Cameron And Tyler Winklevoss

April 11, 2011 by staff 

Cameron And Tyler Winklevoss, A federal appeals court ruled Monday that former colleagues at the University of Harvard, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg; you cannot undo their agreement on the creation of social networking site.

The Th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Monday that Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss were savvy enough to understand what they were agreeing to sign the agreement in 2008. The agreement calls for payment in cash and 20 million and a partial participation Facebook.

Monday’s ruling supports a ruling of first instance the implementation of the settlement during the six years of litigation that became so contentious that the controversy was dramatized in the Oscar nominated film, “The Social Network.” The deal is now worth and because more than 160 million increase in valuation of Facebook.

“At some point, litigation must come to an end,” wrote Chief Justice Alex Kozinksi for the three-judge panel unanimously “That point has been reached.”

The brothers said they were duped into believing and Facebook was worth 35.90 per share due to an investment by Microsoft Corp. But in a couple of months after signing the agreement, Facebook will be heard in it a value of 8, 88, and for tax purposes. Based on the price of securities, the Winklevoss should have received four times more shares as they got, according to Jerome Falk, the lead attorney in the case.

Kozinski said the twins were “sophisticated parties” when it agreed to the settlement. “They brought half a dozen lawyers to mediation,” he wrote Kozinksi in the resolution, noting that the agreement posted on Facebook of all claims.

“With the help of a team of lawyers and a financial adviser, made a deal that looks very favorable in light of recent market activity,” the court said, noting that Palo Alto, California-based Facebook is now worth 50 billion, and 3.33 times that thought Winklevoss mediation.

Falk, HowardRice in San Francisco, said Monday that his company would file a petition requesting that all judges on the court, and not just the panel hearing the case.

The panel’s decision “raises important questions of federal law to review the merit of the entire Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,” Falk said in an e-mail sent by Tyler Winklevoss in response to a reporter’s request for comment.

Facebook is pleased with the decision, Colin Stretch, assistant general counsel of the company, said in an emailed statement.

The ruling confirms the agreement between the Winklevoss and Zuckerberg, who hired the twins to help build a dating website ConnectU Inc., while they were students at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 2003. The Winklevoss and a partner, Divya Narendra, accused in a lawsuit originally Zuckerberg of stealing their idea and delaying the ConnectU project while secretly building Facebook.

Falk told the court in January that Facebook securities fraud committed by a correct share price “was not made known to the founders until after he signed the term sheet” describing the terms of the agreement. Winklevoss Force to accept the solution would be “Immunization against fraud in the mediation,” he said.

Joshua Rosenkranz, a lawyer for Facebook and a partner in the New York office of Orrick San Francisco Herrera & Sutcliffe LLP, said that the Winklevoss and Narendra were, at the time of signing the agreement, “sophisticated parties surrounded by a platoon of lawyers “whose main objective in the negotiations was to own 0.3 percent of Facebook. It was a binding agreement that is making them “richer by the day,” said Rosenkranz.

Falk said that the agreement in January 2008 is now worth and million more than its original value after Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and 450 million invested in the social networking site, boosting the valuation of the company and 50 billion. Goldman Sachs investment was first reported in January.

Report to Team

Please feel free to send if you have any questions regarding this post , you can contact on

Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are that of the authors and not necessarily that of U.S.S.POST.


Comments are closed.