founders hit with $580 million lawsuit

Freeman claims that he initially had a 20 percent stake in Primedice, while Tehrani and Craven had 40 percent, a deal that reflected their initial investment in the business.

Freeman alleges that within nine months of establishing Primedice, his shareholding was reduced to 14 percent to reward other senior members of the development team.

Freeman alleges that this stock transfer occurred despite the fact that the trio had an agreement that Primedice would only provide capital to people who had invested money in the business.

When crypto took off, Freeman alleges that he brought up the idea of ​​a crypto casino with his business partners in 2016, but Tehrani and Craven weren’t interested in his idea due to potential issues with regulation.

That same year, Freeman alleges he was dissuaded from joining Tehrani and Craven’s new trading company, allegedly, after being told he could only participate if he moved to Australia and that the new company would only deal in fiat currencies. such as the US dollar or the euro.

“Freeman, who was committed and comfortable with online gambling concepts, believed that a fiat casino was the wrong address (fiat-facilitated online gaming is big business across the board),” the documents allege. judicial.

“He reasoned that it was highly competitive and presented personal risks that he was not prepared to accept, and he did not want to be forced to move to Australia to pursue a fiat-based betting business.”

Freeman alleges that despite his earlier statements that a crypto casino was too expensive to operate and concerns about regulation, Tehrani and Craven launched their crypto casino

He also alleges that when he questioned Tehrani and Craven, both gave him assurances before his system privileges were revoked.

“Later, when launched as a virtual casino that included competitive online craps and many other features that Freeman had proposed and helped design, Tehrani and Craven attempted to assuage Freeman’s dismay that he had been duped by gambling. claim that he still retained his stake in Primedice.


“Eventually, Freeman’s access to the Primedice account was blocked and never returned.”

Freeman’s attorneys did not respond to requests for comment. said in a statement: “The complaint filed by Chris Freeman contains allegations that are internally inconsistent, intentionally misleading and demonstrably false.” The company described the claim as a “desperate attempt to spread false information,” adding that Freeman was not entitled to the money he said he was owed.

He added that the company’s founders have no intention of giving in to Freeman’s demands “and are confident that these wholly frivolous allegations will be dismissed by the court in due course.”

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.