343

“It seemed doomed almost from the moment they decided to go to a sealed bid,” Judge Lopez said. “Nobody knows what anybody else is bidding,” he added.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 40 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

WHAAAAAT?

Microsoft can buy Blizzard for $46 billion but one website can't buy another website for $7 million. (Probably because Freedom!)

[-] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 164 points 1 week ago

Judge Lopez said that the bankruptcy auction failed to maximize the amount of money that the sale of Infowars should provide to Mr. Jones’s creditors, including the Sandy Hook families, in part because the bids were submitted in secret.

“It seemed doomed almost from the moment they decided to go to a sealed bid,” Judge Lopez said. “Nobody knows what anybody else is bidding,” he added.

So the problem is that it didn't maximise the potential income for the bankrupcy case?

Shouldn't that be a "oh well, sucks. but a sale is a sale" problem?

[-] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 77 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The market decided.

This can't be the first time the courts had to liquidate assets to pay for a civil suit, right? There must be an outline of some sort for them to follow?

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 10 points 1 week ago

The market did not decide, given the bids were secret.

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 35 points 1 week ago

No, that's actually still the market deciding. It's a perfectly standard type of auction that discourages low-ball bids. Bidding is secret, you only get one bid, and you don't know who or if anyone else is bidding.
If you want it, you make your best offer for what you're willing to pay for it, and if someone else bid more they get it. If you would have been willing to pay more with more rounds of bidding, you should have bid that from the start.

Open-bid auctions get better prices for sellers when there are a lot of bidders, and better prices for buyers when there are few. Given there were two bidders, it's fair to seek the most either party will bid, rather than seeking $1 more than the maximum the loosing party will pay.

[-] sol@lemm.ee 49 points 1 week ago

Shouldn’t that be a “oh well, sucks. but a sale is a sale” problem?

"A sale is a sale" works fine when both sides to the transaction are well-informed and acting for themselves. When you are selling assets for someone else's benefit, you generally have extra obligations to them, because otherwise you don't really have an incentive to achieve a good price. So courts do generally have some oversight over sale of the assets of a bankrupt estate, to ensure that the trustee is not short-changing creditors just to get the job done quickly.

A complicating factor here is that the Sandy Hook families (who as far as I know are the large majority of the creditors) also supported the sale.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 week ago

So it's unfortunately not actually a sale until the judge approves it, it's just an accepted bid.
Sorta like when buying a car. The salesman tells you the price for the vehicle, overpriced perks, and how much your trade in is worth, and you accept the final price. Then the salesman has to get the floor manager to agree, which they always do, because they're the ones with authority to approve the sale. Then you can sign the paperwork and exchange money and you've actually processed the sale. Until then either party can walk away for any reason.

In this case, it's like the floor manager rejected the sale because the cash part of the sale price was less than MSRP, and they didn't think the trade in value mattered.
It's not common for the sale to get rejected, and it's even weirder for them to reject "not cash" instead of paying attention to value.

The judge saying the estate can't accept debt forgiveness in lieu of cash is just odd, since it reduces the debt more than the cash would.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago

Follow the money

load more comments (18 replies)
[-] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 96 points 1 week ago

It’s crazy how if you’re rich you can just nullify any law or legal precedent to get your way. Elons goings to own infowars now

[-] merde@sh.itjust.works 34 points 1 week ago

"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters. It’s, like, incredible.”

[-] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 4 points 6 days ago

what if he's secretly ✨luigi✨

[-] Aeao@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago

(this is a joke) To be fair I can make the exact same claim. I could murder someone and the number of votes I receive yearly will not be impacted.

[-] Szyler@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago

Shoot an insurance ceo and your votes will go up.

[-] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 18 points 1 week ago

Note that this doesn't mean InfoWars gets sold to anyone (including the company affiliated with Jones). It means that everyone has to re-bid.

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 45 points 1 week ago

Right and now the parents, who already said they were satisfied with the offer, can watch as it gets sold right back to the shitheads who caused the lawsuit to happen in the first place. Either that or those shitheads can bid some outrageously high number that either guarantees them ownership or guarantees the parents must forgive a much larger portion of the debt so that someone else like the Onion can own it.

