> The suit alleges that IAC and Match Group manipulated financial data in order to create 'a fake lowball valuation' (to quote the plaintiffs’ press release), then stripped Rad, Mateen, Badeen and others of their stock options
Wait, they didn't exercise their options into the sale? Did the founders hire a team of squirrels as their bankers? This is M&A 101 when switching to majority control.
EDIT: Ah, Tinder was launched as an internal project at Match. Taking options in a majority-owned entity is...odd. There is no proper way to value a majority-owned entity without discounting for the majority ownership. Issuing options for the parent would have been a better offer and better ask.
In 2014, former Tinder VP Whitney Wolfe, who previously had a "cofounder" title (and would later go on to found Bumble), sued IAC and Match over sexual harassment from another Tinder "cofounder" Justin Mateen, who is one of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. (I put "cofounder" in quotation marks because it was an internal project at IAC and the history is a complicated.) Mateen was suspended and the lawsuit was settled for $1M.
Earlier this year Match and Bumble both sued each other in the midst of an attempt from Match to acquire Bumble. I am a little lost but I think Match / Tinder sued for $450M for patent infringement and Bumble countersued for $400M for using the lawsuit to make them look less attractive to potential (non-Match) acquirers?
That is a brutal response from Match and IAC. Their statement also mentions that two separate banks were part of the valuation. I'd be curious what their proof is. A couple fun phrases from the statement:
Honestly, this makes me lose any respect I might have had for them - while the lawsuit seems odd, resorting to ad hominem attacks is extremely unprofessional, and especially so in a PR statement. Civility and basic courtesy is not copyrighted, use it in your public statements.
I worked for match group as a C-level executive and had a equity structure that was similar, but on a way smaller scale. They use outside firms and a methodology called baseball arbitration to come up with a FMV. Although I didn't like some of the decisions that impacted the value of my equity, I was always treated fairly.
Random semi-tangential question: It seems that when companies/PR people/lawyers respond to lawsuits, they always use some version of this EXACT phrase:
"The allegations in the complaint are meritless, and ____ intends to vigorously defend against them."
Responses almost always use the word "meritless" (or "baseless") and almost always describe their forthcoming response to be "vigorous".
Is there a legal reason why these responses always use the same language? Or is this like an inside joke in legal circles?
It's a stock phrase that avoids committing to any theory of the case. (It's overused nature adds to its utility as a generic denial.) "Meritless" is also a bit of jargon that means "the alleged facts don't add up to a legal claim." It captures in one word what would otherwise be a complex phrase: "the allegations are false, and even if they are not, they fail to make up the elements of the asserted claims, and even if they did make up a legal claim, there is an applicable defense."
It really just means they believe the allegations are untrue and that they think the evidence will demonstrate they're untrue or there won't be enough evidence to prove them.
The reason this is often stated or quoted is that a defendant has to make a statement to this effect when replying to the complaint. However, at the time of the initial reply, no discovery will have occurred and therefore no evidence will be officially available to either prove or disprove the allegations. Accordingly, all you can really say at that time is "we disagree and believe the allegations in the complaint are not true and/or can't be proven."
Yes, the stock phrases are preferred due to having established meaning from case law – interestingly, simple language is less likely to have needed to be tested in court, so this force drives evolution of legalese!
Often when comments on a legal case, what you say could be misinterpreted and used against you at a later time. For example, if you said "we believe the claim that X did Y is untrue", it could be used later to say "they obviously agree the other facts are true then!".
If you use this stock statement, then it won't be used against you at a later time.
Because when people hear a word they like, they like to try and use it every chance they get. They want to show off their large vocabulary. I remember thinking something similar when the election cycle rolls around and every pundit and news anchor is talking about how an issue "resonates" with voters. An otherwise rarely used word that becomes used to describe something specific becomes almost like a brand name.
$3B valuation sounds quite reasonable for Tinder. Even with Tinder Gold "resetting the metrics" with per transaction monetization.
$IAC total revenues last quarter was approx $1B. At market valuation ~$16B. I could be very wrong, but valuing Tinder at $10B seems upper bound optimistic to me. Match probably enjoys 10x engagement.
Market valuation in tech is all about growth, not revenue. The rest of the companies in The Match Group (Match, OkCupid, PlentyOfFish) are nowhere near as attractive to the younger generation.
