6 ms·

From what the internet says, it didn’t go to the highest bidder.

munk-a 2y ago
It's complicated - it went to the bidder that would result in the two largest debtors being the happiest with the outcome but that bidder didn't bid the most money in a regular manner. The structure of the bid was quite complex but essentially the largest debtor agreed to enlarge the share the second largest debtor would receive by supplementing it from their own share due to the awards in the two court cases being so drastically different (basically the largest debtor decided to decrease their own share in that specific bid to supplement the second largest debtor) - this bid was the one that the primary debtor prefers and would award a lot more value to the secondary debtor than the bid that was, on paper, larger. There are some good detailed analyses of the arrangement out there that would give you a much better understanding than I can communicate second-hand - I'd suggest the overview by LegalEagle[1], personally. 1. https://youtu.be/GmDNz7irGgw https://youtu.be/GmDNz7irGgw
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > went to the bidder that would result in the two largest debtors being the happiest with the outcome but that bidder didn't bid the most money in a regular manner The creditors own the asset. If every dollar the creditors are owed voted, which bid would they choose?
  - munk-a 2y ago
    The onion bid - by far. If the bid was chosen by creditors weighted by owed value the Connecticut families would solely dictate the terms as they are owed more than 90% of the value resulting from this auction.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    > The creditors own the asset If this is the case, dollars voted are less important than outcome value to the creditors. It is their asset, no? They are assigning value and signaling accordingly.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > dollars voted are less important than outcome value to the creditors. It is their asset, no? Sure. I’m trying to approximate a metric that gives their weighted interest. My point is the owners of the asset are selling it, and it seems their interests are obviously maximised by one bid.
- amyames 2y ago
  Just navel gazing here maybe there is case precedent or law here. The debtor generally deserves their case to be discharged resolved liquidated closed and done forever. Paying ongoing reparations in royalties or whatever the onion proposes doesn’t accomplish this. Alex Jones himself could convert his case to a chapter 13 and set up a “repayment” plan based on his own anticipated/potential earnings from his own business. It would possibly even be higher, infowars intended audience is probably more profitable than people laughing at infowars on Ben Collins bluesky feed. The people who got a personal judgment aren’t made whole by a promise of future restitution by someone purchasing his business assets. What if the onion went bankrupt next year and said oh we’re not going to pay that anymore? That would be an interesting case to test: a person being relieved from a fraud or criminal tort, as it’s handed off to a third party buying their business, who themselves didn’t commit fraud or a criminal tort and merely became insolvent which is dischargeable. In the case where the “creditors” own the asset to settle their claim, that’s another story, whether they make $1 or a billion dollars disposing of it is no longer the debtors problem In the same way that returning my smashed up uninsured car to a secured lender doesn’t make them whole for my discharged loan either.
  - Suppafly 2y ago
    >Paying ongoing reparations in royalties or whatever the onion proposes doesn’t accomplish this. Sure it does, the Onion would be paying the royalties, Alex Jones already doesn't own it, it's essentially owned by an estate that is selling it off to cover Alex Jones' debts.
- adolph 2y ago
  That’s a lot of text to say “yes, it didn’t go to the highest bidder.“
  - munk-a 2y ago
    That's incorrect - it's a lot of text to say it went to the second highest bidder. The onion bid was the one that provided more value to the creditors.
    - Supermancho 2y ago
      From what I've read, it's not incorrect. Orthogonal valuations are not part of the bid value. This is why The Onion was second (the winner). It was not the highest bid (the considered part). The end. The Judge has decided that's unfair, likely due to some bias (intellectual, political, etc.)
pdpi 2y ago
Put simply, the internet is wrong. FUAC's offer was all cash. The Onion offered less cash, but offered other incentives (AIUI, a share of whatever revenue they make from Infowars in the future). Saying that The Onion's bid was lower requires you to put a dollar value on those other incentives. The fact that the two creditors (read: victims' families) that would benefit from those incentives were willing to sacrifice some of the debt they were owed so they could benefit from those incentives suggests that at least _they_ think those incentives were worth more than the cash upfront, and the amount of debt they were willing to sacrifice gives you an implicit baseline for that dollar value. Given the site we're on: it's like saying that an offer with a lower base salary but higher equity is automatically a worse offer than a bigger salary with no stock.
- sidewndr46 2y ago
  The idea that Global Tetrahedron would generate revenue from InfoWars is a farce. Jones is InfoWars. Any market value assigned to InfoWars without Jones explicitly involvement is a farce. Even a non bankruptcy sale of InfoWars would require him to participate in the business for an extended period of time. Even then, it'd just be some investor bankrolling Jones.
  - pdpi 2y ago
    That might or might not be true. If Infowars is _that_ worthless without Jones, then _any_ offer is a farce and the whole auction is pointless.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      > If Infowars is _that_ worthless without Jones, then _any_ offer is a farce That doesn't make sense. A genuine offer for an unprofitable thing could be made. That's not farcical, just a bad investment.
      - pdpi 2y ago
        Yes, that's precisely what I mean. It might or might not be a bad bet, but the Sandy Hook families are just as entitled to take that bet as anybody else. The idea that it's farcical to entertain any offer that doesn't involve putting Jones back in charge leads you down a really weird road.

