News from the IT community on October 6th, based on reports from CNBC and The Financial Times, states that on this week, the two defendants appeared in the Delaware Court of Chancery in the United States local time, accused of sacrificing the interests of minority shareholders in a non-exclusive licensing deal with NVIDIA.

Plaintiffs Joshua Rubin and Benjamin Serebrin were formerly employees of Groq, but resigned prior to the transaction with NVIDIA. Both employees still hold shares in Groq.

According to the disclosed litigation documents, the $20 billion transaction between Groq and NVIDIA was divided into two parts: $17 billion was shared among all shareholders, while the remaining $3 billion was allocated in the form of restricted shares (NVIDIA) to the employees of Groq who transferred to NVIDIA.

The plaintiff believes that there is a serious conflict of interest within the board of directors of Groq, which failed to fulfill its legal obligation to secure the best price and terms for all shareholders, and also did not allow some shareholders to vote on the transaction.

The plaintiff also claimed that the shares of some shareholders were cashed out at a 'low price' due to the 'failure to account for the future value-added potential of Groq technology and the synergistic effects with NVIDIA', while the management reaped substantial profits. In addition, since this transaction was not a true acquisition, the $17 billion licensing fee was considered taxable income for Groq.