Judge Gloria Navarro concluded last week that PlayUp had failed to show that Mintas’ activities were the cause of the operator’s acquisition by cryptocurrency exchange FTX collapsing.Instead, she claimed that evidence presented in Mintas’ defense effectively indicated that the contract fell as a consequence of group CEO Daniel Simic’s activities was “just as probable or more likely.”

Simic sought to inject a variety of additional fees into the deal after the $450 million acquisition price was negotiated, according to Mintas’ memorandum given to the court between Christmas and New Year. For an extra $105 million, Simic wanted FTX to buy PlayChip, a decentralized utility token created for the betting and gaming industry and owned by PlayUp’s Australian management. Simic allegedly tried to get $65 million for important personnel. $25m of the purported $65m was apparently just for his own self. 

Mintas was requested by PlayUp not to attend a meeting with FTX in the Bahamas, so she met with the company separately, according to PlayUp’s claim. Following the separate meeting, FTX wrote ab email to PlayUp’s higher management to inform them that they were no longer interested in the merger and called off the deal entirely.PlayUp argued that FTX’s citation of a lack of communication between US and worldwide enterprises was proof that Mintas’ meeting was the cause of the deal’s failure. However, in the email that FTX sent to PlayUp whereby they cancelled the deal, they did touch upon the fact that there was a conflict of interest between the two companies specifically with regards to the acquisition of PlayChip. Simply put, PlayUp wanted FTX to acquire it as part of the larger acquisition and FTX simply did not want PlayChip. 

Despite this legal battle, PlayUp is one of Australia’s fastest growing betting sites, and is making waves within the industry – particularly with professional bettors. However, like many other jurisdictions gambling down under comes with its fair share of restrictions and challenges.

The Email from FTX states that they had Conflict of Interests

Judge Navarro seemed to take the fact that PlayUp did not present this email to the court in the case even though it was very relevant to the case as the last straw. Despite the fact that this email was significant and portrayed things in contrast to the allegations made by PlayUp the judge remarked that PlayUp did not submit it to the court. The Judge commented that in light of the email and its content, she believes it to be more likely that Dr. Mintas was simply doing her job and is now being made to appear as the culprit for the deal falling through. Further, Judge Navarro also addressed the fact that her court had previously issued a restraining order as requested by Simic. 

The judge said that the prior restraining order was passed in light of circumstantial evidence put forward by Simic at that time and the judge had passed the order as an emergency. In the evidence, Simic had claimed that Dr. Mintas had said that she would ‘burn PlayUp to the ground’. However, the tables have turned now and Judge Navarro actually conceded that maybe the statement was never made. She suspects the statement was ever made after having reviewed some of the latest evidence in the case provided by Dr. Mintas and her legal counsel. 

Thanks to the recent evidence put forth by Dr. Mintas, the Judge was able to ascertain that the actions of Daniel Simic were indeed more probable or at least equally probable in causing the FTX deal to come to a halt irrevocably. Dr. Mintas has successfully demonstrated that her comments and meeting with FTX were not the cause of the failure of the deal. Instead, in anything, Judge Navarro said that PlayUp had failed to provide any evidence that Dr. Mintas had made any negative statement about PlayUp to FTX at all. 

Dr. Mintas has Counter Claims of Her Own

Mintas has filed claims for damages exceeding $75,000 in reaction to the order being rejected. She accuses PlayUp of abusing the legal system by omitting critical material from their previous temporary restraining order application.

She also seeks defamation damages, claiming that the operator caused her irreparable injury to her reputation, loss of revenue, and depreciation of her shares, and several other damages. By making these false assertions, PlayUp also depicted her in a misleading light and purposefully caused her mental suffering, Dr. Mintas’ counter claims allege. 

Further, Dr. Mintas claims that PlayUp kept telling her that they would offer her a new contract and never did so. This was the initial reason for Dr. Mintas’ relationship with Simic and PlayUp to go start going south. Mintas claims that by making false promises of a new and improved contract, PlayUp is guilty of fraud, malice and oppression. Since she had been made the promise of a new contract, Dr. Mintas never searched for another job at this time and faced further losses as a consequence of PlayUp saying they were making a new contract for her even though they never had any intention of offering her one.  

Lastly, Dr. Mintas also argued that since PlayUp had filed a separate injunction in the jurisdiction of Australia, Mintas said that the injunction should be voided considering that she is not a citizen of Australia.