Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

This looks weak. They knew what they were getting. They agreed to take it. And now they've changed their minds. The secondary value of that stock is higher than the value at the time of the Microsoft deal (http://www.sharespost.com/companies/facebook), so they're basically suing because Zuckerberg accidentally gave them a bargain.

If FB can buy back that stock at the original valuation, they'll get a good deal.

The point is they based the stock off the valuation of preferred stock, but then they actually "received" common stock. It takes a while to get the ball rolling to accuse Facebook that they got a raw deal.

Here, Facebook tried to pull over a "well at least its stock" deal even though they agreed to $65million.

I wouldn't feel bad for ConnectU as $35million is still fantastic, but wouldn't you go back to court if another 35 was on the table? You'd be an idiot not too.

All that said, this is perfectly in-line with Zucker's character as its been painted as of late.

I don't feel that bad, considering it seems like Zuckers has been an unethical solipsist since the start. These 3 perhaps had more than just money taken from them by Zuckers "jackassery".

They're also claiming that the initial agreement was fraudulently induced.

I agree, the stance appears weak - I'm not a lawyer nor am I fully aware of the whole thing but it just sounds like a timed temper tantrum to take advantage of Facebook's negative press about privacy settings &c.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact