Why it's relevant in my opinion? An old saying translates to something along the lines of "you are the sum of who support, live, work and play with", which I find tends to hold very true.
From what I've read, but haven't been able to look up sources (someone else might chip in here) - her demands for payment (settlements) have always equated to exactly or greater than the sums owed by both her and her husband to their respective creditors.
Edit: I believe she was discriminated against for not being a reliable/honest/good person to work with, not because of her gender.
2nd Edit: Having thought about it, I now agree with /u/obstinate below moreso - her husbands dealings have nothing to do with her. We only know of our partners doings from our partners themselves, so we can't truly be objective and tend to err on the side of trust and loyalty.
She felt as if she was discriminated against, so he likely supported her in her lawsuit. He's lost his business and a home, so of course she'll do what she can to support him.
I still reserve my personal opinion against both, as others will do from reading this against me. I'm leaving my original comment and edit for context.
"Based on the Trustee’s investigation, the answer to the question of why FILB had no meaningful assets at the time of the bankruptcy filing is principally that the Funds were victims of a fraud defined by the extensive use of wildly inflated valuations, the existence of fictitious assets under management (“AUM”) numbers, the improper payment of excessive fees, the misuse of investor money, and efforts wrongly to deny the Louisiana Pension Funds a key benefit of their investment agreement – mandatory redemption of their investment under certain circumstances. The Funds were also victims of an environment where self-interest all too often trumped fiduciary obligations."
I don't see anything in here about a conviction, and also nothing about Pao being the alleged perpetrator, and thus remain in a state of appalled disgust at what you have written.
But that just shows you don't understant the relevant word(s) and/or you haven't done any homework (like read even the cover page) on the trustee report.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1672...
From the defence:
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/25617...
--- Personal opinion below ----
Not necessarily relevant (I believe it is) but provides some more of a background is her husband (whom she married in 2007) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Fletcher.
Why it's relevant in my opinion? An old saying translates to something along the lines of "you are the sum of who support, live, work and play with", which I find tends to hold very true.
From what I've read, but haven't been able to look up sources (someone else might chip in here) - her demands for payment (settlements) have always equated to exactly or greater than the sums owed by both her and her husband to their respective creditors.
Edit: I believe she was discriminated against for not being a reliable/honest/good person to work with, not because of her gender.
2nd Edit: Having thought about it, I now agree with /u/obstinate below moreso - her husbands dealings have nothing to do with her. We only know of our partners doings from our partners themselves, so we can't truly be objective and tend to err on the side of trust and loyalty.
She felt as if she was discriminated against, so he likely supported her in her lawsuit. He's lost his business and a home, so of course she'll do what she can to support him.
I still reserve my personal opinion against both, as others will do from reading this against me. I'm leaving my original comment and edit for context.