Tinder Founders Sue Dating App's Owners For At Least $2 Billion (techcrunch.com) 26
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: A group of Tinder founders and executives has filed a lawsuit against parent company Match Group and its controlling shareholder IAC. The plaintiffs in the suit include Tinder co-founders Sean Rad, Justin Mateen and Jonathan Badeen -- Badeen still works at Tinder, as do plaintiffs James Kim (the company's vice president of finance) and Rosette Pambakian (its vice president of marketing and communications). 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. It points to the removal of Rad as CEO, as well as other management changes, as moves designed "to allow Defendants to control the valuation of Tinder and deprive Tinder optionholders of their right to participate in the company's future success."
The lawsuit also alleges that Greg Blatt, the Match CEO who became CEO of Tinder, groped and sexually harassed Pambakian at the company's 2016 holiday party, supposedly leading the company to "whitewash" his actions long enough for him to complete the valuation of Tinder and its merger with Match Group, and then to announce his departure. In response, the plaintiffs are asking for "compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $2,000,000,000." IAC and Match Group issued a statement denying the allegations: "...Match Group and the plaintiffs went through a rigorous, contractually-defined valuation process involving two independent global investment banks, and Mr. Rad and his merry band of plaintiffs did not like the outcome. Mr. Rad (who was dismissed from the Company a year ago) and Mr. Mateen (who has not been with the Company in years) may not like the fact that Tinder has experienced enormous success following their respective departures, but sour grapes alone do not a lawsuit make. Mr. Rad has a rich history of outlandish public statements, and this lawsuit contains just another series of them. We look forward to defending our position in court."
The lawsuit also alleges that Greg Blatt, the Match CEO who became CEO of Tinder, groped and sexually harassed Pambakian at the company's 2016 holiday party, supposedly leading the company to "whitewash" his actions long enough for him to complete the valuation of Tinder and its merger with Match Group, and then to announce his departure. In response, the plaintiffs are asking for "compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $2,000,000,000." IAC and Match Group issued a statement denying the allegations: "...Match Group and the plaintiffs went through a rigorous, contractually-defined valuation process involving two independent global investment banks, and Mr. Rad and his merry band of plaintiffs did not like the outcome. Mr. Rad (who was dismissed from the Company a year ago) and Mr. Mateen (who has not been with the Company in years) may not like the fact that Tinder has experienced enormous success following their respective departures, but sour grapes alone do not a lawsuit make. Mr. Rad has a rich history of outlandish public statements, and this lawsuit contains just another series of them. We look forward to defending our position in court."
TWO BEELLION DOLLARS (Score:1)
This article? (Score:1)
I swiped left.
Why did they sell out? (Score:2)
Whenever I see a smaller company sell out to a massive one, then the founders of the small company bitch about being screwed over and losing control, I ask myself that.
If you sell out, you're being paid for your company, and are no longer going to be in charge.
If you want to stay in charge, don't sell out.
I find it absurd that Match pretty much owns all online dating now. I realize that it can be hard to say no to a lot of money, but if you created something cool and want to stay in control of it, why sell?
Re: (Score:3)
I find it absurd that Match pretty much owns all online dating now. I realize that it can be hard to say no to a lot of money, but if you created something cool and want to stay in control of it, why sell?
I didn't realize this, but - apparently Match's parent IAC has owned Tinder since day one.
https://www.quora.com/How-much... [quora.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Somebody bought somebody.... you don't go
through a rigorous, contractually-defined valuation process involving two independent global investment banks
if you already own the other entity.
I mean... the whole point of this article is that they are in dispute of the previously established purchase valuation.
Re: (Score:1)
You generally don't get to the valuation that Tinder had with a single majority share holder, thus many people need to agree to sell. It is possible that the people in the lawsuit never wanted to sell.
Also, the way those things work (having seen it somewhat up close once), is that Match agreed to pay $100M for Tinder, with an additional 4 extra payments of $50M if certain milestones are met. (I am making numbers up of course).
It is thus in the interest of Match that the Tinder subsidiary does not meet those
Re: (Score:2)
Two reasons. One is obviously for the money. The other is because otherwise you're facing a sustained competition with a huge company. Which is pretty hard, and can easily leave you with nothing (or a lot less than selling out.) I mean, a case study is to look at Snapchat vs. Instagram.
Not that Snapchat's founders seem upset to have lost ? billions in return for staying independent, but it was a real choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Huge company, you are kidding right, your joking I know it, they are a nothing company, another social fad company. All those social media companies are nothing but their users, lose the users and their is nothing there, they cease to exist and like all fads it is just a matter of time because INFINITE GREED. Shareholders will demand they monetise those users because the company is making fuck all money compared to the stock valuations, so when growth dies, either the monetise those users or the company die
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is the fifth-most-valuable company in the world. While that may seem dumb to you, it means they could absorb, say, Disney and Ford and give up half of Facebook (numbers guesses, but probably accurate enough).
Yeah, FB could fail as a network, which is why FB as a company is so intent on buying the next hot thing: Instagram, WhatsApp, Snapchat(failed there). And investing in whatever else seems like the future: Oculus.
Re: (Score:2)
If you sell out, you're being paid for your company, and are no longer going to be in charge.
Congratulations. You have distilled hundreds of pages of contracts with thousands of man hours of lawyer negotiations into own woefully inadequate sentence.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, since, at least, 1936. [loweringthebar.net]
Kinda makes you wonder... (Score:1)
Fewer Than Half of Young Americans Are Positive About Capitalism [slashdot.org]
... maybe they are onto something.
Don't sell out, you jackasses (Score:2)
The lesson to be learned here is not to get impatient and greedy when you have a promising company; don't sell out to the first bastard who dangles a big wad of acquisition (or IPO) cash in your face.
Re: (Score:2)
The point was that they never should have had another "owner" in the first place. They had to sell the original company in the first place to get into the current mess.
Re: (Score:2)
I met my wife on a dating website.
(I regret it now, but it has nothing to do with the website, the website was fine, my choices were shit)
Re: (Score:2)
Did someone say "SCROTUS"?