“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.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 164 points 2 years ago (29 children)

Judge Lopez said that the bankruptcy auction failed to maximize the amount of money that the sale of Infowars should provide to Mr. Jones’s creditors, including the Sandy Hook families, in part because the bids were submitted in secret.

“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.

So the problem is that it didn't maximise the potential income for the bankrupcy case?

Shouldn't that be a "oh well, sucks. but a sale is a sale" problem?

  • source
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 79 points 2 years ago* (4 children)

    The market decided.

    This can't be the first time the courts had to liquidate assets to pay for a civil suit, right? There must be an outline of some sort for them to follow?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    The market did not decide, given the bids were secret.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    No, that's actually still the market deciding. It's a perfectly standard type of auction that discourages low-ball bids. Bidding is secret, you only get one bid, and you don't know who or if anyone else is bidding.
    If you want it, you make your best offer for what you're willing to pay for it, and if someone else bid more they get it. If you would have been willing to pay more with more rounds of bidding, you should have bid that from the start.

    Open-bid auctions get better prices for sellers when there are a lot of bidders, and better prices for buyers when there are few. Given there were two bidders, it's fair to seek the most either party will bid, rather than seeking $1 more than the maximum the loosing party will pay.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 49 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Shouldn’t that be a “oh well, sucks. but a sale is a sale” problem?

    "A sale is a sale" works fine when both sides to the transaction are well-informed and acting for themselves. When you are selling assets for someone else's benefit, you generally have extra obligations to them, because otherwise you don't really have an incentive to achieve a good price. So courts do generally have some oversight over sale of the assets of a bankrupt estate, to ensure that the trustee is not short-changing creditors just to get the job done quickly.

    A complicating factor here is that the Sandy Hook families (who as far as I know are the large majority of the creditors) also supported the sale.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    So it's unfortunately not actually a sale until the judge approves it, it's just an accepted bid.
    Sorta like when buying a car. The salesman tells you the price for the vehicle, overpriced perks, and how much your trade in is worth, and you accept the final price. Then the salesman has to get the floor manager to agree, which they always do, because they're the ones with authority to approve the sale. Then you can sign the paperwork and exchange money and you've actually processed the sale. Until then either party can walk away for any reason.

    In this case, it's like the floor manager rejected the sale because the cash part of the sale price was less than MSRP, and they didn't think the trade in value mattered.
    It's not common for the sale to get rejected, and it's even weirder for them to reject "not cash" instead of paying attention to value.

    The judge saying the estate can't accept debt forgiveness in lieu of cash is just odd, since it reduces the debt more than the cash would.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 5 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    Apparently they also did not allow follow-up bids/outbidding others. It’s called a bankruptcy auction for a reason.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 51 points 2 years ago

    And there's a trustee for a reason. The debtors decided that the value of keeping Alex Jones away from InfoWars had its own value and were willing to accept a lower bid. There's no fiduciary duty to maximize the proceeds from the sale, and Alex buying back his own assets during a bankruptcy auction is actual fraud.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    A first price sealed bid auction is a perfectly common type of auction.
    It's functionally equivalent to an auction where you know the value of a thing (like we do a business being liquidated because the owner is in extremely deep unrelated legal debt), and the auctioneer starts by asking for the face value and then progressively lowers the ask until the first person accepts the price.
    Instead of trying to get the lowest price possible, people are incentivised to start with their best offer for what they actually think the thing is valued. Allowing follow-up bids encourages people to low-ball and work their way up, which can reduce the price the seller gets for the item.

    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sealed-bid-auction.asp

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago*

    The underlying reason for the bankruptcy is bigger than dollars. Avoiding selling infowars to some other conservative shitheads to continue the harassment of Sandy Hook victims is far more important than dollar signs.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (9 replies)
    [–] 97 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    It’s crazy how if you’re rich you can just nullify any law or legal precedent to get your way. Elons goings to own infowars now

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters. It’s, like, incredible.”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 18 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Note that this doesn't mean InfoWars gets sold to anyone (including the company affiliated with Jones). It means that everyone has to re-bid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 45 points 2 years ago

    Right and now the parents, who already said they were satisfied with the offer, can watch as it gets sold right back to the shitheads who caused the lawsuit to happen in the first place. Either that or those shitheads can bid some outrageously high number that either guarantees them ownership or guarantees the parents must forgive a much larger portion of the debt so that someone else like the Onion can own it.

    Either way the parents are facing a worse outcome now.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 84 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Sounds like the judge got a pay day.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    He will be named secretary of something random under tRump

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 71 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    Fuck Judge Lopez for caring more about money than justice.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 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"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [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).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    He cares about money alright. The deposit he got from interesting parties before making this decision.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 54 points 2 years ago (8 children)
  • [–] 33 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    Most bids are sealed. Go bid on any construction job they are sealed. One bidder has no clue what anyone else bid. What the fuck corrupt judge is what they got there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    WHAAAAAT?

    Microsoft can buy Blizzard for $46 billion but one website can't buy another website for $7 million. (Probably because Freedom!)

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago

    Good watch to explain why the Judge is a dick.

    https://youtu.be/GmDNz7irGgw

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Seems like they could have avoided this by having the Sandy Hook families join the bid with an arbitrarily high dollar amount—which they’d immediately get back as creditors.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    That’s disappointing.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›