This article slings a lot of mud but little of it sticks. The main thrust of their issue is (paraphrasing) &quot;He should have been paid about 470K, not 1.1mil&quot; (before he cut his pay and gave it to his staff).<p>But in a private business the owners can pay themselves whatever they want as long as all owners agree to it. The lawsuit is likely related to how not all owners agreeing with his 1.1 mil pay packet, and the article is arguing that his decision to cut it and give it away was because he knew the lawsuit was incoming (to head it off, essentially).<p>They try to raise a lot of other issues (e.g. that he claimed client turnover was 30%, when they claim it is 16% and up, but definitely less than 30%), but much of it comes across as almost petty, like they had one big interesting claim and tried to pad it out with a bunch of minor mis-speaking or other miscellaneous issues.<p>Ultimately it reads like a hit piece. Really they&#x27;re just re-hashing the lawsuit and have nothing else to add of value.