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

961–970 of 1001 posts

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#961

Post by immibis »

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…

So Alex Jones gets to cheat his way out of consequences yet again by transferring his assets to a new company and shopping for a sympathetic judge, just like the last several times?

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#962

Post by hellojesus »

Retric wrote: post #52
ipaddr wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cre…

> So they put it up for an auction to get the real value. Except Onion’s bid minimized Alex Jones debt and was the preferred outcome by his creditors. Offering more cash isn’t the same as making a larger bid here.

Does the business that offered to buy InfoWars also not get shafted by the sale to The Onion?

By one creditor agreeing to forgo their debt only if The Onion buys it, that single creditor puts any other potential buyer at a disadvantage. It seems the highest bidder, regardless of whether that is another Alex Jones entity, has a fair counterargument such that this type of sweetheart deal is not fair to interested purchasers.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#963

Post by Retric »

hellojesus wrote: post #962
Retric wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So they put it up for an auction to get the real value. Except Onion’s bid minimized Alex Jones debt and was the preferred outcome by his creditors. Offering more cash isn’t the same as making a larger bid here.

Does the business that offered to buy InfoWars also not get shafted by the sale to The Onion? By one creditor agreeing to forgo their debt only if The Onion buys it, that single creditor puts any other potential buyer at a disadvantage. It seems the highest bidder, regardless of whether that is another Alex Jones entity, has a fair counterargument such that this type of sweetheart deal is not fair to interested purch…

In what way is that different from any other larger bid? The math is identical to them borrowing ~5 million and then getting it back immediately afterwards.

In both cases the other creditors end up with more money and Alex Jones ends up with less dept. It feels unfair because you’re judging the debt as uncollectible, but they would be receiving more cash from other winners so they aren’t just sacrificing hypothetical money.

I’m sure if a large enough offer was made they would happily walk away with everything they would be entitled to, but losing some cash for a final fuck to someone who profited from their suffering and actively attacked them seems like a reasonable tradeoff.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#964

Post by leadingthenet »

kypro wrote: post #775
Eextra953 wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It shocking to me too. I can't understand how people are 'both sides-ing' this or just supporting him under some free speech argument. Free speech has limits and a court found Jones went too far and that cost him his business.

People have been arguing the same bogus free speech point in the UK recently because people have been arrested for saying things that are anti-immigration and offensive online. People have free speech, but obviously that doesn't mean you are free to say things that could be considered hateful or factually untrue. If you go around tweeting hateful things about the Royal family and the courts find you guilty, don't be…

> People have free speech, but obviously that doesn't mean you are free to say things that could be considered hateful or factually untrue.

So people don't actually have free speech.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#965

Post by vel0city »

the_optimist wrote: post #954
vel0city wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are made of marshmallows! This is defamation, which is also against the law. However, the damages here are incredibly minor, and thus not worth punishing. Most people probably don't believe you. However, if I made a lie about you that caused you to lose your employment and become unhireable, is that also protected speech? You don't have a right to harm others with lies. You don't have a right to lie.

There is no evidence that being made of marshmallows is damaging to one’s reputation, and thus this would not necessarily be classified as defamatory. The law requires proven damage. The details are tricky.

> The law requires proven damage

I'm aware. That's why I mentioned it. There's no remediation if there's no damages.

If I'm made of marshmallows I'm not human and not eligible for health insurance. If my insurer believes your claim which is a reckless disregard for the truth and I'm denied coverage, you're liable. If my wife leaves me because she didn't want to marry a marshmallow and causes massive legal damages and emotional harms you're liable for defamation.

It's like you're arguing you have the right to punch. Like, sure, swing your arms wherever. But your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose.

