14 ms·
Ellen Pao owes Kleiner Perkins $276,000 for lawsuit costs: judge
- dylanjermiah 11y ago"Pao, who has said she would appeal, has offered to drop her case for $2.7 million, Kleiner Perkins said in a court filing earlier this month."
- tomlongson 11y agoKleiner Perkins offered her $1M not to appeal.
- nimos 11y agoThey offered her $1M not to go to trial. I believe they offered to not go after her for legal fees if she agreed to not appeal.
- PythonicAlpha 11y agoWhat do you want to say? Should everybody just pick the money and run? Without knowing the details of the case and the reasoning of the people, it also could be possible that this woman was not looking for the money, but righteousness. And no, I am not convinced (without knowing any details), that because the judgement was against her, that this is justness. (I have seen so many unjust judgments in my own country that where based on the fact, that one side had the better lawyers or better experts they hired) Jurisdiction in human hands can always be an approximation of justness.
- albertop 11y agorighteousness == $2.7M ?
- PythonicAlpha 11y agoThat is just the opposite of what I tried to say. I am not a native speaker, so I might have been misunderstood ...?? Some things just go beyond figures ...
- lugg 11y agoalbertop, and I, are confused by your post, because you are defending her decision to refuse the 1 million with "righteousness" but must have missed the part of the article where it states she counter offered to settle for 2.7 million. .. or, 2.7m = righteousness
- PythonicAlpha 11y agoOk, that was a detail, I simply misunderstood. I thought, that she refused the settlement and wanted to bring it to court. Still, without knowing the details, it is difficult to judge over a persons motives.
- WalterGR 11y agoI am not a native speaker, so I might have been misunderstood ...?? No, you weren't. In the U.S. the primary way to get redress in these kinds of situations is a lawsuit with a concrete financial reward. And to some people, the seeking of a financial reward implies only the desire for the financial reward. So by that logic: by virtue of seeking redress you're only out for some cold hard cash. And what easier reason is there to decide to not believe a person's claims?
- PythonicAlpha 11y agoYes, it seems to be a little two-faced. You are stupid, if you don't take hard cash, but when you do, you are called crooked.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- rnovak 11y agoI get that people will probably disagree, but she just seems to not make very good business decisions. Maybe I'm way off base, but I've read a bunch of well qualified lawyers say that juries are just plain unpredictable, and that no competent lawyer can "guarantee" to win. In that light, even if the $1M settlement wasn't what you're asking for, I would think it paints a better picture of you than losing and having to pay the other side? Anyone care to explain something that I might be missing?
- WalterGR 11y agoAnyone care to explain something that I might be missing? Perhaps her primary concern isn't a cash payout.
- AnkhMorporkian 11y agoWere that the case she wouldn't offer to drop her appeal for $2.7 million.
- WalterGR 11y agoHer offering a high or higher number doesn't imply that she was only out for cash. Perhaps that amount was what she considered sufficient to punish KP appropriately. And for the record: Consider this statement as me playing the race card. But look: I wasn't on the jury, and I haven't reviewed the court records, and like everyone else here I'm playing armchair quarterback.
- AnkhMorporkian 11y agoI'm not making any judgements on the case itself; I didn't follow it at all beyond blurbs I heard here on HN and on reddit. However, part of what I heard and just now validated is that $2.7 million is the exact amount that her husband owes in legal fees regarding that ponzi scheme he supposedly ran. If the numbers didn't match up exactly I might have a different reaction, but with that settlement amount it seems entirely pragmatic, not principled.
- ctrlfrk 11y agoIt has been pointed out that $2.7 Million is exactly the amount that her husband owes in unpaid legal bills: http://nypost.com/2015/02/18/case-builds-against-former-ny-hedgie-buddy-fletcher/ http://nypost.com/2015/02/18/case-builds-against-former-ny-h...
- jrockway 11y agoReddit is a "microblogging company"?
- raldi 11y agoGreat reporting by the bicycle-repair shop known as Reuters.
- comex 11y agoI thought they were an Australian-themed maker of networking equipment that forwards data between different networks.
- zedadex 11y ago> an Australian-themed maker of networking equipment "We build networks and get in fights"
- Andrenid 11y agoNot to mention there's a typo: > because she is woman. If you're going to credit an editor at the bottom, they should probably learn to edit something so simple that Word would've picked it up automatically.
