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

Technology

59963 readers
3330 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 165 points 6 days ago (14 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?

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 78 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 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?

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 10 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 36 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sol@lemm.ee 49 points 6 days ago (1 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.

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

I assume there are other creditors who didn't?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 5 points 6 days ago

It wasn’t rejected because the judge thought it wasn’t the highest value among the bids; it was rejected because the judge thinks the auction should’ve asked for follow-up bids

[–] n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 days ago

Follow the money

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 4 points 6 days ago (5 children)

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

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 52 points 6 days 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.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 24 points 6 days 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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days 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.

[–] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 3 points 6 days ago

This was not a typical bankruptcy auction, and part of the trustee’s role was to ensure an outcome that was acceptable to those injured by Jones, eg the Sandy Hook families.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 97 points 6 days ago (2 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

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 35 points 6 days ago (2 children)

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

[–] Aeao@lemmy.world 18 points 6 days ago (1 children)

(this is a joke) To be fair I can make the exact same claim. I could murder someone and the number of votes I receive yearly will not be impacted.

[–] Szyler@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago

Shoot an insurance ceo and your votes will go up.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 4 points 6 days ago

what if he's secretly ✨luigi✨

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 18 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 45 points 6 days 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.

[–] skozzii@lemmy.ca 84 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Sounds like the judge got a pay day.

[–] kokesh@lemmy.world 38 points 6 days ago (1 children)

He will be named secretary of something random under tRump

[–] derpgon@programming.dev 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Undersecretary for auction integrity

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

Undersecretary is someone working when the secretary is giving a speech, Police Academy style?

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 72 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Fuck Judge Lopez for caring more about money than justice.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 24 points 6 days ago (4 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.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 37 points 6 days 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.

[–] 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).

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days 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.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 12 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days 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.

[–] communism@lemmy.ml 54 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 33 points 6 days ago (1 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.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (6 children)

And they are interviewing retired bankruptcy judges that are apparently at a loss right now.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 43 points 6 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

WHAAAAAT?

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

[–] SoupBrick@yiffit.net 20 points 6 days ago

Good watch to explain why the Judge is a dick.

https://youtu.be/GmDNz7irGgw?si

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days ago (1 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.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 13 points 6 days ago (1 children)

That's essentially what they did. They chose an auction type where each party offers as much as they're willing to pay and the highest offer wins. The Sandy Hook families included a chunk of their debt in the offer which was part of the value.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] zephorah@lemm.ee 4 points 6 days ago

That’s disappointing.

load more comments
view more: next ›