Slashdot Mirror
MySpace CoFounder Says Purchase Was A Scam
Jonathan writes "Brad Greenspan says he's the real founder of MySpace, not Tom, and the sale of MySpace to News Corp. was a criminal act. In a nine-chapter report, he describes how this was accomplished by hiding the value of the site from Intermix Media's shareholders." From the article: "How was News Corp able to turn $327 million into $20 billion or more of value within a year? The Myspace/Intermix transaction was so low compared to other internet transactions that it is raising eyebrows by analysts and media everywhere. Everyone seems to be asking how News Corp. got such a good deal. It seems too good to be true! After signing the transaction to buy Myspace & Intermix (but prior to the closing), News Corp. itself even showed how strangely little it had paid for Myspace by immediately paying $3.99 per monthly page view for slow growing comparable IGN. News Corp. paid only .03 cents per monthly page view for the hyper fast growing Myspace. Therefore, we can conclude that the fair value of Myspace was 100x or more what News Corp. paid! "
What if _I_ sell your house for $20? In that case, yes, you can come back later and claim fraud--I didn't own your house. Note: I didn't RTFA, it seems to be /.ed already. But that seems to be what the summary makes it sound like.
Scorta futuere amo!
From a brief scan of the article, I get the impression those running the company wanted to sell the company fast so that they'd cash in before their prior misdealings were revealed. The other shareholders were deceived to the true value of the company, so the fraud is between those running the company and the other shareholders.
If I agree to sell you my house for $20, I can't come back later and claim fraud.
Actually, you can. And you can even win the point in court. You basically say, "Your honor, there's no reasonable way I could have agreed to sell my house for $20. This was not intended to be a gift and comperable homes are worth $500,000. The contract is unconscionable and should be voided."
The court then agrees that the contract is unconscionable and voids the sale.
There is a famous case involving a cow that was supposed to be sterile but had a calf a few months after the purchase. I forget the name of it. The seller thought he was selling a sterile cow and priced it accordingly. When he found out it wasn't, he asked for more money. When the buyer refused saying, "Hey, I thought the cow was sterile too. Tough luck." So the seller sued and won.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
In Ontario, Canada, he would be out of a house.
It was Sherwood v. Walker
o dvwalker.htme nt/sherwood_v_walker.htm
http://lawschool.mikeshecket.com/contracts/sherwo
http://www.law.pitt.edu/madison/contracts/supplem
There is some more discussion of the topic in general at:
http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayres/mutual.htm
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.