US court throws out claims by Sydney-based PlayUp’s Daniel Simic against American executive

A US court has thrown out all claims made in a lawsuit launched by floundering Australian sports betting company PlayUp against a former key American executive.

A US court has thrown out all claims made in a lawsuit launched by sinking Australian sports betting company PlayUp against a former key American executive.

It means the legal war being waged by Sydney-based Daniel Simic against Laila Mintas is rapidly losing traction, after the Federal Court of Australia weeks ago ruled that PlayUp would not be allowed to pursue its local case against Dr Mintas after failing to show it could pay up if it lost.

Meanwhile, The Australian can reveal listed Canadian media company AdRabbit told Mr Simic late last year that its directors were “deeply concerned” about a record fine PlayUp received from NSW Gaming & Liquor which has stymied a lifeline reverse-takeover offer.

Documents obtained from the District Court of Nevada granted summary judgment in favour of Dr Mintas on all of PlayUp US’s claims, because the damages it was seeking were actually incurred by its Australian parent company (PlayUp Aus).

Mr Simic told The Australian he remained “confident in the merits of our case and are actively reviewing our options”.

“It is my understanding that the United States District Judge determined only PlayUp Ltd is entitled to pursue damages related to the FTX transaction, as the funds were designated for PlayUp Ltd and its shareholders – not PlayUp US,” he said.

“A favourable judgment could ultimately be a hollow victory if there’s no realistic path to recovering damages. The question now is whether to continue investing resources – or risk throwing good money after bad.”

PlayUp global chief executive Daniel Simic.

In the US case, PlayUp claimed $US450m in damages – the value of a failed deal Mr Simic claimed the company’s shareholders would have received if PlayUp had completed its agreement with convicted fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried’s FTX. Mr Simic blamed Dr Mintas, while Dr Mintas blamed Mr Simic for scuppering the deal.

PlayUp had also claimed it was owed $US450m in the Australian matter, but that has now been thrown out of court too.

“In sum, the court grants summary judgment in favour of Mintas on all of PlayUp US’s claims against her. None of PlayUp US’s claims will proceed to trial,” US court documents say.

Dr Mintas’ counter claims – that she was defamed, including by Mr Simic at a dinner at the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas when he allegedly told US and Australian executives present that Dr Mintas had “blown the deal” with FTX and she was trying to take over the business – will proceed to trial.

The court ruled in favour of PlayUp and Mr Simic on a number of counterclaims brought by Dr Mintas that have now been struck off.

Separately, the boss of a listed Canadian group, AdRabbit, told Mr Simic late last year its directors were “deeply concerned” about a record fine worth $586,000 it received for illegal advertisements.

Dr Laila Mintas was being sued by PlayUp’s boss.

According to a letter seen by The Australian from AdRabbit’s Moshe Cohen, the fine introduced a “significant element of uncertainty” to a reverse-takeover offer with an initial $15m advance.

“Specifically, our concern lies in the potential adverse impact of this legal issue on PlayUp’s licensure in the Northern Territory Racing Commission,” the letter says.

“AdRabbit requires the resolution of this matter before we can proceed with the transaction.

“Our primary concern is the potential for this legal situation to jeopardise PlayUp’s licensing status, which could have a cascading effect on the business operations and, ultimately, the viability of our investment.”

Mr Simic said: “PlayUp is not at risk of losing its Northern Territory bookmaker licence in relation to this matter.”

“The fine concerns our low-risk Daily Fantasy Sports platform, Draftstars, which is specifically designed to minimise gambling harm. We take our regulatory and compliance obligations extremely seriously and view this issue as being at the lower end of the severity scale,” he said.

“In that context, we believe the penalty is disproportionately high and are currently awaiting the outcome of the appeal.”

Mr Simic said that as a listed company, AdRabbit “handles matters of this nature with appropriate care and consideration”.

“Given they haven’t previously engaged with Australian gambling regulators, the outcome of this matter holds particular significance for them,” he said.

In 2022, PlayUp – which under Sydney-based Mr Simic was resurrected after the old business burnt through $100m of high-profile investor funds – was on the verge of breaking into the massive US market to take advantage of some states which changed their laws to allow online casinos and sports betting.

In August 2021, Bankman-Fried’s company, Alameda Ventures, agreed to negotiate the sale of PlayUp for about $600m, but by November the deal fell through.

Mr Simic claimed Dr Mintas – who acted as the CEO of PlayUp US from 2019 to 2021 – sabotaged the deal and threatened “burning the business to the ground” if her demands of increased equity, salary and ultimate replacement of Mr Simic, were not met.

Dr Mintas rejected the allegations.

The Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas.

Court documents released to The Australian show that after a number of failed deals, Mr Simic insisted in a sworn affidavit last year that the financial position of PlayUp could recover off the AdRabbit deal and other revenue.

“PlayUp was experiencing consecutive EBITA net losses from May 2023 to February 2024 ranging from $4,040,432 to $409,817, and did not experience a positive EBITDA until March 2024, which was $377,829,” he said in his August affidavit.

On Tuesday, PlayUp appealed against the $586,000 fine in the NSW Downing Centre. Lawyers for PlayUp argued advertisements at the centre of the regulator’s fine did not break the law because the relevant products were “play for free” whereby the customer did not have to pay.

But the regulator’s lawyers argued that despite the products being advertised as “free” entry, they offered an inducement to gamble which is illegal.

Originally published as US court throws out claims by Sydney-based PlayUp’s Daniel Simic against American executive