The problem here is it is somewhat obvious that someone waited until FB was worth something before putting out the legal claim(the lawsuit)..What?
Look at the tone of the emails back and forth between MZ and claimant...given that tone would not a reasonable person make a legal claim when FB moved to CA?
That means there is quite a bit missing in the story on both sides...so it comes down to who has the most to loose...FB or claimant..
Since FB has the most to loose if this gets into full court
hearings I see FB making an attempt to settle..Why?
FB at several 100 billion dollars in valuation probably does not need the disclosure that valuation may be in error due to past behavior of the founder/CEO not to mention the obvious decrease in stakeholders values if the claim is true.
Waiting until a company is worth something in order to file a lawsuit like this is neither a problem nor illegal. In fact, it's great strategy.
If it's true, I don't think he deserves 50% or 80%. It's up to the courts. Also, I think Facebook is what it is today solely because of Zuck and the FB team.
But I don't see a problem with waiting to file a claim.
Look at the tone of the emails back and forth between MZ and claimant...given that tone would not a reasonable person make a legal claim when FB moved to CA?
That means there is quite a bit missing in the story on both sides...so it comes down to who has the most to loose...FB or claimant..
Since FB has the most to loose if this gets into full court hearings I see FB making an attempt to settle..Why?
FB at several 100 billion dollars in valuation probably does not need the disclosure that valuation may be in error due to past behavior of the founder/CEO not to mention the obvious decrease in stakeholders values if the claim is true.