Man Claims 84% of Facebook, Gets Order Blocking Assets

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Man Claims 84% of Facebook, Gets Order Blocking Assets

Posted by CmdrTaco on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @02:54AM 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."

20 of 326 comments (clear)

That Must Be One Entertaining Contract by eldavojohn · 2010-07-13 02:56 · Score: 5, Informative

Found the complaint on Scribd and man, judging by the complaints, that sounds like one entertaining contract:

Under Paragraph 3 of the contract, the Seller and Purchaser agreed that for each day after January 1, 2004, the Purchaser would acquire an additional 1% interest in the business, per day, until the website was completed ... Upon information and belief, the website, thefacebook.com, was completed and operational on February 4th, 2004.
Zuckerberg appears to be the Seller and Ceglia appears to be the Purchaser. I know this all happened before "thefacebook.com" had a massive user base but from what I can tell Ceglia dropped a grand to Zuckerberg under some agreement that if the website wasn't finished on a certain date then Ceglia would accrue a point of that business per late day? Is that a standard clause or was this some sort of loan shark that the Z-man found on campus after he stole the ConnectU code?

And then, Ceglia waited past the six year mark for the statute of limitations to run out on a breach of contract in New York? He watched Facebook's rise to popularity past MySpace?

Seriously, what kind of contracts do fledgling websites write? And where do they find people to borrow money from that apparently live under a rock in the Appalachians of New York state? Sure is entertaining one way or the other.

--
My work here is dung.
1. Re:That Must Be One Entertaining Contract by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-13 03:11 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The statute of limitations is a red herring -- it only begins to run when a contract breach is discovered (or reasonable should have been), not when the contract is signed. You can have a contract signed 50 years ago, but if you breach it today, the statute of limitations start to run today.
  The purported breach was arguably only discovered by the plaintiff due to recent press accounts of potential selling of Facebook or portions thereof. Until some act is taken that indicates an intent to breach, a party to a contract has the right to rely on the expectation that the other party will fulfill his obligations under the contract.
2. Re:That Must Be One Entertaining Contract by Skilf · 2010-07-13 03:15 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  here is Facebooks reply (from the same user on scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34240120/Ceglia-v-Facebook-Motion-for-Dissolution snippets:
  
  Defendants Mark Elliot Zuckerberg and Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) respectfully submit this memorandum in support of their motion to dissolve the ex parte temporary restraining order (the “TRO”) issued by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Allegany, in this matter. Plaintiff has utterly failed to meet the procedural and substantive requirements for such drastic relief, and the order issued by the state court is similarly flawed and woefully inadequate.
  
  In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of a two-page contract purportedly entered into more than seven years ago (and approximately nine months before the founding of Facebook), he is entitled to an 84% ownership stake in the Company. (Id. at Ex. A 4, 8).
3. Re:That Must Be One Entertaining Contract by Attila+Dimedici · 2010-07-13 03:27 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  NO, he could very well have known that he owned a big chunk of Facebook. His claim would be that he became aware of Zuckerberg's intention to not honor that ownership claim when he saw "recent press accounts of potential selling of Facebook or portions thereof". Whether or not any of this will hold up in court is another story. However, on the face of it, he has a claim.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
4. Re:That Must Be One Entertaining Contract by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-13 04:18 · 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...
Re:Not Facebook! by suso · 2010-07-13 03:00 · Score: 5, Funny

Please win. Please win. Please win.
Scary by gmuslera · 2010-07-13 03:00 · Score: 5, Funny

He owns Faceboo
1. Re:Scary by rjch · 2010-07-13 03:26 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Actually, since 84% of 8 = 6.72, it would be more accurate to say that he owns Faceboc.
Whats next???? by evanism · 2010-07-13 03:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

given the "issues" Z-man has, one may wonder how many of these skeletons are in his closet? A bent sapling never grows straight.

--
Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
Re:Not Facebook! by geekoid · 2010-07-13 03:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

yes, there is no bigger pile of crap then a social media site that has made it easy for me to get in touch with family and friends, stay up to date in their lives.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Contracts by box4831 · 2010-07-13 03:19 · Score: 5, Funny

nah, he recently got a nre Kinesis keybiartf as well.

--
Miller Lite tastes like water that's somehow managed to rot.
Re:Not Facebook! by eln · 2010-07-13 03:31 · Score: 5, Funny

Yeah, I learned about my last reunion on Facebook too. Ever since then, they've made it a policy never to announce reunions on Facebook.
Re:Not going to matter by bsDaemon · 2010-07-13 03:36 · Score: 5, Funny

Is it that obvious? I mean, I try to be a good person, but I didn't know how well it came across. Thanks for believing I'm not a lawyer.
Re:Not Facebook! by jadm · 2010-07-13 03:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

No offense, but 10 years ago, everything you wrote was being said about instant messaging, and before that, about email. [Citation needed], but I wouldn't be surprised if the same applied to telephones. So while I actually agree that Facebook is pretty grating and annoying, the arguments above are just the new "Get off my lawn".
Re:Not Facebook! by blind+biker · 2010-07-13 03:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

I can only speak for myself, of course, but I guess a lot of people who want this to happen (I am one of them) does so because of Zuckerberg rather than Facebook. Humans are naturally drawn towards justice and fairness, and see Zuckerberg as a person who denigrates his customers, abuses their privacy and takes advantage of their personal data - and always, ALWAYS pushes the boundaries of what Facebook is allowe3d to do and only retreats after a big community backlash. And so, people feel Zuckerberg does not deserve the fortune he has.
Facebook could, otherwise, be a useful and safe tool, in the hands of an ethical leadership.

--
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Re:Not going to matter by Abstrackt · 2010-07-13 04:00 · Score: 5, Funny

Is it that obvious? I mean, I try to be a good person, but I didn't know how well it came across. Thanks for believing I'm not a lawyer.
Always a pleasure. If you'd like me to doubt you in other endeavors as well please let me know!

--
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
Re:Not Facebook! by chill · 2010-07-13 04:21 · Score: 5, Funny

At least in Farmville you can actually have a virtual lawn where your avatar can stand and shake his fist at the kids.

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Re:The Pellet thief by M.+Baranczak · 2010-07-13 04:34 · Score: 5, Funny

They had to take him to a pellet court.
Re:Not Facebook! by nschubach · 2010-07-13 04:53 · Score: 5, Funny

You obviously aren't looking close enough!

Humans are naturally drawn towards justice and fairNess, And see Zuckerberg as a person who denIgrates his customers

--
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
8-bit über alles! by Thud457 · 2010-07-13 05:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

M.U.L.E. 0WNZ all your crappy newfangled web games and always will.

since the beginning of time.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff