96
Judge orders hearing to review Onion’s purchase of Alex Jones’s InfoWars
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
96 points (97.1% liked)
Politics
315 readers
270 users here now
For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.
Rule 1: Posts have the following requirements:
▪️ Post articles about the US only
▪️ Title must match the article headline
▪️ Recent (Past 30 Days)
▪️ No Screenshots/links to other social media sites or link shorteners
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. One or two small paragraphs are okay.
Rule 3: Articles based on opinion (unless clearly marked and from a serious publication), misinformation or propaganda will be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Media owners, CEOs and/or board members
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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?
"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 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...
The Onions winning bid was lower than the other bid.
Not after 8 families opted to take a smaller cut of the sale.
The other bid wouldn't be an arm's-length transaction because that entity does business with Alex Jones
So what?
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.
The auction house specified that they will not necessarily accept only the highest bid
So that's why the judge is taking a closer look at it.
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
Ok. Well, feel free to tell everyone why since you seem to know so much.
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
Im glad you were there. But you should have told the New York Times, the AP, and the Guardian instead of us.
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.