There are two things that make this particular case so interesting. (1) Facebook is still technically a < 500 shareholder company, subject to a "special case"

There are two things that make this particular case so interesting. (1) Facebook is still technically a < 500 shareholder company, subject to a "special case" set of rules for reporting. In 1964, regulators started requiring companies with more than 499 shareholders to publicly report their financial results. (source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/the-500-investor-threshold-debated-for-its-47-year-history/ http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/the-500-investor-thre... ) Facebook isn't there, but if EVER there were a case where this old-fashioned rule should not apply, it would be here. Goldman-Sachs IS (indirectly) benefiting from a "free" pool of money that comes from taxpayers. It's no longer a private-company issue. (2) employee-owned shares typically do not count toward the 500-investor limit. But once those shares are sold on a private exchange — often after employees leave the company — they are no longer exempt. This is interesting because Facebook has "1700+" employees, which is far more than the kind of small "we need protection" private companies that the 1964 rule set out to protect.