• ,

    Retraction: IFC denies suing portfolio company Africaโ€™s Talking

    Retraction: IFC denies suing portfolio company Africaโ€™s Talking
    Image source: IFC

    Share

    Share

    *Editor’s note on correction: The headline of this story has been changed to reflect that the IFC has denied suing Africa’s Talking.

    International Financial Corporation (IFC), a member of the World Bank Group and a lead investor in Africa’s Talking (AT) 2018 $8.4 million series A round has denied suing its portfolio company in 2023 for rejecting an acquisition offer from Infobip.ย An earlier report from this publication cited a court case referenced by people familiar with the matter.

    Certain aspects of their claims have now been determined to have been wrong.

    IFC holds a 20% stake in Africaโ€™s Talking and as part of the Series A deal, Wale Ayeni, who led IFCโ€™s venture capital arm in Africa at the time of the investment, joined Africaโ€™s Talking board. Marieme Diop has since replaced him.

    “IFC does not discuss the business decisions of its clients,” the corporation told TechCabal via email.

    โ€œAT was viciously attacked by the IFC last year, continuing a pattern of abuse that started with their investment in 2018,โ€ Gikandi told TechCabal via email. He added that the โ€œattackโ€ felt like a โ€œcover-upโ€ and claimed he was unaware of IFC’s motivation.

    Gikandi did not answer any questions on the legal proceedings.

    Orange Digital Ventures, a $350 million fund, and Social Capital, a $600 million fund looking to sell its stake in startups, also participated in Africaโ€™s Talking Series A round.

    Africaโ€™s Talking is now caught up in at least two legal cases. On Monday, TechCabal reported that Africa’s Talking and Gikandi were sued by Africaโ€™s Talking other co-founders Eston Maina Kimani and Bilha Ndirangu, and three others who allege that Gikandi pushed out Ndirangu as director after she called for an investigation into โ€œworkplace abuse.”

    โ€œThe 1st Applicant (Ndirangu), who previously served as a CEO and until the irregular ouster held the position of an independent director, possesses a deep understanding of the 1st Respondent and its operations,โ€ a court document read.