Elon Musk wants to block the transfer of InfoWars' X accounts to The Onion [pdf]
storage.courtlistener.com
storage.courtlistener.com
InfoWars does tens of millions in revenue per year, but is nothing without Alex Jones.
A Jones-friendly bid was made for $3.5M, while Onion bidded $1.75M.
Onion won the 'auction' (where you get a single bid, and no knowledge of other bids), because with their bid also came commitments from some of the Sandy Hook families to drop their claims for compensation ($1.5B in total). This $1.5B was never collectable in the first place.
By what logic was this $1.5 B not collectible in the first place?
Edit: Also
> The Onion estimates its total bid value is $7 million.
It may be $7 million in total value, but I believe the actual money was $1.75M. The other $5M would be uncollectible debt being forgiven.
Obviously he doesn't have $1.5 Billion liquid, no one does. But to try dismiss most of the debt as "uncollectible" while discussing how one of the many assets Jones owns is worth millions of dollars... That *literally is process of collections*.
Hence the sarcastic request for a community note.
If you have a judgment of $1M with a use-by date of 30 years, then that's collectable if and only if the person's current assets plus future earnings add up to $1M.
* (multiplied by)
> use-by date of 30 years
So then it would be $1.2B "uncollectible" not the whole $1.5B.
But also... what is a Use-By date on collections? Is there a statue of limitations on non-dischargable debt? This sounds made up.
For example: When you do due diligence while buying a house or a company, collections are one of the things you need to check. How far back do you need to check the archives? It would be unreasonable to require you to go all the way back. So there's a limit, and it's set so high that it doesn't matter for everyday life, yet low enough that the lawyers and notaries who check the archives can do their job practically.
Where I live, a collection expires after 30 years, but it may be much less, there are usually other relevant rules. A single-digit number of years is not unusual in case of collections against a person.
(BTW, you're confusing revenue with either profit or cash on hand. Profit is revenue minus costs, and the costs are usually a much bigger than the profit.)
> Where I live
Lovely but not the case here. There is no "Use-by" date on Jones's debt. Even if he dies his estate will still owe the debt.
That's it, that's the whole argument. There is not stated reason why X should care. And it's not like any time a company has been bought or sold before that they have jumped in and say "nuh-uh".
Also the sale was blocked is the last I heard due to improper sale.
Jones is alleging that there was fraud and collusion between the Sandy Hook parents/victims and the executor of the sale. The judge will make a decision in a couple of weeks. There are two things being discussed with the judge—Jones’ allegations and a request from the appointee to approve the sale, and the judge has decided to handle both things in a single session.
Jones is trying to delay thing, and spouting a lot of nonsense in the process as usual.
https://apnews.com/article/alex-jones-infowars-auction-onion...
Yikes.
For example, if a “factory and everything in it” is sold in a bankruptcy auction, the buyer doesn’t get the vending machines owned by the 3rd party caterer. The vending machines are in possession of the debtor, but not owned by him. So the bankruptcy court can’t transfer them.
X is arguing that users do not own their handles, so X cannot be compelled to transfer a handle from one user to another as part of a bankruptcy auction.
A company can be sold including its assets (its X account), but not a personal account - which Jones' account is.
@InfoWars and @AlexJones are different issues entirely.
The argument would be that a company's X account is not one of its assets -- it is one of X's.
I don't think that means X is required to transfer the handle but I wonder if that would open them up to further lawsuits
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/judge-review-alex-jones-attempt-block-infowars-sale-onion-rcna181377But also Alex Jones is a horrible human and his platform being sold to pay the debts the courts awarded the families he harmed is poetic justice Kendrick Lamar couldn’t have written better than. Here’s hoping the Onion gets the assets and can satirize Jones for ever and ever as the putz that he is.