3 ms·

> Alex Jones is upset the auction was sealed and they couldn’t attempt to outbid anyone else. The problem is that the judge himself in the emergency hearing on

> Alex Jones is upset the auction was sealed and they couldn’t attempt to outbid anyone else. The problem is that the judge himself in the emergency hearing on the matter disagreed that the auction should have been closed. EDIT: Give me a sec and I'll go pull up the recording where I heard it from. (The section in question on where I heard the court recording, with commentary from actual lawyers, on the matter is 2 hours long, so I gotta find the right timestamp for that part where the judge is not happy at all) Edit: The start of the segment where they cover the purchase gonna find the exact timestamp of the judge - https://youtu.be/ZqQNBhz9JHM?t=7463 https://youtu.be/ZqQNBhz9JHM?t=7463 The Judghe acting questions of the trustee - https://youtu.be/ZqQNBhz9JHM?t=10314 https://youtu.be/ZqQNBhz9JHM?t=10314

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
toomuchtodo 2y ago
Lopez is required to act in the best interest of the creditors, and the creditors can always get a better deal working with The Onion, because their interests are aligned. https://www.npr.org/2024/11/25/g-s1-35848/infowars-alex-jones-auction-the-onion-bankruptcy-judge-sandy-hook https://www.npr.org/2024/11/25/g-s1-35848/infowars-alex-jone... > After next month's hearing, Judge Lopez would have the option to approve the sale, to order a new one or to flip the outcome and award Jones' media company to FUAC. > But University of Florida Levin College of Law professor Christopher Hampson sees that third option as unlikely. He says the deal from The Onion and the families may be somewhat unusual, but it's not necessarily beyond the trustee's discretion. According to a court order, Murray has the authority to use his "reasonable business judgement" to set, modify and add "procedural rules that are reasonably necessary or advisable" and to select the "highest or otherwise best bid." > "That is expansive language," Hampson says. "There are lots of totally fair ways of running an auction [and] it's not clear to me that the process was problematic in any way." If a law professor doesn’t believe the process was deficient, what expertise would you rely on to come to an alternate conclusion?
- Crosseye_Jack 2y ago
  I'm just going off what the judge in the case is saying in the hearings. The judge was not happy at all with how the auction was done as he had intended for it not to be a closed bid auction (the trustee may have sunk an order past him to kinda allow it) https://youtu.be/ZqQNBhz9JHM?t=11820 https://youtu.be/ZqQNBhz9JHM?t=11820 Where the judge asks if he authorized waivers of recoveries and the trustee says the judge didn't. And the judge raises his issue about the lack of transparency in the process - which is the main issue here. The onion's bid may be the better deal, but because of the sealed bid process the judge wasn't expecting, the bids from other parties could have been more, but its mainly about the lack of transparency in the process that the judge is pissed at.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    The judge’s happiness is immaterial (I’m unsure why you’re focused on his emotional response, it doesn’t provide him additional options). What matters is his obligations to the creditors and written instructions to the trustee. Those are facts, both legally and public record (respectively). If the judge intended a different auction process than what was held, or less expansive language directing the trustee (granting less authority to the trustee), that is their mistake.
    - Crosseye_Jack 2y ago
      And transparency of the process is one of those obligations to the creditors and to the population at large > The judge’s happiness is immaterial In an ideal world it would be, but we don't live in such a world. After watching a fair few US trials, pissing off the judge can quickly turn a case that would normally be a winner, into a loser you then have to go though the appeals process to try and fix.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

toomuchtodo 2y ago

Lopez is required to act in the best interest of the creditors, and the creditors can always get a better deal working with The Onion, because their interests are aligned. https://www.npr.org/2024/11/25/g-s1-35848/infowars-alex-jones-auction-the-onion-bankruptcy-judge-sandy-hook https://www.npr.org/2024/11/25/g-s1-35848/infowars-alex-jone... > After next month's hearing, Judge Lopez would have the option to approve the sale, to order a new one or to flip the outcome and award Jones' media company to FUAC. > But University of Florida Levin College of Law professor Christopher Hampson sees that third option as unlikely. He says the deal from The Onion and the families may be somewhat unusual, but it's not necessarily beyond the trustee's discretion. According to a court order, Murray has the authority to use his "reasonable business judgement" to set, modify and add "procedural rules that are reasonably necessary or advisable" and to select the "highest or otherwise best bid." > "That is expansive language," Hampson says. "There are lots of totally fair ways of running an auction [and] it's not clear to me that the process was problematic in any way." If a law professor doesn’t believe the process was deficient, what expertise would you rely on to come to an alternate conclusion?

Crosseye_Jack 2y ago
I'm just going off what the judge in the case is saying in the hearings. The judge was not happy at all with how the auction was done as he had intended for it not to be a closed bid auction (the trustee may have sunk an order past him to kinda allow it) https://youtu.be/ZqQNBhz9JHM?t=11820 https://youtu.be/ZqQNBhz9JHM?t=11820 Where the judge asks if he authorized waivers of recoveries and the trustee says the judge didn't. And the judge raises his issue about the lack of transparency in the process - which is the main issue here. The onion's bid may be the better deal, but because of the sealed bid process the judge wasn't expecting, the bids from other parties could have been more, but its mainly about the lack of transparency in the process that the judge is pissed at.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  The judge’s happiness is immaterial (I’m unsure why you’re focused on his emotional response, it doesn’t provide him additional options). What matters is his obligations to the creditors and written instructions to the trustee. Those are facts, both legally and public record (respectively). If the judge intended a different auction process than what was held, or less expansive language directing the trustee (granting less authority to the trustee), that is their mistake.
  - Crosseye_Jack 2y ago
    And transparency of the process is one of those obligations to the creditors and to the population at large > The judge’s happiness is immaterial In an ideal world it would be, but we don't live in such a world. After watching a fair few US trials, pissing off the judge can quickly turn a case that would normally be a winner, into a loser you then have to go though the appeals process to try and fix.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]