A liar of the worst kind... Dan Price

[elchorizo]

Gravity Payments CEO Dan Price hasn't actually mortgaged his homes, property records show - GeekWire

The more and more I read about this guy the more I see him as a total scumbag.. Not only has he lied about all the important aspects of what he's done, it seems to me that he did it to screw his brother out of money, not out of some altruistic reason as he claimed.

This makes him a scumbag of the worst kind, IMHO.

 

[drumsofgrohl]

I hadn't heard much about Price, but he does seem like a lying POS. Smart guy, but dishonest. If he did in fact make the $70,000 minimum wage after he'd been sued from his brother, that would not just invalidate all of his altruism, but it would make him the WORST kind of human: one who appeals to human emotion and decency to further his villainous agenda.
TBS, it might be a little early to jump to these conclusions. Just because there's no record of the mortgages, doesn't confirm (YET) that nothing's been done about them. Probably, but not for sure. Maybe give him the benefit of the doubt, and wait to see his response to this accusation.

 

[cereal_killer]

Scandalous......the silence on their end is deafening and a tell tale sign that they don't know how to spin this deception. I agree that this makes him a total douche if true

 

[elchorizo]

It's not just the mortgage, but he lied about the timing of the minimum wage change and said it was before the lawsuit when it clearly was after the lawsuit...

Couple more articles here: The CEO Paying Everyone $70,000 Salaries Has Something to Hide

Here's What Really Happened at That Company That Set a $70,000 Minimum Wage

And now he is doing a book and trying to make money off of all of this, and that is money his brother won't be able to touch.

 

[FFARL]

It's crazy that people think they can get away with stuff like that. Fact checkers are everywhere.

 

[drumsofgrohl]

It's not just the mortgage, but he lied about the timing of the minimum wage change and said it was before the lawsuit when it clearly was after the lawsuit...

I'm not sure when the INC article was written, but it says

The suit was filed on April 24, 11 days after the pay-raise announcement -- perhaps to pressure Dan to sell when Gravity was in the limelight, thus maximizing the value of Lucas's share.

 

[elchorizo]

This is from the Bloomberg article. Due to the way lawsuits are filed there, the file date is actually much later than the date with which he was served and knew about it..

But there’s a problem with all those scenarios: The lawsuit predates the raise. Lucasdid file the case two weeks after Price’s announcement, but according to court records, Price was served with the suit at his house on the afternoon of March 16—about two weeks before the fabled hike with his friend and almost a month before the wage increase announcement. Washington state allows litigants to serve a defendant before a suit is filed with the court. Hollon, Lucas’s attorney, says Price informed his brother of the pay hike through an e-mail on April 9, only four days before the New York Times and NBC descended on Seattle. (Pirkle said that in a later document, Lucas “specifically referenced” the wage hike as grounds for the case. Hollon responded that the May document added the pay increase as “one of the potential factual bases supporting the claims in the lawsuit” since “the wage program appeared to be a reaction by Dan to the lawsuit.”)

Then further, and silence....

The lawsuit is light on details, but it claims that Price “improperly used his majority control of the company” to overpay himself, in the process reducing what Lucas was due. “Daniel’s actions have been burdensome, harsh and wrongful, and have shown a lack of fair dealing toward Lucas,” the suit alleges. It asks for unspecified damages and that Price buy out Lucas’s interest in Gravity. Hollon said the lawsuit was the culmination of “years” of efforts to resolve Lucas’s concerns. Price “on several occasions suggested to Lucas that if Lucas didn’t like Dan’s actions regarding Lucas’s rights as a shareholder, Lucas should seek legal remedies,” Hollon wrote in an e-mail. “Prior to the lawsuit, Dan had made clear that he would only engage with Lucas through Lucas’s counsel.”

If the lawsuit wasn’t a reaction to the wage hike, could it have been the other way around? After all, Price announced his magnanimous act a month after his brother sued him for, in essence, being greedy. Lowering his pay could give Price negotiating leverage, too. “With profits, at least in the short term, shifted to salaries, there is little left over to buy out his brother,” the New York Times reported Price said.

In a follow-up interview in mid-November, I pressed Price about the inconsistency. How could what he told me about being served two weeks after announcing the raise be true when the court records indicated otherwise?

“Umm, I’m not, I have to look,” he said.

The court document, I said, definitely says March 16.

“I am only aware of the suit being initiated after the raise,” he replied.

“The court record shows you being served on March 16 ... at 1:25 p.m.,” I said. “And actually, your answer to it was dated April 3,” also before the pay hike.

“I am only aware of the suit being initiated after the raise,” he repeated.

I asked again how that could be, saying the declaration of service shows Price was served with the complaint, the summons, and other documents, “that you are a male, who is white, age 30, 5-feet-8-inches, medium height, dark hair.”

He paused for 20 seconds. “Are you there?” he asked, then twice repeated his statement that he was only aware of the suit being initiated in late April. “I’d be happy to answer any other questions you may have,” he added.

 

[NickJ]

How can anyone expect to get away with a blatant lie like that when there is so much information available to literally anyone with an internet connection?

 

[elchorizo]

How can anyone expect to get away with a blatant lie like that when there is so much information available to literally anyone with an internet connection?

I don't think he expected it to blow up as much as it did. Probably did it to make the company books look worse, and thus the company worth less so he would have to pay his brother less... which is just a messed up thing to do after you already over-payed yourself at the expense of your brother. This guy just sounds like a scumbag all around.

 

[drumsofgrohl]

Yeah, the guys a scumbag.

 

[NickJ]

I cannot help but think of the ordeal that Zuck has brought upon himself with his donation to a "foundation" which isn't a foundation at all, but instead an LLC that incidentally he owns.

Critics say Mark Zuckerberg isn't quite 'giving' away his wealth

In a sense his altruistic "gift" looks more like a shift of wealth into a tax shelter to me.

 

[elchorizo]

I cannot help but think of the ordeal that Zuck has brought upon himself with his donation to a "foundation" which isn't a foundation at all, but instead an LLC that incidentally he owns.

Critics say Mark Zuckerberg isn't quite 'giving' away his wealth

In a sense his altruistic "gift" looks more like a shift of wealth into a tax shelter to me.

I feel the same way. There's a German billionaire that said the same thing...

Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

How can anyone expect to get away with a blatant lie like that when there is so much information available to literally anyone with an internet connection?

Hillary Clinton will be nominated by democrats.

 

[drumsofgrohl]

I cannot help but think of the ordeal that Zuck has brought upon himself with his donation to a "foundation" which isn't a foundation at all, but instead an LLC that incidentally he owns.

Critics say Mark Zuckerberg isn't quite 'giving' away his wealth

In a sense his altruistic "gift" looks more like a shift of wealth into a tax shelter to me.

I feel the same way. There's a German billionaire that said the same thing...

Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

Thats an interesting article. There's a contradiction, however.

The rich either give their money to the Government via taxes, and in this economy, that means they give the most (of the economic classes) to the government; or they create their own philanthropic endeavors, avoid more taxes, and give to the programs they care about personally, rather than helping the country (philanthropy does help the country, but indirectly, and also not inherently).

Isn't this (and maybe I'm wrong) a fundamental argument of wealthy conservatives? That they don't want big government to take their money and spend it on whatever it deems "good" (i.e. social programs), and that they should be able to help the world as they please (i.e. "charity")?