---
title: "Margaret Slemmer: Linqto and Hard Yaka roles"
language: en
canonical: https://osint.v3rta.com/dossiers/linqto/margaret-slemmer/
as_of: 2026-10-09
keywords: ["Linqto","Liquidshares","Linqto Capital","private market investments","series interests","Chapter 11","customer recovery plan","Sandton financing","Forge trustee dispute","corporate governance","securities proceedings"]
---

# Margaret Slemmer: Linqto and Hard Yaka roles

**Question.** Which Slemmer capacities and proceedings are independently identified?

**Answer.** Slemmer’s former Linqto directorship and Hard Yaka GP-manager role are distinct; advancement and procedural rulings do not resolve the underlying disputes.

## Linqto and the Hard Yaka partnership

- Analysis: Linqto’s financial-affairs statement lists Slemmer as a former director from October 2020 to February 2025. The amended Linqto customer complaint names Slemmer as a defendant alongside other former officers, directors and Rainmaker Securities. A complaint establishes the procedural role, rather than liability or common control among defendants. The Delaware decision separately identifies Slemmer as a manager of Hard Yaka Ventures GP, the general partner of Hard Yaka Ventures LP, and Kidd as the fund’s sole indirect limited partner. Hard Yaka LLC, the GP and the LP fund are distinct entities. [s-d18] [s-d146] [s-d224]
- Analysis: An executive-data profile updated July 13, 2026 describes Slemmer as Hard Yaka partner and COO. The Delaware decision provides the more direct basis for her GP-manager capacity; the profile does not independently corroborate the management dispute’s merits. [s-d263]

## Nevada and Delaware procedures

- Analysis: The Nevada docket identifies Hard Yaka LLC and Kidd as plaintiffs, the GP as defendant, and Slemmer, Leiske, Beldner and Lewis as intervenors in case 2:25-cv-00387. Judge Cristina Silva denied emergency relief on March 17, 2025 because conferral requirements had not been met and the state order was unenforceable at removal; the parties were directed to confer about expenses and investments. The April 28 sealing order protected sensitive financial information, with a dismissal motion then pending. Neither procedure decided the fiduciary allegations. [s-d317]
- Analysis: On February 3, 2026, Delaware’s Court of Chancery affirmed on narrower grounds an award requiring advancement of the managers’ legal expenses. The managers argued that the proceedings arose from their corporate status and that indemnification rights were cumulative; defendants argued the dispute concerned personal payouts and that the managers should first seek advancement from the GP. The ruling concerned funding litigation expenses, rather than deciding the underlying Nevada or arbitration disputes. The retained opinion ends during its exhaustion-defense analysis, leaving the introductory disposition and nexus analysis available. [s-d224]
- Analysis: In the federal Delaware contract action filed May 14, 2025, Slemmer, Leiske and Lewis sought remand on May 19. The docket’s October 22 end date does not establish a merits resolution. A related Ninth Circuit appeal, Hard Yaka, LLC v. Leiske, was filed November 28, 2025. [s-d201]

## Sources

- [s-d18] Court record source · s-d18
- [s-d146] Court record source · s-d146
- [s-d224] Court record source · s-d224
- [s-d263] Other source · s-d263
- [s-d317] Court record source · s-d317
- [s-d201] Court record source · s-d201