Yes, but this is a question of ownership of a corporation. I doubt he has any claim to whatever Facebook's legal entity is. He may have claims for copyright violations if the contract included ownership of the code, etc. Which the contract appears not to include. He may have other claims but I doubt he has a straightforward ownership claim over the legal entity.
My reason for thinking this is the amount of VC that went into Facebook and the common sorts of IP issues that VC's regularly deal with it's extremely likely a new corporation was created and Zuck's assets transferred to that company.
Zuck may have transferred assets illegally to that corporation (copyrights, domains, etc) which would create a legit claim, but it's unlikely that he can prove a straightforward 83% ownership. Even if he can prove that it's going to be very hard to overcome the subsequent VC rounds that would have reduced everyone's equity stake.
Comments
Yes, but this is a question of ownership of a corporation. I doubt he has any claim to whatever Facebook's legal entity is. He may have claims for copyright violations if the contract included ownership of the code, etc. Which the contract appears not to include. He may have other claims but I doubt he has a straightforward ownership claim over the legal entity.
My reason for thinking this is the amount of VC that went into Facebook and the common sorts of IP issues that VC's regularly deal with it's extremely likely a new corporation was created and Zuck's assets transferred to that company.
Zuck may have transferred assets illegally to that corporation (copyrights, domains, etc) which would create a legit claim, but it's unlikely that he can prove a straightforward 83% ownership. Even if he can prove that it's going to be very hard to overcome the subsequent VC rounds that would have reduced everyone's equity stake.