Either way the parents are facing a worse outcome now.

[-] skozzii@lemmy.ca 81 points 1 week ago

Sounds like the judge got a pay day.

[-] kokesh@lemmy.world 35 points 1 week ago

He will be named secretary of something random under tRump

[-] derpgon@programming.dev 8 points 1 week ago
[-] limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 week ago

Undersecretary for auction integrity

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

Undersecretary is someone working when the secretary is giving a speech, Police Academy style?

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 71 points 1 week ago

Fuck Judge Lopez for caring more about money than justice.

[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago

It's technically the law. Bankruptcy procedures are geared to enable the return of the maximum amount of proceeds for the creditors.

Sealed bid kind of torpedos that I suppose, but considering the shit stain on history that Infowars is, I feel like an exception should have been made here.

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 37 points 1 week ago

Sealed buds are usually better for that.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sealed-bid-auction.asp

Each party is incentivised to make the highest offer they're willing to pay from the beginning, as opposed to negotiating the best price they can get.

Additionally, the families forgiving a significant amount of money as part of the bid should factor in, since the responsibility of the estate is to get the best deal, not the most cash.

[-] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 26 points 1 week ago

Problem is why did that auction even happen or rather was allowed if it was technically now allowed for a bankrupcy case?

Feels like intentional so they can go "well, we don't like the winner. time to revoke it"

[-] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 10 points 1 week ago

Apparently Jones chose a sham for his trustee who decided how to run the auction

Edit: "sham" as in how Jones saw it. After receiving only 2 bids, Murray—the trustee—decided to only solicit best and final offers instead of following the original open auction procedure; the court didn't expect changing those rules, but the change was completely within the trustee's power. Though both bidders had no objections to the changed rules, the lost bidder and Jones did after the results came out and sued, and the court felt like Murray should've done something else (while clarifying that they felt Murray acted in good faith).

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

Sealed bids encourage last and best offers, and prevent the deepest pockets from submitting a "highest plus one" bid that minimizes the proceeds from the sale.

This judge is either a dipshit or corrupt.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago

He cares about money alright. The deposit he got from interesting parties before making this decision.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

He would never accept a deposit from the interested parties before making this decision. That would be a bribe, and extremely illegal.

He will accept his deposit from the interested parties after making the decision. That is a gratuity, and is now totally legal, thanks to SCOTUS.

[-] communism@lemmy.ml 51 points 1 week ago
[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago

Most bids are sealed. Go bid on any construction job they are sealed. One bidder has no clue what anyone else bid. What the fuck corrupt judge is what they got there.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

And they are interviewing retired bankruptcy judges that are apparently at a loss right now.

[-] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 6 days ago
[-] stoly@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

Sorry it was on NPR in the morning. They had someone saying that it was a perfectly standard sale and were surprised by the decision.

[-] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 9 points 6 days ago

found it!

Bruce Markell, a former U.S. bankruptcy judge and now Northwestern law school professor, said the judge's decision was shocking and disappointing.

"It seems that the good was held hostage to the better," Markell said, and now "the costs of dealing with an obstreperous debtor [Jones] just keep mounting."

doesn't sound like what you said tho

[-] villainy@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

obstreperous adjective
ob·strep·er·ous

1: marked by unruly or aggressive noisiness : clamorous
obstreperous merriment
an obstreperous argument

2: stubbornly resistant to control : unruly
obstreperous behavior
an obstreperous child

[-] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 2 points 6 days ago

maybe he felt it could be argued to have a potentially better deal but didn't think it warranted overturning the sale.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

Well that was my post day paraphrase lol. Glad you found it.

[-] SoupBrick@yiffit.net 20 points 1 week ago

Good watch to explain why the Judge is a dick.

https://youtu.be/GmDNz7irGgw?si

[-] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

Seems like they could have avoided this by having the Sandy Hook families join the bid with an arbitrarily high dollar amount—which they’d immediately get back as creditors.

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 week ago

That's essentially what they did. They chose an auction type where each party offers as much as they're willing to pay and the highest offer wins. The Sandy Hook families included a chunk of their debt in the offer which was part of the value.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
343 points (97.2% liked)

Technology

59982 readers
2641 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS