Facebook, Once Again, Says That Ceglia's Claim To Own 84% Of Facebook Is A Fraud

from the strong-words dept

Back in April, when Paul Ceglia refiled his lawsuit claiming to have a contract which gave him a huge chunk (up to 84%) of Facebook, some people pointed out that the refiled lawsuit sounded a lot more credible. There was additional email evidence and (mainly) the fact that a huge, extremely reputable law firm had taken on Ceglia as a client -- something they likely wouldn't do if they thought the whole thing was faked. However, Facebook is sticking to its claim that the whole thing is an elaborate fraud by "an inveterate scam artist whose misconduct extends across decades and borders." The response claims that the evidence was doctored or fabricated. It seems like this case is going to end up being a lot more interesting to watch than the Winklevii case. Someone alert Aaron Sorkin to the sequel possibilities...


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 27th, 2011 @ 5:31am

    Can someone with more knowledge than me explain about financing rounds where you have to buy in more or have your shares diminished. There have been multiple investment rounds and I don't think he participated so he owns 84% of a $1000 chunk of the business?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Christopher (profile), May 27th, 2011 @ 5:57am

    Re:

    Apparently you don't understand that the contract in question gave him an 84% right to the business PERIOD.... not the amount of the business that he funded.

    So, financing 'rounds' don't come into play here.... stupidity on the part of the people at Facebook does in that they left the contract open to this interpretation!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), May 27th, 2011 @ 6:00am

    I like this guy's wiki page...

    It reads like the start of a SNL sketch. Dude lives in an unpainted house, started an ice cream stand business in NYC, and was busted with four HUNDRED grams of psilocybin in '97.

    With that much magic mushroom sauce in my blood, I'd probably think I founded Facebook too....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Sean T Henry (profile), May 27th, 2011 @ 6:11am

    Re:

    Its like if you own 50% of a company the person on the other side actually runs the company they get new investments in the company. When getting investments he only has up to 50% he can sell and you still own 50%.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    NullOp, May 27th, 2011 @ 6:26am

    FB

    Y'know, It'd be interesting to see who would bring this kind of suit if whoever lost forfeited their life either through death or a gulag. I'd damn sure vote for the gulag. Oh, that would include the lawyers involved.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), May 27th, 2011 @ 6:33am

    Re:

    Can someone with more knowledge than me explain about financing rounds where you have to buy in more or have your shares diminished. There have been multiple investment rounds and I don't think he participated so he owns 84% of a $1000 chunk of the business?

    It may very much depend on the details of any "contract," thought it sounds like there wasn't a clear one. It's possible that it could be interpreted that his shares were diluted as well, but if that's the case, it will be a *freaking mess* to unwind all the follow on financings. And, if I understand the other dealings properly concerning Eduardo Saverin, at some point FB started a new company and moved the old shares into the new company. Unwinding this would be a total mess.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    xs (profile), May 27th, 2011 @ 6:56am

    Re: Re:

    Stupidity by Facebook people doesn't apply here. The alleged original contract was a very basic one between a college student and one man for a very small sum. Neither of them could have envisioned the extent of this little project expanded into, so there were no lawyers breaking down every word to make sure it's water tight.

    Whether the whole thing is fake or not, it is very likely that it's out of statue of limitation. In both Connecticut and New York, the Status of limitation on contract is 6 years, and in California where facebook is based, the limitation is 2 years. The initial contract was allegedly made in 2003, the last date involved in the dispute as calculated by the 84% figure is Feb 4, 2004, and this guy filed in July 2010. So it's at least 5 months too late anyway.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), May 27th, 2011 @ 8:30am

    Re: I like this guy's wiki page...

    With that much magic mushroom sauce in my blood, I'd probably think I founded Facebook too....

    Heck, with that many 'shrooms in my blood, I might think my ice cream stand WAS Facebook.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    JustSomeGuy, May 27th, 2011 @ 4:11pm

    Nitpick

    It's neither a statue nor a status. It's a statute of limitation. We'll return now to your regular programming.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    FM Hilton, May 27th, 2011 @ 6:11pm

    To be honest, though-FB does have a valid point: that the guy waited for 8 years before suing them.

    If one has a vested interest in some company of any reasonable size (50% or more is pretty reasonable) from some old piece of paper, one should check and see if the investment was paying off periodically-even calling the person with whom you made the contract once in a while.

    "Hey, Fred, how's that business you and I signed on for?"

    It came as a complete surprise to this guy that FB is so popular and valued now? Where was he in the past 8 years?

    Does Mark Zuckerberg even know this guy that well?

    Does Zuckerberg even have a copy of the alleged contract? He might have been in college, but he's smart enough to keep track of his records, I'm sure.

    I'd say that the premise that it's out of statute of limitations is probably valid, and will undoubtedly get booted out of court for that one reason alone.

    "You snooze, you lose."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 29th, 2011 @ 7:56pm

    So if MZ loses this, does that make previous suits against him invalid?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This