342
Judge says he must still approve sale of Infowars to The Onion
(www.nbcnews.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
342 points (99.1% liked)
News
36849 readers
1239 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
More of that "free market" Republicans and Neoliberals love crowing about on display.
Can't have commerce happening for prosocial reasons, only greed!
i mean, if Jones is in bankruptcy the whole point is to pay his debts to who he owes, some of which i believe are the parkland families. so you want to sell it for the largest total amount in order to pay off as much debt as possible.
if a company really did offer $3.5m and was rejected meanwhile The Onion is getting accepted for $1.75m, I'd like to know why. I don't think a company should get free dibs just because they're more or less "ethical" than another. at the end of the day, they're a for-profit corporation that is going to use this as a way to make money.
i don't believe for one second this has anything to do with "prosociality"
The major reason is that the Parkland families agreed to take a smaller payout as part of the Onion deal. Therefore, it enables more of the creditors to actually get paid (as opposed to the other deal, where the Parkland families would get almost all the money and the rest of the creditors would be left hat-in-hand).
Detailed answer: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GmDNz7irGgw
TLDW: there's two main parties (excluding lawyers and that kinda stuff) who would receive the money. As it stands right now, one of them would receive 98%, whereas the other would be left with barely anything. The Onion made a deal, that would cut into that 98%, and give the other party 100000 dollars more than what they would get with any other bid if it was shared according to the "proper" split. In return the 98% party gets paid out the rest of their due (potentially more, potentially less) with revenue from running the site.
I watched the video when it came out. If memory serves me correctly, the 98% party are parents from North Carolina, the others are from Texas. The percentage I wrote is probably wrong too. But it's definitely a massive discrepancy. The Onion worked this deal out in collaboration with both parties, and there's definitely a prosocial aspect in the NC parents declining a large chunk od money so the other victims can get more. Though both the NC parents and The Onion could potentially earn back that amount by running the website.
I believe you got the percentages correct (I watched the video yesterday).
To everyone looking at the bidding numbers only -- they don't include a lot of concessions the NC parents gave to both the Texas parents and the Onion in order to keep AJ out of the deal.
The video goes into great detail about how the deal came to be, and how the Onion and NC parents worked HARD to make it the most attractive one to both the trustee and Texas parents.
I think the video LegalEagle uploaded explains it quite succinctly: for the sale there was a certain split between the debtors, the debtors with the largest portion were willing to forego a portion such that the other debtors would get a larger portion if The Onion's bid was the winning one. In effect, the other debtors would get more money out of the 1.75m than the 3.5m bid, and the debtors that 'got less' are the ones that offered the money in the first place.
My understanding is that the families are willing to forgive the debt to them if the onion is the purchaser. If you add the value of that to the bid, it far outweighs the 3.5 million.