A group of thirty-five former employees of the blockchain company ConsenSys AG (CAG) requested for a special audit to investigate serious irregularities at CAG. These former employees represent 50% of all known ConsenSys AG claims that the board breaches fiduciary duties. 

In the official complaint, Kavita Gupta a former general partner at ConsenSys, exclaims she managed and grew a fund from $13.5 million to over $300 million in two short years before resigning in 2019 to teach at Stanford. Following her departure she requested compensation of 20% of her earnings, approximately $50 million, but her partner Joseph Lubin wouldn't pay. Employees earn a commission based salary at ConsenSys, but Lubin has still refused to pay Gupta her share of the earnings. 

The issues between Gupta and Lupin are detailed in the complaint where Gupta alleges leaving after numerous cases of “misogyny”, “hard drug use”, and “illegal payments”. According to Lubin, Gupta was asked to resign due to lying on her resume. Gupta is getting sued by ConsenSys in a separate filing which details Gupta lying about her degrees from Harvard and MIT, her former jobs at McKinsey and NASA, and space tech patents. The filing claims that Gupta fabricated documents to validate her former jobs and space tech patents. 

Now CSA is claiming that, due the circumstances, Gupta has lost her carry and CSA is countering requesting her salary, bonuses, and equity back.

Fundamental intellectual property and subsidiaries have also been illegally transferred from CAG into ConsenSys SoftWare Incorporated (CSI) in exchange for approximately 10% of ownership of CSI and an offset of $39 million loan from Joseph Lubin. This operation was given the code name “Project North Star '' and was designed to make legacy financial institutions acquire influential stake in MetaMask and Infura, two popular infrastructure tools in Ethereum. 

In the midst of this scandal, mandatory annual shareholder meetings were delayed until after the IP was illegally transferred without the knowledge of minority shareholders. Due to the delay, the shareholder re-election of the board of directors never took place. Thus, the validity of the election of Frithjof Weinert has also come into question.

With a group of thirty-five former employees making cases against CAG, it seems the two cases could be intertwined.

Share this article
The link has been copied!