It's complicated - it went to the bidder that would result in the two largest debtors being the happiest with the outcome but that bidder didn't bid the most money in a regular manner. The structure of the bid was quite complex but essentially the largest debtor agreed to enlarge the share the second largest debtor would receive by supplementing it from their own share due to the awards in the two court cases being so drastically different (basically the largest debtor decided to decrease their own share in that specific bid to supplement the second largest debtor) - this bid was the one that the primary debtor prefers and would award a lot more value to the secondary debtor than the bid that was, on paper, larger. There are some good detailed analyses of the arrangement out there that would give you a much better understanding than I can communicate second-hand - I'd suggest the overview by LegalEagle[1], personally. 1. https://youtu.be/GmDNz7irGgw https://youtu.be/GmDNz7irGgw

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> went to the bidder that would result in the two largest debtors being the happiest with the outcome but that bidder didn't bid the most money in a regular manner The creditors own the asset. If every dollar the creditors are owed voted, which bid would they choose?
- munk-a 2y ago
  The onion bid - by far. If the bid was chosen by creditors weighted by owed value the Connecticut families would solely dictate the terms as they are owed more than 90% of the value resulting from this auction.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  > The creditors own the asset If this is the case, dollars voted are less important than outcome value to the creditors. It is their asset, no? They are assigning value and signaling accordingly.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > dollars voted are less important than outcome value to the creditors. It is their asset, no? Sure. I’m trying to approximate a metric that gives their weighted interest. My point is the owners of the asset are selling it, and it seems their interests are obviously maximised by one bid.
amyames 2y ago
Just navel gazing here maybe there is case precedent or law here. The debtor generally deserves their case to be discharged resolved liquidated closed and done forever. Paying ongoing reparations in royalties or whatever the onion proposes doesn’t accomplish this. Alex Jones himself could convert his case to a chapter 13 and set up a “repayment” plan based on his own anticipated/potential earnings from his own business. It would possibly even be higher, infowars intended audience is probably more profitable than people laughing at infowars on Ben Collins bluesky feed. The people who got a personal judgment aren’t made whole by a promise of future restitution by someone purchasing his business assets. What if the onion went bankrupt next year and said oh we’re not going to pay that anymore? That would be an interesting case to test: a person being relieved from a fraud or criminal tort, as it’s handed off to a third party buying their business, who themselves didn’t commit fraud or a criminal tort and merely became insolvent which is dischargeable. In the case where the “creditors” own the asset to settle their claim, that’s another story, whether they make $1 or a billion dollars disposing of it is no longer the debtors problem In the same way that returning my smashed up uninsured car to a secured lender doesn’t make them whole for my discharged loan either.
- Suppafly 2y ago
  >Paying ongoing reparations in royalties or whatever the onion proposes doesn’t accomplish this. Sure it does, the Onion would be paying the royalties, Alex Jones already doesn't own it, it's essentially owned by an estate that is selling it off to cover Alex Jones' debts.
adolph 2y ago
That’s a lot of text to say “yes, it didn’t go to the highest bidder.“
- munk-a 2y ago
  That's incorrect - it's a lot of text to say it went to the second highest bidder. The onion bid was the one that provided more value to the creditors.
  - Supermancho 2y ago
    From what I've read, it's not incorrect. Orthogonal valuations are not part of the bid value. This is why The Onion was second (the winner). It was not the highest bid (the considered part). The end. The Judge has decided that's unfair, likely due to some bias (intellectual, political, etc.)

pdpi 2y ago

Put simply, the internet is wrong. FUAC's offer was all cash. The Onion offered less cash, but offered other incentives (AIUI, a share of whatever revenue they make from Infowars in the future). Saying that The Onion's bid was lower requires you to put a dollar value on those other incentives. The fact that the two creditors (read: victims' families) that would benefit from those incentives were willing to sacrifice some of the debt they were owed so they could benefit from those incentives suggests that at least _they_ think those incentives were worth more than the cash upfront, and the amount of debt they were willing to sacrifice gives you an implicit baseline for that dollar value. Given the site we're on: it's like saying that an offer with a lower base salary but higher equity is automatically a worse offer than a bigger salary with no stock.

sidewndr46 2y ago
The idea that Global Tetrahedron would generate revenue from InfoWars is a farce. Jones is InfoWars. Any market value assigned to InfoWars without Jones explicitly involvement is a farce. Even a non bankruptcy sale of InfoWars would require him to participate in the business for an extended period of time. Even then, it'd just be some investor bankrolling Jones.
- pdpi 2y ago
  That might or might not be true. If Infowars is _that_ worthless without Jones, then _any_ offer is a farce and the whole auction is pointless.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    > If Infowars is _that_ worthless without Jones, then _any_ offer is a farce That doesn't make sense. A genuine offer for an unprofitable thing could be made. That's not farcical, just a bad investment.
    - pdpi 2y ago
      Yes, that's precisely what I mean. It might or might not be a bad bet, but the Sandy Hook families are just as entitled to take that bet as anybody else. The idea that it's farcical to entertain any offer that doesn't involve putting Jones back in charge leads you down a really weird road.