If you had this obviously brilliant app idea why would you launch it as an internal project? Something about the founding story here has never added up.
There might be clauses in those Tinder founders' employment contracts with Match.com that any intellectual property that they came up with during their employment belongs to Match.com.
There's a similar plot in the Silicon Valley TV show (Piped Piper v.s. Hooli).
Match, Tinder and Bumble are in a weird relationship. Match tried to make an inappropriate pass atTinder, but she is not interested, so considers it as a sexual harassment. Same goes for Bumble.
This is a relationship 101. If they can't settle internally then they should leave this dating business :-)
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|7 years ago|reply
Wait, they didn't exercise their options into the sale? Did the founders hire a team of squirrels as their bankers? This is M&A 101 when switching to majority control.
EDIT: Ah, Tinder was launched as an internal project at Match. Taking options in a majority-owned entity is...odd. There is no proper way to value a majority-owned entity without discounting for the majority ownership. Issuing options for the parent would have been a better offer and better ask.
[+] [-] subdane|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] themagician|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsnell|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kiro|7 years ago|reply
What does this mean exactly?
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] geofft|7 years ago|reply
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/07/01...
https://techcrunch.com/2014/07/09/whitney-wolfe-vs-tinder/
http://valleywag.gawker.com/every-fucked-up-text-from-the-ti...
Earlier this year Match and Bumble both sued each other in the midst of an attempt from Match to acquire Bumble. I am a little lost but I think Match / Tinder sued for $450M for patent infringement and Bumble countersued for $400M for using the lawsuit to make them look less attractive to potential (non-Match) acquirers?
[+] [-] spaceflunky|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jessaustin|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hello_asdf|7 years ago|reply
> his merry band of plaintiffs
> but sour grapes alone do not a lawsuit make
[+] [-] larkeith|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bamorgan|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ashelmire|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nlh|7 years ago|reply
"The allegations in the complaint are meritless, and ____ intends to vigorously defend against them."
Responses almost always use the word "meritless" (or "baseless") and almost always describe their forthcoming response to be "vigorous".
Is there a legal reason why these responses always use the same language? Or is this like an inside joke in legal circles?
[+] [-] rayiner|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wp381640|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] staticautomatic|7 years ago|reply
The reason this is often stated or quoted is that a defendant has to make a statement to this effect when replying to the complaint. However, at the time of the initial reply, no discovery will have occurred and therefore no evidence will be officially available to either prove or disprove the allegations. Accordingly, all you can really say at that time is "we disagree and believe the allegations in the complaint are not true and/or can't be proven."
[+] [-] fipple|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dustingetz|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] refurb|7 years ago|reply
If you use this stock statement, then it won't be used against you at a later time.
[+] [-] ddingus|7 years ago|reply
Said position being "they" have no case and let us all be damn clear on that.
[+] [-] praneshp|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eberkund|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] forkLding|7 years ago|reply
More detailed link here: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/barry-dillers-iac-sue...
[+] [-] msmith10101|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spaceflunky|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ArtWomb|7 years ago|reply
$IAC total revenues last quarter was approx $1B. At market valuation ~$16B. I could be very wrong, but valuing Tinder at $10B seems upper bound optimistic to me. Match probably enjoys 10x engagement.
[+] [-] krn|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mistrial9|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] erikpukinskis|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DeonPenny|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bradbatt|7 years ago|reply
I sometimes really love legalese.
[+] [-] pssflops|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CryoLogic|7 years ago|reply
match.com: we would like to buy tinder.
tinder: for how much?
match.com: we will offer you our stock in exchange for yours at a fair valuation.
tinder: okay!
match: alrighty accountants, round down on everything and use the methodologies that provide tinder with the lowest valuation.
tinder: not fair!
[+] [-] rajacombinator|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bing_dai|7 years ago|reply
There's a similar plot in the Silicon Valley TV show (Piped Piper v.s. Hooli).
[+] [-] gnicholas|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mandeepj|7 years ago|reply
Match, Tinder and Bumble are in a weird relationship. Match tried to make an inappropriate pass atTinder, but she is not interested, so considers it as a sexual harassment. Same goes for Bumble.
This is a relationship 101. If they can't settle internally then they should leave this dating business :-)