A group of ConsenSys shareholders has entered a legal battle involving the company, one of the largest banks in the world, JPMorgan, and the largest decentralized wallet in the ETH ecosystem, MetaMask.
ConsenSys shareholders denounce the sale of MetaMask
The shareholders of ConsenSys AG (CAG) file an audit request with the Swiss court for the alleged illegal sale, to the US bank JPMorgan, of part of the business, including the MetaMask wallet.
“The transaction resulted in financial institutions such as JPMorgan acquiring an influential stake in MetaMask and Infura, two of the most used infrastructure tools on ETH,” Arthur Falls, a former employee of ConsenSys AG, said in a statement.
According to Falls, the group of shareholders represents more than 50% of all known shareholders of ConsenSys. However, the group does not control more than 50% of the company.
They also allege that in 2020, critical intellectual property and subsidiaries were “illegally transferred” from CAG to a new entity called ConsenSys Software Incorporated (CSI).
Without shareholder approval, the alleged transfer was “in exchange for 10% ownership of CSI and compensation for a $39 million loan involving the company’s founder and ETH co-founder Joseph Lubin,” the document states.
According to the shareholders, Lubin would have participated in the alleged illegal management of the company. He would have traded and sold assets that belong to all shareholders without their consent.
Furthermore, Falls argues that Lubin and Frithjof Weinert, another board member, served as directors at both CAG and CSI and dual representation is against Swiss law.
Thus, the text maintains that the operation was to the detriment of the minority shareholders of CAG and to the benefit of Lubin himself, who is the majority shareholder of both companies (CAG and CSI).
The allegations by Falls and the group of shareholders were refuted by Diana Richter, head of marketing and branding at ConsenSys, asserting that what was stated in the statement was “inaccurate as to the facts”.
“The business fundamentals and operating environment are completely different today than they were at the time of the transaction. The group would like to apply a valuation that could be achieved today to a set of projects that were previously monetized during the darkest days of COVID-19 when the transaction took place,” Richter said.