"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."
[0]http://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-percentage-of-lawsu...
It's easy to say she should have settled in hindsight but if she had won big we'd be saying KP should have offered her more.
Anyone care to explain something that I might be missing?
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.
$2.7 million is the exact amount that her husband owes in legal
fees regarding that ponzi scheme he supposedly ran.
At the end of the day, what are we to do? Trust juries as the final arbiter, when we know that they're not infallible? Trust reddit - same, if not more? Has her husband been convicted of running a Ponzi scheme - or is it merely "alleged"? Did literally none of EP's lawyers think, "You know... that number is too obvious. We should fudge it a little."?
Armchair quarterbacks. :)
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.
Some things just go beyond figures ...
I am not a native speaker, so I might have been misunderstood ...??
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?
.. or, 2.7m = righteousness
Still, without knowing the details, it is difficult to judge over a persons motives.