- macspoofing 11y agoIt's as good as any description.
- tomlongson 11y agoRelated, over 10k people has petitioned for her to step down from her position at reddit: https://www.change.org/p/ellen-k-pao-step-down-as-ceo-of-reddit-inc https://www.change.org/p/ellen-k-pao-step-down-as-ceo-of-red...
- vernie 11y agoIt's clearly about ethics in link sharing.
- minimaxir 11y agoNot related at all. That's related to Reddit drama and Reddit drama alone.
- whyenot 11y agoHow is that related to her lawsuit? It seems completely unrelated to me. In any case, 10k "people" (it's easy to game these things) is just a drop in the bucket of reddit's userbase.
- ekianjo 11y agoBecause someone suing for false claims is now at the head of Reddit, and she has the power to censor things she does not like (and actively uses it). I'd day it's related.
- krschultz 11y agoNot proving her case and making false claims are two different things.
- gooeyblob 11y agoWhat evidence do you have that she actively uses it?
- Karunamon 11y agoThere've been some rather high-profile shadowbans (hellban/otherwise you're banned but don't know it) issued against people who did apparently did nothing but publicly state that Pao is a scam artist. Given that those comments don't actually violate any of Reddit's stated rules, there aren't many other reasonable explanations. Then again, I called every single one of them liars, publicly, by name, after the recent subreddit closing drama, and I'm not shadowbanned so, who knows.
- minimaxir 11y agoIf the cost of work is $229k, and the reward is $276k, then why is there a $47k difference? Making the defendants whole?
- phkahler 11y agoWhy is there any award at all? I keep hearing that defending a case can bankrupt a person or company that doesn't have deep pockets even if they are successful. Why do these guys get reimbursed?
- michaelhoffman 11y agoThey only get reimbursed for some costs. In this case, chiefly witness fees. They probably paid hundreds of thousands in fees to lawyers which are not reimbursed.
- pixel 11y agoThe $229k was simply the Jude's guess at the cost. The firm stated it was 865k.
- pixel 11y agoWhy does she have to pay the legal fees incurred by the defendants because she tried to extort money? Is that what you're asking? She has to pay because she lost, and they weren't doing anything wrong.
- WalterGR 11y ago...she tried to extort money? ...she lost, and they weren't doing anything wrong. Sorry, sarcasm doesn't carry well over the Internet... Are you saying that because she lost that implies that she was engaging in extortion?
- obstinate 11y agoCorrection: when you sue someone and lose, that does not necessarily mean you were extorting them. In fact, it almost necessarily precludes extortion, since extortion is the act of threatening to reveal a damaging secret unless you are conpensated. It also doesn't necessarily mean that the defendants did nothing wrong, as in the example of failed lawsuits against the NSA.
- mberning 11y agoThis will surely be flagged just like all the other less than favorable posts about her and her tenure at Reddit.
- arca_vorago 11y agoI highly suggest reading this before forming an opinion on the matter. Keep in mind who wrote it as well. https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/256174979-Kleiner-Perkins-brief.pdf https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/25617...
- twir 11y agoVery interesting - thanks for sharing. Is there a corresponding brief by the plaintiff? I'd like to see both sides of the story.
- atorralb 11y agoOne thing is for sure, Ellen Pao is not liked in Reddit.
- cjensen 11y agoBecause of the ban on groups which actively harass others? Or is there another reason?
- obstinate 11y agoWell, she's a woman, which alone is enough to catch a lot of heat on Reddit.
- BinaryIdiot 11y agoI'm not sure that's accurate. I rarely see women get "heat" on reddit but once someone identifies as a women they seem to get far more comments, many even sexual. I'd say women get hit on versus catching heat.
- obstinate 11y agoDear lord. Are you telling me you believe unsolicited sexual advances in response to any non-sexual thing one might post is desirable to women? News flash: it ain't. If you think that women aren't treated badly on Reddit, go to /R/shitredditsays. If you have a problem with the politics of that group, you need not read the comments. Just peruse the linked posts. A pattern quickly begins to emerge.
- cactusface 11y agoI think he just means that sexual harassment is different from "heat", however you want to define that.
- obstinate 11y ago
- pushnpop 11y agoChairwoman Pao owes every penny. She was not discriminated against because she is a woman, she was discriminated against because she is a terrible employee, venture capitalist, and person. She sued Kleiner because she wanted to pay off the debt her scumbag husband owes for fraud. http://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletcher-ellen-pao http://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletch...
