3 ms·

The term sheet potentially had a clause that (a) prevented him from soliciting other offers, and crucially (b) disclose any unsolicited offers immediately. (I d

by senko 3y ago

The term sheet potentially had a clause that (a) prevented him from soliciting other offers, and crucially (b) disclose any unsolicited offers immediately. (I don't have a ton of experience with m&a, but we had something similar in my previous exit and it did seemed like a standard clause in such contracts). So yeah, the leak may be intentional to in effect solicit an offer from Google (and would definitely explain ill will from Facebook).

HWR_14 3y ago
He definitely mentioned (a) in his write up. I wasn't aware of (b), and I thought he made it sound more like a choice. He talked about fiscal obligations requiring him to tell the board. But if he was contractually obligated to disclose the offer to FB that makes it a lot clearer.
deanCommie 3y ago
We could never prove it but the quote is interesting: "With accountants, lawyers, board members, and investors involved, the news was bound to leak, and it did. Though I did not leak the information, and to this day I still do not know who did, I think Facebook and Google still believe I leaked the news." There are 3 statements in this * "A leak was inevitable" * "I did not leak it" * "I do not know who did" Here is a scenario under which they could all be true: Noam, his exec team, OR some board members, OR some investors (which are likely to be friends or family members for a private company) are out for late night drinks. Someone says the words "Ugh, these Facebook guys are idiots, and we don't seem to get along with them. I wish we could get acquired by Google instead. If somehow they got word of the acquisition, I bet they'd reach out with an unsolicited offer. Sure would be a shame if SOMEONE LEAKED IT." No conspiracy necessary. No orders. Some party at the table hears, agrees, and contacts their old IDF buddy at Haaretz. Done.

3 ms·

The term sheet potentially had a clause that (a) prevented him from soliciting other offers, and crucially (b) disclose any unsolicited offers immediately. (I d

by senko 3y ago

HWR_14 3y ago
He definitely mentioned (a) in his write up. I wasn't aware of (b), and I thought he made it sound more like a choice. He talked about fiscal obligations requiring him to tell the board. But if he was contractually obligated to disclose the offer to FB that makes it a lot clearer.
deanCommie 3y ago
We could never prove it but the quote is interesting: "With accountants, lawyers, board members, and investors involved, the news was bound to leak, and it did. Though I did not leak the information, and to this day I still do not know who did, I think Facebook and Google still believe I leaked the news." There are 3 statements in this * "A leak was inevitable" * "I did not leak it" * "I do not know who did" Here is a scenario under which they could all be true: Noam, his exec team, OR some board members, OR some investors (which are likely to be friends or family members for a private company) are out for late night drinks. Someone says the words "Ugh, these Facebook guys are idiots, and we don't seem to get along with them. I wish we could get acquired by Google instead. If somehow they got word of the acquisition, I bet they'd reach out with an unsolicited offer. Sure would be a shame if SOMEONE LEAKED IT." No conspiracy necessary. No orders. Some party at the table hears, agrees, and contacts their old IDF buddy at Haaretz. Done.