Chancery Court Tosses Claims Against Winklevoss Twins Over $1.3M Magazine Investment
Friday's ruling, from Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III, came in the brother's Winklevoss Capital Fund's 2018 lawsuit accusing one-time partner Stephen Shaw of mismanaging Treats!, which operates a print and digital magazine depicting nude and semi-nude photography of models and celebrities.
March 04, 2019 at 02:27 PM
3 minute read
The Delaware Court of Chancery has dismissed counterclaims against internet entrepreneurs Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, ruling that allegations the twins had failed to publicly promote their $1.3 million investment in a magazine venture had been filed too late.
Friday's ruling, from Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III, came in the brother's Winklevoss Capital Fund's 2018 lawsuit accusing one-time partner Stephen Shaw of mismanaging Treats!, a Delaware limited liability company, which operates a print and digital magazine depicting nude and semi-nude photography of models and celebrities.
Shaw responded last year by filing counterclaims for fraud and promissory estoppel against the Winklevoss twins, claiming in court documents that they had refused to honor an agreement in 2012 to promote the magazine, following their depiction in Aaron Sorkin's film “The Social Network,” which portrayed the early days of Facebook. Instead, Shaw said, Cameron and Tyler had strung Treats! along for months in order to gain access to his social circles for their own purposes and later demanded to be bought out for their investment.
According to court documents, Shaw grew frustrated with the Winklevoss twins' involvement by December 2012, after he turned down Tyler's request to arrange a “special casting” with models so that he could “shag” them. At the time, the brothers had also been pressing Shaw and his team to promote Hukkster, an online e-commerce company that they had also invested in, Shaw said.
However, Slights said Friday that Shaw's allegations were time-barred by Delaware's three-year statute of limitations on claims for fraud and promissory estoppel, and the case, he said, fit the rare conditions for applying the equitable doctrine of laches at the pleading stage.
According to Slights' opinion, Shaw had privately accused the Winklevoss twins as early as June 2013 of breaking their promise to promote the Treats! brand, but still chose not to pursue his claims for nearly five years.
“Defendants had every opportunity to do just that, but they inexplicably chose not to until after plaintiffs filed this lawsuit well beyond the expiration of the statute of limitations on the counterclaims,” Slights wrote in a 29-page memorandum opinion.
While Delaware case law does allow late-filed claims to proceed under “unusual conditions” or extraordinary circumstances,” Slights said none of those factors existed in regard to Shaw's allegations.
“Defendants have not carried their burden under any of the tolling theories they have proffered for the simple reason that facts giving rise to their counterclaims were never hidden from them,” he said.
“Defendants were well aware of these potential claims; they simply failed to file them on time.”
Slight's has yet to rule on Winklevoss Capital Fund's claims against Shaw and Treats!
An attorney for Shaw did not immediately respond to a call Monday seeking comment on the ruling. An attorney for the Winklevoss brothers was not immediately available to comment.
The Winklevoss twins are represented by Charles J. Harder of Harder in Beverly Hills, California, and P. Clarkson Collins Jr. and Albert J. Carroll of Morris James in Wilmington.
Shaw and Treats! are represented by Carlos F. Gonzalez of Rimon in Coral Gables, Florida, and Matthew Pace from the firm's New York office. Richard G. Placey of Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads in Wilmington is acting as local counsel.
The case is captioned Winklevoss Capital Fund v. Shaw.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllEx-DLA Piper, Ballard Spahr Atty Accused of Aiding Video Game Company Founder's Misappropriation Scheme
5 minute read'Faithless Fiduciaries': Live Nation Faces Chancery Litigation Amid Anticompetition Allegations
2 minute readThird Circuit Ruling Saying College Athletes Can Be Employees Leaves 'Lots of Open Questions'
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250