▲ 353 ▼ Judge Rejects Sale of Infowars to The Onion (www.nytimes.com) submitted 2 years ago by Aatube@kbin.melroy.org to c/technology@lemmy.world 68 comments fedilink hide all child comments “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.
[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 71 points 2 years ago (9 children) Fuck Judge Lopez for caring more about money than justice. permalink fedilink source hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago (6 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 37 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 26 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org [S] 10 points 2 years 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). permalink fedilink source parent [–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) It’s technically the law Is it though? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org [S] 2 points 2 years ago The article says "the potential for an additional $1 million was not worth the risk of increased costs to the estate". I don't think that's the case here. permalink fedilink source parent [–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) He cares about money alright. The deposit he got from interesting parties before making this decision. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] dhork@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago (6 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 37 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 26 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org [S] 10 points 2 years 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). permalink fedilink source parent [–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) It’s technically the law Is it though? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org [S] 2 points 2 years ago The article says "the potential for an additional $1 million was not worth the risk of increased costs to the estate". I don't think that's the case here. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 37 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 26 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org [S] 10 points 2 years 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). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org [S] 10 points 2 years 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). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) It’s technically the law Is it though? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org [S] 2 points 2 years ago The article says "the potential for an additional $1 million was not worth the risk of increased costs to the estate". I don't think that's the case here. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org [S] 2 points 2 years ago The article says "the potential for an additional $1 million was not worth the risk of increased costs to the estate". I don't think that's the case here. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) He cares about money alright. The deposit he got from interesting parties before making this decision. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] dhork@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent