4 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoAnd 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]