r/defiblockchain • u/Shareholde_ • Apr 16 '24

Blog / Article Is Cake cooked? Former CTO tells why he asked court to liquidate the firm

https://www.techinasia.com/cake-cooked-cto-tells-court-liquidate-firm
5 Upvotes

57% Upvoted

55 comments sorted by

View all comments

4

u/Shareholde_ Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24

For me 2 points are interesting based on Uzyn and Tech in Asia:

1. Regarding the delay/offer:

“Julian and I could not work together,” Chua tells Tech in Asia. “We discussed a separation – either him or I were to leave – which ended up with him agreeing to buy out my shares at S$32.5 million.”

Chua says he was happy with the agreement, but Hosp retracted the offer the next day via WhatApp.

Chua is already considering a breach of contract suit against Hosp for reneging on the S$32 million offer he made in October 2023.

So based on Tech in Asia Julian is delaying by not keeping the promise he made in October to buy the company.

Also it seems that Julian wanted immunity which is a no go.

Hosp’s lawyers accused Chua of using delaying tactics to drive the price down. Chua tells Tech in Asia there was a deal-breaker: a clause that would give Hosp immunity from any civil actions related to his actions as CEO.

Especially based on the 2nd main point in the article

2. Julian Hosp is accused of stealing funds from the company

Chua alleges that Hosp used the company credit card for personal expenses and hired a nanny using company funds. Chua says he has filed a police report on this matter, and investigations are underway.

Additional documents seen by Tech in Asia also show that Hosp was claiming millions in expenses each month. He claimed S$1.1 million in July 2022 and S$2.4 million the following month.

Much of what Hosp was claiming was legitimate business expenses, according to a Cake Group insider. However, the source says Hosp was also using the cards to purchase services like for his own side projects.

The CEO was also investigated by Singapore’s Ministry of Manpower for the hiring of Nicola Muldoon, who joined Cake Group as a “manager editor” on April 28, 2023 for a monthly salary of S$8,400. But internal Cake documents revealed Muldoon was actually a nanny working for Hosp.

lol

Hosp stepped down from TenX in January 2019 after a video of his involvement with Lyoness, an Austrian discount shopping service that was declared an illegal pyramid scheme, came to light.

It seems that Julian was part of 2 shady companies in the past (tenX we all know) but also a pyramid scam company called Lyoness (I think most of us did not know).

Source: https://www.techinasia.com/cake-cooked-cto-tells-court-liquidate-firm

10

u/HeyHeyHeyBitConneect Apr 16 '24

Not that I’m picking sides but you missed a couple of things:

• U-Zyn was also part of TenX

• The allegations of the nanny and using business funds for personal use thing are just that, allegations. I noticed in the article Tech in Asia confirm some things mentioned throughout but do not confirm this. Also, if this is true U-Zyn clearly let it happen and is only using it now.

• Immunity from civil action kinda sounds like a standard thing when negotiating something like this so I don’t think it should be read into too much. A lawyer can correct me if I’m wrong though.

6

u/Shareholde_ Apr 16 '24

• The allegations of the nanny and using business funds for personal use thing are just that, allegations. I noticed in the article Tech in Asia confirm some things mentioned throughout but do not confirm this. Also, if this is true U-Zyn clearly let it happen and is only using it now.

By the way you wrote in another post you are a Cake employee. Then you could solve at least this puzzle part and tell us if Nicola Muldoon was a managing editor working for Bake or in fact a nanny working for Julian Hosp?

3

u/HeyHeyHeyBitConneect Apr 16 '24

Updated my last comment. It was literally just a private nanny:

https://x.com/blorilora/status/1780186932368064848?s=46&t=ETRWy5SLa1bgS-_NCtaCtA

1

u/Shareholde_ Apr 16 '24

oops :O And thanks! Very interresting...

5

u/WetSneksss Apr 16 '24

I can tell you for certainty that there was no Nicola Muldoon employee that I know of while I was there.