You don't have a right to lie about me.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#966

Post by throw10920 »

dang wrote: post #942
throw10920 wrote: post #919

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also spend many hours per week and haven't seen something like this in months. I don't think you're being honest, especially because you're on a new account and likely are an alt of another poster here. You're definitely stretching the definitions of "plenty" and "at every opportunity" at the very least, if not outright misrepresenting the situation as more common than it actually is. If the comments made are downv…

I appreciate the substance of your reply, but please don't tell people that you think they're being dishonest (even when you do think that) - it weakens your comment and breaks the site guidelines. If you stick to your substantive points, your posts will be more effective and you won't run the risk of misinterpreting someone else's intent. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Yeah, you're right, I should have stuck to the facts (lack of evidence rather than ascribing malicious intent) - my bad.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#967

Post by hellojesus »

Retric wrote: post #963
hellojesus wrote: post #962

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the business that offered to buy InfoWars also not get shafted by the sale to The Onion? By one creditor agreeing to forgo their debt only if The Onion buys it, that single creditor puts any other potential buyer at a disadvantage. It seems the highest bidder, regardless of whether that is another Alex Jones entity, has a fair counterargument such that this type of sweetheart deal is not fair to interested purch…

In what way is that different from any other larger bid? The math is identical to them borrowing ~5 million and then getting it back immediately afterwards. In both cases the other creditors end up with more money and Alex Jones ends up with less dept. It feels unfair because you’re judging the debt as uncollectible, but they would be receiving more cash from other winners so they aren’t just sacrificing hypothetical…

It is both unfair to Alex Jones and any third party bidding on the asset. If some entity was willing to pay more for InfoWars than the debt AJ owes his creditors, he would be able to keep the extra.

If A owes B and C money and has to sell some asset to satisify the claim, the only fair way to value the asset is to sell it in the open market, an auction. If D will pay $5 for it and E will pay $500 for it, it would be unfair to both A and E if B waves his hands and say he forgoes his claim so long as D gets to buy the item.

I understand that InfoWars is likely being sold at auction because no buyer was willing to purchase it for a price that would satisify the debt before bankruptcy, but there is a nomzero chance that some buyer shows up and is willing to pay more for it than someone else specifically to keep it out of that particular buyers hands. Strange. Farfetched. Buy possible. And it wouldn't be fair to allow preference by those owed the debt as it defeats the fair market price process.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#968

Post by dllthomas »

altcognito wrote: post #870
crazygringo wrote: post #735

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a non-sequitur. Justice departments don't go after presidents or president-elects in order to prevent a constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the remedy in that case. This policy is entirely unrelated to presidential pardon power.

You're not going after a "President". You are going after a law breaker. He can be President all day long in jail. The reality is that we've codified that Presidents are largely unable to be investigated and or held to account by the legal system. There was no carve outs in the constitution at any point for anybody in government. This is a new, and probably fatal invention.

> He can be President all day long in jail.

Playing devil's advocate, at least in part...

In practice, he cannot perform many of the duties of the office effectively - or perhaps at all - from jail.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it says he should be President (given the outcome of the process we had). The laws that say he should be in jail are subordinate to the Constitution and so rightly lose out in the minimum way practicable - a delay in sentencing.

...

I do have problems with some of what I've written here, but it seems like a sensible position that could be held unreservedly by someone who disagrees with me on a few questions of fact that do have a subjective component.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#969

Post by AnthonyMouse »

freejazz wrote: post #932
wbl wrote: post #848

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They wouldn't have made that bid if the rules were different! A vickrey auction has a lot of support as getting revenue.

So?

So a bid of $200 in a Vickrey auction that results in a $101 sale price doesn't imply that you could have otherwise gotten $200, because in a different type of auction the bidder wouldn't have bid that much.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#970

Post by wakawaka28 »

cthalupa wrote: post #338
wakawaka28 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sealed auctions are a competitive manner and the sandy hook families are in all practical reality the only creditors of note. Their damages absolutely dwarf his other creditors to the point where they were already in line to effectively receive nothing. Going against the will of the families is absurd to begin with. > But clearly restitution is not the objective. Sure. And damages can be punitive in nature.

>Sealed auctions are a competitive manner [sic]

No they are not. Technically nobody knows what someone might be willing to pay. That is why public auctions are the default. The only reason an auction should be private is to protect the identity or interests of the bidders. Taking one round of bids from private parties is not an auction.

Post reply on HN