“We’re all going to an evidentiary hearing and I’m going to figure out exactly what happened,” the judge, Christopher Lopez, said in an emergency hearing on Thursday afternoon. “No one should feel comfortable with the results of this auction.”

Oh bullshit.

  • nao@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 hours ago

    “No one should feel comfortable with the results of this auction.”

    What did he mean by that?

  • _bcron_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Is this not the capitalist dystopia they wanted? It was an auction, The Onion was the highest bidder, and the discussion should stop there, right?

    • Kyuuketsuki@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      “The Onion was the highest bidder[…]”

      Literally the point of the suit is that The Onion was not the highest bidder. From the article:

      The exact bid amount offered by the Onion for InfoWars remains unknown, but it has been reported it was lower than First United American’s bid of $3.5m.

      The victims of Jones decided it was better to get less money and not allow the brand to go to one of his allies to continue the usual operations. They are saying that even though they effectively own the brand, that they don’t have the right to choose who it’s sold to.

      There is only one way this should go, but…

      • _bcron_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        7 hours ago

        The other bid wouldn’t be an arm’s-length transaction because that entity does business with Alex Jones

        • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Auctions are contracts, most of them are beholden to the highest bidder. I am guessing thr lawyers are either being paid to make media waves, or they didn’t read the terms of the auction.

          • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            5 hours ago

            The trustee and auction house are allowed to accept lower bids. Especially ones that make the creditors more whole, which this one does. So no that’s not why

            • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              15
              ·
              4 hours ago

              Ok. Well, feel free to tell everyone why since you seem to know so much.

              • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                ·
                4 hours ago

                Jones is raising a stink because he feels like the bidding process was cut short and the rules were changed once his bid was the clear winner. He’s a moron and he’s wrong and he’s also not allowed to bid, so his bid by proxy will hopefully be caught and punished

                • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  14
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 hours ago

                  Im glad you were there. But you should have told the New York Times, the AP, and the Guardian instead of us.

          • DragonTypeWyvern
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Sellers have a right to accept lower bids, or to accept non-monetary “value” and it happens literally every day in real estate.

            What I don’t know is whether the nature of the auction actually changes things.

  • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    Guardian’s slow on the news. This was known yesterday.

    There were only two bidders, the Onion and a backup bidder. The judge is looking into how the bidding process was run, because the Onion won with a lower bid than the back up bidder.

    The Onion’s offer was seen as a better deal because some of the related Sandy Hook families agreed to forgo a portion of the sale proceeds to help pay off Jones’s other creditors.

    • Deceptichum@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Both article explains that. They used a “credit” given by the Sandy Hooks survivors so that their money from this sale would go to Alex’s other debts first. So it was less money but allocated more beneficially for jones.