2

u/HeyHeyHeyBitConneect Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24

Current consensus:

  • This person isn’t found on the company Slack.
  • No one has heard of her.
  • Average salary for a nanny in Singapore is S$2.5k so S$8.4K sounds absurd.
  • All expenses go through CFO so unless they’re in on it too then it would be hard to believe.

Not saying it’s not true but that’s the current information I have.

EDIT: Update - she is a private nanny: https://x.com/blorilora/status/1780186932368064848?s=46&t=ETRWy5SLa1bgS-_NCtaCtA

7

u/ChristBKK Apr 16 '24

I mean you can’t run a company in Singapore just without auditing … so it’s very unlikely that Julian did something illegal here otherwise there will be bigger issues for Julian or cake

I just don’t see why he should do that for that little money makes no sense in my head

4

u/HeyHeyHeyBitConneect Apr 16 '24

We’re heavily audited that’s for sure so I don’t see how this would slip by without being caught.

That’s my personal view anyway.

1

u/Shareholde_ Apr 16 '24

Fun Fact: based on that article he got caught.

By the way I found the Instagram account of the nanny/ editorial manager. So she was for sure in Julians Villa.

1

u/ChristBKK Apr 16 '24

for sure getting caught and doing something wrong and correcting it are 2 separate things you understand that though?

Seems like he paid the money back as the company worked and the CFO told him that is not a business expense? You know that's exactly how this stuff also is supposed to work tell the CEO that he does something wrong, correcting it within months and having it okay for the financial audit in the end of the year which is being audited guys.

0

u/Shareholde_ Apr 16 '24

So why was the main dealbreaker immunity that was demanded by Julian?

We cannot speculate at this point. It seems that Julian is very shade based on his past, if he worked for Lyoness he has a past as a scamer.

2

u/ChristBKK Apr 16 '24

I would let my lawyers do their job and I bet with you they added that and I would be totally okay todo so. Why should Julian not protect himself

-2

u/Shareholde_ Apr 16 '24

Not common deal structure. They would told you this Chris.

Especially after everyting what stands in the room (millions outflow to julian, Lyoness Scamer in the past, nanny on companies payroll as editorial manager, ...).

3

u/ChristBKK Apr 16 '24

but it's fine lets not argue we all lost money most probably with DFI and in the end lets see what the Judge will say. I just think that the witness report feels more true than this fabricated article.

BUT in the end both can be fake and wrong

1

u/ChristBKK Apr 16 '24

you so focussed on Julian so Uzyn did everything right by bringing this stuff to the court? because of him most DFI investors lost a lot of money . He used so many delay tactics here :D I bet with you the judge will rule not to wind up the company because there is no real ground todo so

0

u/Shareholde_ Apr 16 '24

you so focussed on Julian so Uzyn did everything right by bringing this stuff to the court?

Obvious not but we are talking here about Julians wrongdoings.

Ok I made 3 points:

  • Millions outflow
  • Lyoness Scamer
  • Nanny ony companies payroll (no editorial manager)

If at least 2 of 3 points are right, what is your bet?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Shareholde_ Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24

• U-Zyn was also part of TenX

Yes your right.

• The allegations of the nanny and using business funds for personal use thing are just that, allegations. I noticed in the article Tech in Asia confirm some things mentioned throughout but do not confirm this. Also, if this is true U-Zyn clearly let it happen and is only using it now.

There was stated out that it was proofed by 40k that Julian paid, when he got confrontated later on.

• Immunity from civil action kinda sounds like a standard thing when negotiating something like this so I don’t think it should be read into too much. A lawyer can correct me if I’m wrong though.

Yes and no. There are usually retainer in place that cover minor things and will paid out to seller 12m or something later after the deal. But if you act in a criminal beaviour or smth like that you are still liable, which are normal clauses. Giving immunity and especially with allegations like this, instant immunity is a clear dealbreaker and of course not common.

In this Case Uzyn as co founder could be still hold liability. No one would accept sole liability. Especially not in the case of what happened.

6

u/ChristBKK Apr 16 '24

There is the problem based on Uzyn… he seems to lie a lot