Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Man Claims 84% of Facebook, Gets Order Blocking Assets

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the trolls-are-everywhere dept.

Cyrus writes "According to a Bloomberg scoop, a New York man claiming to own a majority of Facebook has gotten a signed court order to block Facebook from transferring assets."

3 of 326 comments (clear)

  1. The Pellet thief by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The story gets even jucier:

    In 2009, New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo obtained a restraining order against Allegany Pellets, a western New York wood pellet company owned by Ceglia and his wife Iasia. Cuomo accused the company of defrauding consumers by taking $200,000 in orders but not delivering any products or issuing any refunds. That case is reportedly ongoing.

    An odd detail is that 84% number is said to be as of 2004. Why 2004?

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  2. Re:Not Facebook! by Domini · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I disagree. But then I have to add, I deleted my Facebook profile. My problem is my family and friends are ALL in other countries, and most are in timezones where I cannot call them easily. When we want to send personal messages, e-mail sure is what we use. But Facebook is perfect for posting updates and photos of our 1 year old daughter for family (and some friends) back home to see.

    Also I do appreciate (even the impersonal) updates... makes me feel like I'm still home.

    I've blanked-blocked almost all applications a long long time ago anyway, so I've never seen these "Farmville" updates people speak of.

    My wife will keep her profile and do these updates, but I personally don't like Facebook's policies.

  3. Re:That Must Be One Entertaining Contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Their response really doesn't seem to actually address the issue. If he wrote the original code for a different entity, and Zucker took that code and used it to create an exceptionally similiarly named company without compensating his 84% partner, he needs to address that.

    Among other things, the countersuit claims there's no need for urgent action (really? Pending sale of the IP doesn't make it urgent?)

    This sounds like a quick and poorly research counter while they circle the wagons and find out just what happened, sounds like Zucker may have "burned" the original company to elimate this little ownership problem, while taking all the assets. This little stunt may have actually sstarted the statue of limitations countdown, if he as CEO of "thefacebook" company wrote himself a severance package where he got the IP and the 84% owner said nothing because he was unaware, thinking he owned a silent but significant owner of "Facebook".

    Of course, odd that you would believe yourself even a 50% owner of a huge internet phenom and not ask for at least a board seat where you can find out what they are doing with your company...