PlayUp falsified dates on Australian government papers.

Mintas also claims that PlayUp forged and manipulated other documents submitted during discovery requests, accusing the company of improper conduct throughout the legal proceedings. There are also claims that PlayUp is involved in a smear campaign to tarnish Mintas’ reputation.

Simic is accused of fabricating documents.
The latest submission from Mintas’ team accuses PlayUp and Simic of “startling discovery abuses, such as the forging of company documents”.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that PlayUp backdated documents submitted to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, falsely asserting they were signed on November 30, 2021, when in reality they were signed weeks later.

The legal action further asserts that PlayUp, including its top management, board members, and chief legal advisor, “fabricated and manipulated other documents” during the evidence gathering phase.

Beyond these allegations, Mintas also accuses PlayUp and Simic of providing false statements in sworn declarations presented to the court and hiding crucial evidence that would contradict their claims against Mintas.

Consequently, the lawsuit maintains that PlayUp and Simic have been “deceptive to the court.”

**”Personal Retribution” Utilizing PlayUp Resources**
Moreover, the revised lawsuit makes astonishing accusations regarding Simic’s motivations.

According to the legal filing, Simic is employing PlayUp’s financial assets to carry out personal retaliation against Mintas, thereby harming the interests of shareholders. This is allegedly because the former US CEO “acted as an informant rather than accepting [Simic]’s proposal to participate in his scheme and receive $25 million.”

This refers to a prior incident where Simic allegedly offered Mintas a $25 million incentive to participate in the FTX acquisition of PlayChip, a separate venture owned by board members and Simic.

The lawsuit claims that Mintas had previously cautioned about potential conflicts of interest and the legality of the procedures related to the PlayChip transaction.

**Actions to Tarnish Mintas’ Reputation**
The lawsuit also alleges that PlayUp and Simic have embarked on a campaign to intimidate Mintas and damage her public image.

A legal case has brought to light an email sent by Simic to FTX on December 30, 2021. In this email, Simic asserted that Mintas had presented contractual requests “just before the proposed agreement was about to be finalized,” which would “increase FTX’s financial obligations.”

The legal action claims that this occurred after Simic and other high-ranking officials had agreed to the terms of Mintas’ contract extension several months prior.

The lawsuit also points to another incident where Simic informed PlayUp shareholder and advisor Ross Benson that Mintas “coerced another gaming industry leader and took a deal from the company.”

According to the lawsuit, these “startling claims” lack supporting evidence.

“Simic is using his unfounded accusations to harm Dr. Mintas’ standing in the industry,” the lawsuit asserts.

PlayUp Accused of Coercion
The lawsuit also mentions PlayUp and Simic’s alleged attempts to intimidate Mintas.

As evidence, it highlights an email sent to Mintas’ legal representative in January 2022, following a Nevada U.S. District Court’s reversal of a restraining order against the former CEO. The email stated:

“As a reminder, although Judge Navarro ruled today, the restraining order issued by Judge Jagot of the Federal Court of Australia remains fully in effect. We expect Dr. Mintas to adhere to the restrictions of that order.”

The lawsuit contends that this injunction was irrelevant and did not apply to Mintas, as she is not subject to Australian legal authority.

The legal action also alleges that Mintas’ employment contract contains a provision that specifies Nevada as the location for resolving disagreements between the involved parties.

A revised version of the legal action now includes PlayUp’s Australian parent company, Play Ltd, in the case, after Mintas initially filed suit against only the US operations and Simic. Sources indicate that the expanded legal action is due to recent difficulties encountered by PlayUp’s US operations.

These difficulties include delayed salary payments to PlayUp US workers, who did not receive their wages between June 16th and 30th, as well as the cancellation of the business’ New Jersey license and the cessation of operations in two other states where the company previously operated.

The New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE) stated in its cancellation letter that one of the reasons they chose to revoke the operator’s license was because PlayUp asserted that they were investigating fraud allegations against a gambler who requested a withdrawal.

However, the business failed to inform the DGE and could not provide an explanation for the delay in the investigation. This occurs amid unconfirmed reports that PlayUp users have been experiencing difficulties withdrawing funds in some instances.

Sources suggest that PlayUp has now compensated its former US employees for the period between June 16th and 30th. Employees were informed that separation pay and paid time off (PTO) will be addressed at a later time, but there is no clear timeframe for when this will occur.

Simic is reportedly worried about the reports circulating regarding PlayUp’s difficulties, fearing it might endanger the rumored imminent agreement to sell the company to an unidentified American operator. However, Simic has reassured key individuals that the transaction is still in progress.

Third time lucky?
Despite whispers that PlayUp’s permit has been withdrawn and its departure from the marketplace signifies the business has few assets to sell.

This agreement with the anonymous American operator is PlayUp’s third attempt to sell its US operations. Previously, the company tried to list on the Nasdaq via a special purpose acquisition company, IG Acquisition Corp., but ultimately failed.

The legal action asserts that the deal fell apart because PlayUp failed to provide the necessary financial documents on time. Despite the operator’s 2022 financial reports being due, they have not been submitted.

Limited FTX connection to PlayUp
Simic has repeatedly blamed the eventual collapse of FTX for having a significant impact on the business. Sources dispute this, claiming the two had limited financial entanglements. Only one transaction was completed, a $35 million priority convertible bond paid to PlayUp after a failed bid.

Earlier this month, Simic told the Australian Financial Review that the terms of the bond prevented the company from raising more than $10 million. According to Simic, this was because the bond contained a clause that would increase FTX’s stake in the Australian business.

However, an insider disclosed that this is not accurate, but they were unable to furnish any tangible proof due to the stipulations of the non-disclosure agreement.

If the conditions of the agreement are valid, it is uncertain how this will be implemented in practice, given that the digital currency exchange imploded in November 2022.

Subsequent Actions in the Legal Dispute
All legal documents have been presented to the judicial body, and both sides are anticipating a decision from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

PlayUp’s current legal representatives are merely the most recent legal team the company has engaged in this matter. Previously, the company’s former legal firm, Zumpano Patricios Popok & Helsten, filed a claim against PlayUp for unpaid fees.

Although no trial date has been scheduled, sources suggest a verdict is anticipated this year. It is also feasible to sidestep a trial and reach a resolution through an out-of-court arrangement.

Sign up for the iGaming Newsletter