3 ms·

Be sure to check out Andreessen's follow up comment to his own post, which goes into more detail about the Instagram-FB deal. For some reason, this comment is h

by Judson 14y ago

Be sure to check out Andreessen's follow up comment to his own post, which goes into more detail about the Instagram-FB deal. For some reason, this comment is hidden when the comments are expanded. Here is an excerpt from the part about instagram-fb deal: "The second potential conflict was when Facebook approached Instagram for acquisition, since I am both a director of Facebook and a general partner at AH which owned a meaningful percentage of Instagram (from our original seed investment in Burbn). As described elsewhere on this page, that conflict was averted by (a) me not even knowing about the potential acquisition until the day it happened and (b) me being recused from all discussions and decisions on both sides (Facebook and Instagram). By being recused, the conflict was averted."

FireBeyond 14y ago
Interesting quotes. But I find myself skeptical. (b) and (a) seem, on the face of it, to be mutually exclusive. Either Marc found himself being recused from meetings that happened without his knowledge, at both his own company, and at Facebook, or he -was- aware of his recusal and either didn't know ("plausible deniability"?) of the subject of discussion (which, if he was recused, seems redundant), or he -was- aware of the subject, aware of his being recused from multiple board meetings, and being "surprised" by the "Oh, hey, Facebook now owns that company your company owns a meaningful percentage of". That, and we're also being asked to believe that Facebook makes billion dollar acquisitions not only by recusing directors with related interests, but by deceiving and misleading them. AND that the board of Andreessen Horowitz feels that it should / can act the same way to its namesake founder, Mr Marc Andreessen, and feels it proper to accept ten digit acquisition offers without him. As I said, color me a little skeptical that (a) and (b) of his claims are accurate.

by Judson 14y ago

FireBeyond 14y ago

Interesting quotes. But I find myself skeptical. (b) and (a) seem, on the face of it, to be mutually exclusive. Either Marc found himself being recused from meetings that happened without his knowledge, at both his own company, and at Facebook, or he -was- aware of his recusal and either didn't know ("plausible deniability"?) of the subject of discussion (which, if he was recused, seems redundant), or he -was- aware of the subject, aware of his being recused from multiple board meetings, and being "surprised" by the "Oh, hey, Facebook now owns that company your company owns a meaningful percentage of". That, and we're also being asked to believe that Facebook makes billion dollar acquisitions not only by recusing directors with related interests, but by deceiving and misleading them. AND that the board of Andreessen Horowitz feels that it should / can act the same way to its namesake founder, Mr Marc Andreessen, and feels it proper to accept ten digit acquisition offers without him. As I said, color me a little skeptical that (a) and (b) of his claims are accurate.