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

21–30 of 1001 posts

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#21

Post by anon291 »

UltraSane wrote: post #16
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…

How can any entity related to Alex Jones be allowed to buy the InfoWars assets?

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.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#22

Post by ipaddr »

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…

They have a debt judgement not economic power. They can sell that debit judgement to a company who collects. They can take the money from the result of the court process and try to buy infowars after this is all over.

They don't have a judgement of ownership in infowars they have a debt and the court is forcing Alex to sell all assets to cover the debt. Then the rest is written off and he gets a black mark on his credit report.

There are rules around this process for a reason. If you allowed someone who has a debt judgement to just take over a company what is it's true value. Alex could try to value infowars at a trillion. So they put it up for an auction to get the real value. That's the fairest way for all cases.

Besides others are in line as well.

And killing the infowars brand means little in the short/long run. The real brand is Alex's name. It's not like his audience will suddenly not follow him to a new show with a new name.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#23

Post by anigbrowl »

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.

Very speech much free

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#24

Post by jfoster »

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.

I haven't seen the filing, but I presume you mean that X filed saying that they own the accounts, right?

I don't get why people conflate Elon Musk with the companies that he runs. I imagine he has controlling stakes in all of them, but for the most part he's probably not even a majority shareholder in most of the companies he's running.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#25

Post by whoitwas »

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…

[flagged]

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#26

Post by whoitwas »

mrtksn wrote: post #12

[flagged]

I think you're missing context? Infowars is rabidly pro-MAGA. Trump appeared on Alex Jones numerous times. The Onion is an entertainment company with more attachment to reality than Infowars. I would like to think a judge wouldn't allow friends of Alex Jones to take the company back.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#27

Post by Gigachad »

jfoster wrote: post #24
unsnap_biceps wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I haven't seen the filing, but I presume you mean that X filed saying that they own the accounts, right? I don't get why people conflate Elon Musk with the companies that he runs. I imagine he has controlling stakes in all of them, but for the most part he's probably not even a majority shareholder in most of the companies he's running.

Because X is purely a platform to do whatever Elon wants. It’s so blatantly obvious that this decision came from Musk even if it was delivered indirectly.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#28

Post by geor9e »

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…

Are there practically any other creditors? I would think the creditor owed $1.5B would cause all other creditors to become irrelevant rounding errors as a fraction of a percent. So if the families were to bid $X, then they'd be paying it right back into their other pocket. Seems like just a technicality or theatrics to require them to temporarily come up with cash just to give it right back to themselves. But lawyers love arguing technicalities.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#30

Post by ThrustVectoring »

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…

>The other creditors are far better off getting more cash

The other creditors get more cash from The Onion's offer. It was specifically structured to give better-than-next-offer remuneration to minority creditors.

Post reply on HN