- krschultz 11y agoGo back to reddit. This comment is over the line. Your other comment in this discussion is even worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9736628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9736628
- _s 11y agoFrom the prosecution: https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1672582/pao-complaint.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1672... From the defence: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/256174979-Kleiner-Perkins-brief.pdf https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/25617... --- Personal opinion below ---- Not necessarily relevant (I believe it is) but provides some more of a background is her husband (whom she married in 2007) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Fletcher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Fletcher. Why it's relevant in my opinion? An old saying translates to something along the lines of "you are the sum of who support, live, work and play with", which I find tends to hold very true. From what I've read, but haven't been able to look up sources (someone else might chip in here) - her demands for payment (settlements) have always equated to exactly or greater than the sums owed by both her and her husband to their respective creditors. Edit: I believe she was discriminated against for not being a reliable/honest/good person to work with, not because of her gender. 2nd Edit: Having thought about it, I now agree with /u/obstinate below moreso - her husbands dealings have nothing to do with her. We only know of our partners doings from our partners themselves, so we can't truly be objective and tend to err on the side of trust and loyalty. She felt as if she was discriminated against, so he likely supported her in her lawsuit. He's lost his business and a home, so of course she'll do what she can to support him. I still reserve my personal opinion against both, as others will do from reading this against me. I'm leaving my original comment and edit for context.
- obstinate 11y agoIt is disgusting that you think it's acceptable to tar someone with the alleged crimes of their spouse.
- _s 11y agoTrustee report: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/1127fletchertrustee.pdf http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/1127fletche... Token paragraph at the end of page 13: "Based on the Trustee’s investigation, the answer to the question of why FILB had no meaningful assets at the time of the bankruptcy filing is principally that the Funds were victims of a fraud defined by the extensive use of wildly inflated valuations, the existence of fictitious assets under management (“AUM”) numbers, the improper payment of excessive fees, the misuse of investor money, and efforts wrongly to deny the Louisiana Pension Funds a key benefit of their investment agreement – mandatory redemption of their investment under certain circumstances. The Funds were also victims of an environment where self-interest all too often trumped fiduciary obligations."
- daggerhashimoto 11y agooh herro
- Steko 11y agoThis thread provides a nice crash course in the mentality and tactics that KiA and related manbaby trolls and hate groups are polluting reddit/the Internet with. Every act of moderation is Ellen Pao's fault, here's a bunch of unsubstantiated FUD about how everyone who got moderated was innocent and we'll constantly repeat these peripheral allegations about her husband. It's incredibly transparent and shameless. "Downvote them all, it's the only way to be sure." - Susan B Anthony
- obstinate 11y agoMy big question is: are we ever going to get past this crap? Or is this the enlightened future of discourse. I guess I'm just getting old -- the gish gallop isn't new, but this form feels more terrible and insidious.
- hoopd 11y agoThe sad statement about the level of discourse is that you apparently care about it but still think granparent comment qualifies. It even breaks the first two rules of HN commenting guidelines: be civil, don't call people names.
- obstinate 11y agoI'm cool with calling sexists names, HN guidelines notwithstanding.
- hoopd 11y agoMaybe you only speak of the future of discourse because it's a deep sounding insult, but if you actually care I encourage you to read this essay and reconsider your acceptance of namecalling. http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
- obstinate 11y agoI have read this essay a number of times. While I agree it is great, it has an assumption of good faith on the part of the counterparty that I find unsubstantiated in terms of sexists, including many of the anti-Pao folks in this thread. If your discourse consists mostly of repeating unsubstantiated rumors or outright falsehoods, or are otherwise laced with misogyny, like the induhviduals who have made comments about her husband, I feel there's a point at which it is fine for me to give up on you. At that point, the best way to raise the level of discourse is to remove the bad actors from the conversation.
- tzs 11y agoThe long Vanity Fair article from 2013 on Pao and Fletcher that someone else linked to is actually really interesting, but the comments that included the link were inflammatory and derailed discussion, so I'm guessing many people who would have enjoyed the Vanity Fair article skipped it. Here's the link: http://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletcher-ellen-pao http://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletch... AMC or HBO or Netflix could make a pretty interesting TV show out of this.