Here is my question. Please DO NOT copy-paste the answer that is already given in chegg.com that seems incomplete describe answers at least in 7-8 lines (details) in your own words THANK YOU.

1) Should the Winklevoss have had their claims of fraud decided by the court?

2) Did anyone act unethically in this case?

CASE 9.1 FEDERAL COURT CASE Contract Facebook, Inc. v. Winklevoss 640 F.3d 1034, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 7430 (2011) United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit "At some point, litigation must come to an end. That agreement, the Winklevosses agreed to give up their point has now been reached." claims in exchange for cash and Facebook stock. The Winklevosses were to receive $20 million in cash and -Kozinski, Circuit Judge $45 million in Facebook stock, valued at $36 per share. Facts The parties stipulated that the settlement agree- Mark Zuckerberg, Cameron Winklevoss, Tyler ment was confidential and binding and may be sub- Winklevoss, and Divya Narendra were schoolmates mitted into evidence to enforce it." The agreement at Harvard University. The Winklevoss twins, along granted all parties mutual releases. The agreement with Narendra, started a company called ConnectU. stated that the Winklevosses represented and war- They alleged that Zuckerberg stole their idea and cre- ranted that "they have no further right to assert ated Facebook, and they filed a lawsuit against Face against Facebook" and have "no further claims book and Zuckerberg. The court ordered the parties against Facebook and its related parties." Facebook to mediate their dispute. After a day of negotiations, became an extremely successful social networking the parties signed a handwritten, one-and-one-third- site, with its value exceeding over $30 billion at the page "Term Sheet & Settlement Agreement." In the time the next legal dispute arose. ructs Subsequently, in a lawsuit, the Winklevosses brought claims against Facebook and Zuckerberg, alleging that Facebook and Zuckerberg had engaged in fraud at the time of forming the settlement agree- ment. The Winklevosses alleged that Facebook and Zuckerberg had misled them into believing that Face- book shares were worth S36 per share at the time of settlement, when in fact an internal Facebook document valued the stock at 88.88 per share for tax code purposes. The Winklevosses sought to rescind the settlement agreement. The U.S. district court enforced the settlement agreement. The Winkle- vosses appealed. adversaries in a roughly equivalent bargain ing position and with ready access to coun- sel sign an agreement to "establish a general peace," we enforce the clear terms of the agreement. There are also very important policies that favor giving effect to agreements that put an end to the expensive and disruptive process of liti- gation. For whatever reason, the Winklevosses now want to back out. Like the district court, we see no basis for allowing them to do so. At some point, litigation must come to an end. That point has now been reached. Issue Is the settlement agreement enforceable? Decision The U.S. court of appeals upheld the decision of the U.S. district court that enforced the settlement agreement. Language of the Court The Winklevosses are sophisticated parties who were locked in a contentious struggle over ownership rights in one of the world's fastest-growing companies. They brought half-a-dozen lawyers to the mediation. When Critical Legal Thinking Questions Should the Winklevosses have had their claims of fraud decided by the court? Did anyone act unethically in this case