That may be a bit closer to the mark. The point is, you accepted his offer KNOWING that (a) you didn't have complete information, (b) he had every incentive to

That may be a bit closer to the mark. The point is, you accepted his offer KNOWING that (a) you didn't have complete information, (b) he had every incentive to offer the bare minimum, and (c) that your contract didn't include any provisions saying you'd be entitled to more if the stated value subsequently climbed. Sure, you COULD have that uptick provision included (maybe), but only if you'd taken the risk of holding out instead of settling for the $65 million. As soon as you accept the money, you accept all the conditions under which it was given. Provided that FB held up its end of the settlement deal (which it seems to have done), there was no reasonable basis for the Winkelvi to revisit the case.