Comment by munk-a | Hacker News Reader

Comment by munk-a | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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

> 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?

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.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

>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.

That’s a lot of text to say “yes, it didn’t go to the highest bidder.“

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.

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.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com