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
I understand your defensiveness, but the article did not even imply that the CEO was directly implicated. That said, I think it is still at some level their responsibility if this fraud turns out to be true; “the person whose P&L was directly tied to these resales” still had ever stricter OKR’s they had to answer for, and apparently no double-checking or auditing was done because that person’s boss didn’t want to know. They were rewarded for numbers going up and to the right, as was their boss, as was their boss, up to the CEO.

Sorry, I just tire of narratives where when a corporation does something morally wrong, it’s the fault of nebulous capitalist hyper-optimization and no individuals are held accountable.

>>kevinv+NB
We need to make evidence based judgements, not accusation based judgements.

I'm tired of the outage-clickbait.

I'm here to learn, not to be emotionally manipulated.

>>koheri+ME
There's evidence from one side in the lawsuits, while the defendants have so far declined to submit any for scrutiny. In any case, the title of this submission says that Fedex is 'accused' of fraud rather than having been found guilty of it, so you knew what you were getting before you clicked; you could have just ignored it.

>>anigbr+jN
When someone files a complaint against you with a court of appropriate jurisdiction to start a lawsuit, your only sane option is to file an answer. The complaint lists their allegations point by point. The answer either admits or denies each allegation, point by point.

It is not surprising that FedEx has declined to submit evidence for scrutiny. It’s not time for that yet. They will be required to do so in discovery and they better hope they can at trial but right now we should not expect to hear anything from them other than “admit, deny, insufficient basis to form a belief and therefore deny.”

It’s just too early for an evidence based discussion. This is the nature of the civil action.

>>single+W31
There's absolutely nothing preventing them asserting their version of events and following up with evidentiary filings within a reasonable timeframe. Just like there's nothing preventing corporations from admitting liability and apologizing, but they generally prefer to settle instead and never ever admit fault, thanks to the pernicious doctrine of maximizing shareholder value.

>>anigbr+l51
There’s no value in presenting your evidence in the court of public opinion and intrigue. Argue your position in an actual court, where and when it matters. If a bunch of impatient people over-react to hearing only one side’s argument, so be it; you’ll exhaust yourself trying to convince them anyway and, in general, their opinion isn’t worth swaying.

>>sokolo+Jd1
Of course there is, perception matters or companies wouldn't have PR departments. They shove their brands in the public's face 24/7 with messages about how great they are but when they look bad they put on an air of injured dignity and cite platitudes about the legal system. The reality is that corporations usually just hope to exhaust plaintiffs in the legal system instead.

I went to law school and am married to someone who works in litigation at a top 10 law firm, I understand very well how the legal process works both technically and in economic/strategic terms.

>>anigbr+Kv1
Would companies prefer to have their PR departments talking about positive things the company is doing or refreshing and giving voice to an accusation of odometer rollbacks? I read nothing into FedEx’s silence on the topic, other than they are being run by adults taking competent advice.