Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 1001 posts

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#71

Post by cess11 »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #67
cess11 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He can't pay his debts. What alternative to bankruptcy do you propose?

I'm not arguing against bankruptcy. I'm saying that bankruptcy is a structured process that is supposed to generate monetary outcomes for everyone. Selling off assets in a non-competitive process is basically a criminal move, especially if you collude with one of the bidders who is also a creditor. Bankruptcy itself aside, the judgement against Alex Jones here is huge. I haven't looked it up but I'm sure it broke rec…

No, it's a process that takes also other interests into account.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#72

Post by wakawaka28 »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #70
wakawaka28 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Onion didn't have the cash. It was basically an IOU from one of the families, which is like saying "the very same guy going bankrupt is going to pay us money to buy this business from him" and that makes zero sense. There was also no transparency in the bidding. It should have been a simple auction, to get the maximum amount of money.

> The Onion didn't have the cash. Correct, it was given up by the majority creditors in exchange for non-monetary considerations (specifically, the moral victory of having The Onion own Infowars). > It was basically an IOU from one of the families This is fine, people are allowed to act against their own financial interests. That's one thing that having ownership means is that you can ruin the thing you own for any o…

>This is fine, people are allowed to act against their own financial interests. That's one thing that having ownership means is that you can ruin the thing you own for any or no reason. The court has zero reason to intervene if a majority creditor is giving up their own share of the proceeds for any or no reason.

You're oversimplifying this. If someone owes you $1B and they owe me $2B, and they've got an asset worth $500M, I can't just pledge $2B of bad debt to buy the asset. The only fair way is to sell it for $500M in actual cash. Then it gets divied up accordingly.

>This is a non-issue, the trustee was given wide latitude to dispose of the assets in any way he deems fit.

Isn't it telling that the same judge said it was done improperly? Trustees have an obligation to follow standard practices which maximize cash flow or at least don't give the appearance of impropriety.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#73

Post by alt187 »

ipaddr wrote: post #49
anigbrowl wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very speech much free

All social media accounts are owned by the company and they can and do shutdown people every second of everyday. This is the least surprising. Instagram just shutdown the account of the suspected ceo killer. That person didn't break any social media rules (didn't post copyright or tell someone off or spam marketplace) but instagram has the right. I don't see anyone shocked.

No one is "shocked", the irony is that Musk postures as a rabid free speech advocate. It's not surprising, but it's hypocritical.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#74

Post by ThrustVectoring »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #72
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Onion didn't have the cash. Correct, it was given up by the majority creditors in exchange for non-monetary considerations (specifically, the moral victory of having The Onion own Infowars). > It was basically an IOU from one of the families This is fine, people are allowed to act against their own financial interests. That's one thing that having ownership means is that you can ruin the thing you own for any o…

>This is fine, people are allowed to act against their own financial interests. That's one thing that having ownership means is that you can ruin the thing you own for any or no reason. The court has zero reason to intervene if a majority creditor is giving up their own share of the proceeds for any or no reason. You're oversimplifying this. If someone owes you $1B and they owe me $2B, and they've got an asset worth…

> You're oversimplifying this. If someone owes you $1B and they owe me $2B, and they've got an asset worth $500M, I can't just pledge $2B of bad debt to buy the asset.

You actually can, so long as it's the best offer for the other creditors. So long as you can come up with sufficient cash for the minority creditors you're entitled to dispose of the asset in any way you see fit. The Pennsylvania families came up with the cash (via The Onion's cash offer and structuring the payout).

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#76

Post by anon291 »

UltraSane wrote: post #54
anon291 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the same way non-corporate 'entities' related to Alex Jones don't owe his debts. If there's a company of which he's a minority owner, they could decide to buy it, and it would be like his brother buying it.

It is pure bullshit is what it is.

[flagged]

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#77

Post by archagon »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #6

This is probably the correct decision. Alex Jones's vitamin company offered 2x more cash, and in the case of a bankruptcy, cash completely trumps any notion of "giving up debt." Especially when the debt being settled is astronomically large and you are giving up a very small portion of it ($7 million out of $1.5 billion). The other creditors are far better off getting more cash, and those $7 million of claims are wor…

> Additionally, the auction here was run farcically, and basically seemed designed to create an outcome where the onion gets to buy this website for no money.

You have been lied to.

As I see it, the situation couldn't be any simpler: the oligarchs will take what they want, justice be damned. It was a done deal as soon as Musk entered the scene.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#78

Post by NekkoDroid »

unsnap_biceps wrote: post #17
bboygravity wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Context needed about why Musk blocked The Onion accounts?

Musk filed saying that he owns the X accounts and they aren't allowed to be sold according to the TOS. The X accounts were removed from the pending sale.

> Musk filed saying that he owns the X accounts

This would then also imply that any post containing illegal stuff is also his problem, wouldn't it?

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#79

Post by piva00 »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #67
cess11 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He can't pay his debts. What alternative to bankruptcy do you propose?

I'm not arguing against bankruptcy. I'm saying that bankruptcy is a structured process that is supposed to generate monetary outcomes for everyone. Selling off assets in a non-competitive process is basically a criminal move, especially if you collude with one of the bidders who is also a creditor. Bankruptcy itself aside, the judgement against Alex Jones here is huge. I haven't looked it up but I'm sure it broke rec…

> But clearly restitution is not the objective.

It's not the only objective, punishment is also an objective. If not you get settlements like Purdue Pharma's one which even after paying billions in damages still had made more money than that, you don't want an incentive to break the law like that, it becomes just another cost for the business and not really a punishment for it.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#80

Post by piva00 »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #48
piva00 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I watched the trial...did you?

Yeah, I did, and if you watched then you understand why it was defaulted since Alex Jones refused to participate, was found in contempt of court for not produce materials relevant to the case, a default judgment is the punishment for not participating in the legal process.

If he wanted to avoid it then he could abide by the law and be a part in his own judgment before it came to that.

Post reply on HN