6 ms·

"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 ago
Kleiner Perkins offered her $1M not to appeal.
- nimos 11y ago
  They 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 ago
What 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 ago
  righteousness == $2.7M ?
  - PythonicAlpha 11y ago
    That 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 ago
      albertop, 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 ago
        Ok, 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 ago
      I 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 ago
        Yes, 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Anyone care to explain something that I might be missing? Perhaps her primary concern isn't a cash payout.
  - AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
    Were that the case she wouldn't offer to drop her appeal for $2.7 million.
    - WalterGR 11y ago
      Her 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 ago
        I'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 ago
It 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...

tomlongson 11y ago

Kleiner Perkins offered her $1M not to appeal.

nimos 11y ago
They 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 ago

What 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 ago
righteousness == $2.7M ?
- PythonicAlpha 11y ago
  That 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 ago
    albertop, 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 ago
      Ok, 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      Yes, 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 ago

I 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 ago
Anyone care to explain something that I might be missing? Perhaps her primary concern isn't a cash payout.
- AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
  Were that the case she wouldn't offer to drop her appeal for $2.7 million.
  - WalterGR 11y ago
    Her 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 ago
      I'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 ago

It 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...