How the Dispute Unfolded
Eduardo Saverin and Mark Zuckerberg met in 2004 whilst studying at Harvard University, where they collaborated in the creation of a social media platform that would eventually become Facebook. Following the launch of the site, Eduardo was given an ownership stake of the business which was later downgraded, causing the dispute. The case ultimately concluded with a settlement between the two parties in 2009.
The origins of the dispute date back to 2004 when, according to Saverin’s lawsuit, Zuckerberg and two other partners changed the ownership structure of the business to reduce Saverin’s stake from 30% to 10%. In addition, Saverin claimed he was locked out of the business and that he was not consulted or informed before the decision to reduce his ownership was taken. Saverin had invested around $65,000 in the business which he claims he has been denied rightful benefits from.
Issues at Stake in the Dispute
At the heart of the dispute were several key issues, including whether Saverin’s original agreement was legally binding, the value of his ownership stake and whether he was locked out of the business. Despite later settlement discussions and the eventual agreement, key questions remain unanswered, including the precise value of Saverin’s ownership stake.
At the time, Saverin was seeking $2 billion in damages. However, he was thought to have negotiated a settlement of around $65 million, with a number of protections protecting his business interests with Facebook.
The Role of Legal Experts
From the start of the dispute, both parties appeared to be backed by teams of lawyers, with Saverin being represented by the high-profile lawyer, David Boies. It is widely thought that Boies’ input provided a key contribution in helping Saverin negotiate a favourable settlement as well as ensuring he received substantial protection against any further issues.
The Impact of the Dispute
The legal battle between Saverin and Zuckerberg left a sour taste in the mouths of many involved, ultimately taking a toll on their friendship.
The ongoing dispute also impacted wider stakeholders in the business, including other Facebook investors and staff members, as well as creating tension between the parties. It is thought that whilst the settlement provided some vindication to Saverin, it also enabled Zuckerberg to secure a partnership agreement with Microsoft which went on to be worth billions of dollars.
The Credibility of Saverin’s Claim
The legal battle between Saverin and Zuckerberg was always going to be an uphill battle for the latter, given his connections and the power he held within the business.
The most damning argument advanced by Saverin was the company’s failure to adhere to the corporate governance requirements which would have applied if the business had been properly incorporated at the time the dispute arose. It was always going to be difficult for Zuckerberg to prove that Saverin’s version of events did not accord with the facts, despite the legal battle concluding inconclusively.
The Ensuing Legal Discussion and Implications
The dispute between Saverin and Zuckerberg led to a range of legal discussions, including the merits of establishing a corporate entity prior to launching a business, the application of contract and corporate governance law, the validity of contractual arrangements which are not properly documented, and the importance of protecting investor interests.
The dispute also highlighted the difficulties that arise when disputes arise between two, formerly separate, owners of a business, with differing legal and financial interests. It highlighted the necessity for business owners to protect their interests through documented arrangements such as written share investment agreements and other corporate governance structures.
International Reactions and Implications of the Dispute
The dispute between Saverin and Zuckerberg was widely reported around the world, with the story making headline news in the United States, Europe, and even as far away as Singapore and South America.
Given the power and access that Zuckerberg held within the business, and his subsequent success, the settlement negotiated between the parties has been seen by many as far too low. Saverin avoided potentially arduous and expensive legal proceedings, whilst Zuckerberg was able to secure a preferential settlement and protect his reputation.
The Impact on Saverin’s Career and Future
Despite the settlement being substantially lower than Saverin originally sought, the outcome was seen as a major victory for him. The proceeds from the settlement enabled him to invest in a range of ventures and projects, creating new opportunities for him and those around him.
It is also thought that his dispute with Zuckerberg helped to give him a certain “street cred”, with some bloggers and commentators acknowledging his tenacity in standing up for his rights and beliefs.
The Impact of the Media Coverage
The dispute between Saverin and Zuckerberg was heavily reported around the world, with various sources weighing in on the matter. It not only enabled the story to reach a far wider audience than would typically have been the case, but it also allowed those far away from Silicon Valley the chance to learn a lesson in corporate governance and what it takes to protect one’s rights when put in similar situations.
The constant coverage may also have influenced the eventual settlement between the parties, as negative public opinion of Zuckerberg and Facebook could have, in theory, impacted the value of the company.
The Power of Social Media
The dispute between Saverin and Zuckerberg showed the power of social media in enabling news and information to be spread around the world at speed and with ease.
The implications of the dispute were felt far beyond Silicon Valley, For some, the dispute simply served as a lesson in corporate failings and the importance of sound governance procedures, yet for others the issue was personal, with the relationship between the two men naturally stirring much emotion.
Social media provided a platform for those with an opinion on the dispute to share their thoughts and feelings across the web. As well as being an outlet for those affected by the dispute, such as Saverin’s friends and family, the platform enabled others to join in the debate and offered a chance to learn from what had taken place.
The Role of Litigation Funding
At the time of the dispute, Saverin was thought to have been supported by a series of litigation funding arrangements, although the precise circumstances have never been revealed in full.
Litigation funding is a relatively new concept, enabling individuals or businesses to obtain financing for proceedings against other parties which they may be unable to foot the bill for themselves. In this instance, the addition of new funds to the case is thought to have enabled Saverin to pursue legal proceedings to higher levels, ultimately contributing to the settlement that was reached.
The Value of Legal Expertise
Ultimately, the dispute between Saverin and Zuckerberg was settled with the help of legal experts. It was thought that Saverin benefitted greatly from the support of his legal team, notably David Boies who represented him in the case against Zuckerberg.
The presence of legal expertise was thought to be helpful in both helping to protect the interests of Saverin and establishing favourable settlement terms, enabling him to benefit from the success of the business regardless of his reduced ownership stake. It also provided Saverin, who lacked prior business experience, with much-needed legal and financial advice.
Changes to Corporate Governance Practices
The dispute between Saverin and Zuckerberg highlighted the importance of robust corporate governance procedures, as well as the need for owners to ensure that their interests are adequately documented and enshrined in written agreements.
Following the dispute, companies of all sizes globally have sought to ensure that robust approaches are taken to corporate governance and shareholder agreements, establishing clear contractual duties and responsibilities whilst avoiding any potential issues between owners.
