zlacker

>>cwwc+(OP)
I'd encourage a bit more skepticism to this article. While this accusation could possibly be true, there are two things to keep in mind, which I am sharing having experience as a founder/CEO who has gone from startup to IPO:

1) This is taken from a complaint in a class action lawsuit. Class action lawyers are very similar to patent trolls whereby they can spin almost any story they want. And journalists go for clicks, so they amplify the sensationalism. It doesn't mean this is one of those, but a class action complaint should not just blindly be trusted.

2) There is a strong theme of "of course execs lie cheat steal at every turn" and I also think this narrative should be questioned. Ethics aside, the level of compliance in a public company is insanely high. Execs are already rich. To risk jailtime, which fraud can lead to, you'd need to see something more existential than slightly increasing margins on used van sales.

I felt inclined to comment as I've been on the other end of articles like this, and it is astounding the level of mind reading people have done into my intent and actions on things that were factually just not true at all. I also truly would find it very difficult to commit a broad organizational fraud even if I wanted to and my company is only 500 people.

If I had to make a prediction, the case is less black and white than it appears, and if there was fraud, it was probably committed at a non-executive level by the person whose P&L was directly tied to these resales. Or, it was done independently by the much smaller leasing company where this was more existential to them. It is highly unlikely to be a Fed Ex executive-level conspiracy.

I'm sure there are a few counter examples, such as say the VW emissions scandal, but I would counter these were the exceptions that proved the rule and in general when the C-level was involved was much higher stakes.

>>crhull+0y
A few counter examples. Lol.

Asbestos in talcum powder. PFAS exposure and dumping into public water supplies. Monsanto and roundup. Cigarettes health effects. Climate change from burning hydrocarbons. Norfolk southern and the controlled burn in east palistine. I could literally go on and on about the history of execs poisoning people and the planet while knowing full well about it. All to keep the profit margin, but you know this stuff you’re just willfully ignoring it.

If you’re an ethical executive, you’re a unicorn.

>>MarkMa+IR
I agree with your first paragraph. The last sentence is a stretch though. The fact that there were multiple execs who were blatantly unethical doesn't mean most execs are unethical.

>>playin+Mi1
Would it be better if I listed every instance of executives choosing to poison people, willfully put them in dangerous working conditions to save some money against the law, releasing products they knew would maim people or kill people… all for marginal increases in share price? It’s a long freaking list.

This is the way this system is setup. Executives pursue profit at the expense of everything else. This is the cornerstone of capitalism.