this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
352 points (97.3% liked)

Technology

59963 readers
3351 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

“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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 26 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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"

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 10 points 6 days 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).