The article is not very well written, but the thrust of the article isn&#x27;t that Price is overpaid (although the authors clearly think he is, and it&#x27;s a little hard to argue that he wasn&#x27;t).<p>The main thrust is that the narrative Price has been putting forward about the nature of the litigation against him is false. The evidence suggests that rather than being sued by his brother because his mass employee raise robbed the brother of profits, the raise was instead a tactic he used to minimize the profits of the company and thus his brother&#x27;s claims on those profits.<p>That&#x27;s because it turns out the lawsuit predates the raises, even though Dan Price denies that, even when confronted by the reporter with evidence to the contrary.