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

131–140 of 1001 posts

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#131

Post by shakna »

n144q wrote: post #93

[flagged]

The deal wasn't shaky. It was an auction where there were only two potential buyers who actually rocked up. It wasn't secret, it was public. It was issued by a court, including a process where bidders had to submit offers before a deadline. [0]

ThreeSixty Asset Advisors ran the process. As they often do. Tranzon Asset Advisors assisted, as they often do. There were confidentiality agreements and sealed bids... But that's the normal process for selling off assets through a court.

A sealed bid is designed to avoid negotiation, and other processes more easily manipulated by bias, unconscious or otherwise. The bids are unseen between the buyers, and opened at the same time.

There were a "large number" of interested parties before the deadline. However, most pulled out and did not submit a bid before the deadline. Leaving only two.

Some potential bidders, like The Barbed Wire, stated that they pulled out because they simply couldn't afford the expected sale price.

All of this was the exact same procedure for other forfeiture assets.

The Judge did not find any wrong doing by the buyers, but rather lamented that the final sale price was too low. That's it. Not a procedural stuff up. That was followed correctly.

> "I don't like second-guessing trustees," the judge said, but that is exactly what he did.

> "It's clear that [U.S. bankruptcy trustee Christopher Murray] left a lot of money on the table," Lopez said, adding that he thought the process was "doomed" the moment Murray decided to cancel a live auction and call for sealed "best and final" offers instead.

He simply wanted the auction to take longer.

[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2024/11/13/alex-jone...

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#132

Post by avianlyric »

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…

> 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 worth way less than one cent per dollar.

The whole purpose of the deal was to give everyone, except the largest creditor, more cash. Sure the other deal offered 2x more cash, but the largest creditor is so disproportionately large compared to all the other creditors, they would have basically taken all the cash and left little to nothing for the other creditors. The rejected deal involved the largest creditor voluntarily giving up part of their claim, resulting in a much larger (I.e. something like 10x larger) payout for other creditors, despite the lower dollar value on the entire deal.

So yeah, the other creditors are far better off getting more cash. But to do that InfoWars would need to sell for many multiples more than highest bid seen so far.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#133

Post by relaxing »

theflyingelvis wrote: post #127
bdcravens wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is being held responsible for personally defaming the Sandy Hook victims and families.

Thank you. Can you elaborate? Wouldn’t jones stating garbage like the shooting didn’t happen etc. be opinion? How were his statements defamation ? I missed where he defamed the families as I don’t listen to his shows.

> Wouldn’t jones stating garbage like the shooting didn’t happen etc. be opinion?

Holy shit the last 8 years really have damaged our understanding of what “facts” are.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#134

Post by DoughnutHole »

fidotron wrote: post #111
kubb wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can Trump pardon Jones? I thought pardons apply in criminal cases, not in civil cases like bankruptcy.

And as a follow on, if the president pardons someone for a crime can those harmed by it still sue the perpetrator for damages in a civil case?

Yes absolutely. Being found not guilty of a crime or being pardoned has no bearing on the evidence that exists which is presented in a separate civil case against you.

There’s no double jeopardy in a civil case - it’s a matter of if someone has a claim of damages.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#135

Post by HPsquared »

cess11 wrote: post #65
akira2501 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Bankruptcy is not a punishment, neither is having to pay damages. His business wasn't about the exercise of first amendment rights, it was about selling supplements and whatnot.

It's a pretty large punishment.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#136

Post by ethbr1 »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #51
jmward01 wrote: post #42

It is clear that Jones and his relatives have moved money and assets around in order to shield them from the verdict. Now, money that should have been already given to the victims is being used to steal back the megaphone that caused harmed in the first place. The end effect will probably be even more subscribers and money for Jones which he will use with even less restraint since he knows there are no consequences.…

[flagged]

> mere defamation

I think what Alex Jones did is more than mere defamation.

Repeatedly lying about the reality of a school mass shooting, over years, in such a way that he caused threats to be made against the families of victims?

Incitement to credible threats of violence, and especially continuing to do so even after you're aware that's what your listeners are doing, deserves severe consequences.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#137

Post by rob74 »

Clubber wrote: post #121
krisoft wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect the billion dollar settlement will be overturned on appeal as being excessive Not a lawyer, but that didn't seem to have happened? Quote from this article: https://www.reuters.com/legal/appeals-court-upholds-nearly-1... "A three-judge panel of the Connecticut Appellate Court found that a jury's October 2022 decision to award $965 million in damages plus attorneys fees and costs to families of the shooting…

Just found out he recently lost appeal. He has Connecticut Supreme Court, federal district court and SCOTUS to appeal to now. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/connecticut-court-uphold...

Ok, then I would be very surprised (positively) if it weren't overturned by SCOTUS (if it goes that far).

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#138

Post by avianlyric »

alwa wrote: post #10
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…

Isn't it a little strange, though, that the system notionally decided that the families are owed an enormous amount of economic power as compensation for the nasty behavior of Alex Jones' media company, but at the same time it's obliging them not to use that economic power to prevent the sale of the media company to a "new owner" still affiliated with an unrepentant Alex Jones, who will undoubtedly continue the nasty…

> Is the issue that there are other creditors who are unhappy with this, who would get paid before the aggrieved families' damages would? The lawyers seem to be fine with it, as they're the ones advocating for this plan...

Nope. Under the rejected deal, other creditors would have seen a larger payout, because aggrieved families are actual two separate groups. One with a claim near a billion dollars, and other with a claim of only a few million (I think, it may be less).

As a result the aggrieved families with the larger claim were set to basically hoover up all the cash from the bankruptcy, and the deal with the Onion was to create a better deal for the other families by having the larger claim reduced to allow a fair split of the total cash raised.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#139

Post by bhouston »

onemoresoop wrote: post #125
bhouston wrote: post #114

Remember that this was made possible by the intervention of Elon Musk. I suspect he may end up buying the assets himself or someone in this circle.

Is that asset of any use at this point? Even onion’s bid seems like a waste of money to me

Could Elon or a billionaire friend of his buy it, at a slightly higher price than the Onion offered, and then employ Alex Jones as a host?

InfoWars is worth nothing if not for Alex Jones right. So if you want to maximize value, you need to somehow keep him around to serve his audience.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#140

Post by benj111 »

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…

>Alex Jones's vitamin company offered 2x more cash

Yes, but shouldn't that already be due to the victims?

This is worse for the victims, because rather than getting that money, and future revenue, they just get that money.

And this all ignores the harm to the victims, of giving Jones control of Infowars again.

They aren't ever going to see all of this $1.5B. I doubt most even want all that money, what they probably want is for Jones not to be able to keep his mouth piece.

Post reply on HN