I'm not arguing against bankruptcy. I'm saying that bankruptcy is a structured process that is supposed to generate monetary outcomes for everyone. Selling off assets in a non-competitive process is basically a criminal move, especially if you collude with one of the bidders who is also a creditor.

Bankruptcy itself aside, the judgement against Alex Jones here is huge. I haven't looked it up but I'm sure it broke records. The plaintiffs' initial demands of trillions of dollars were absolutely insane. They could have actually gotten more money with a lower judgement that allowed him to pay over time. But clearly restitution is not the objective.

> But clearly restitution is not the objective.

It's not the only objective, punishment is also an objective. If not you get settlements like Purdue Pharma's one which even after paying billions in damages still had made more money than that, you don't want an incentive to break the law like that, it becomes just another cost for the business and not really a punishment for it.

No, it's a process that takes also other interests into account.

> Selling off assets in a non-competitive process is basically a criminal move, especially if you collude with one of the bidders who is also a creditor.

Not sure why the bankruptcy trustee working with the companies largest creditors, so large, that a simple proportionate would result in them claiming pretty much the entire possible payout, can be considered collusion.

The only people who can possibly be harmed are the creditors themselves. If they want to strike a deal that results in more equitable outcome, but with less total cash, that’s their business. Remember Alex Jones is on the hook for close to a billon dollars, and that sum has already been through various appeals and due process already, it’s no longer up for debate. The only question left is how Jones is gonna pay it. Unless someone creditably believes someone is going to hand over close to a billion dollars to purchase InfoWars, it seems silly to reject an offer that the creditors themselves believe is fair and reasonable.

>Not sure why the bankruptcy trustee working with the companies largest creditors, so large, that a simple proportionate would result in them claiming pretty much the entire possible payout, can be considered collusion.

Because there is no actual money, there must be consensus among creditors, and the assets in question might more than pay the debt (in general). I believe there are also tax implications to writing off debt in some cases, as well as tax implications associated with the actual sale of property. So no, you can't just go rogue and take possession of someone's property for any price you like without even having the cash, just because they haven't paid their debts or they are an unlikeable person.

> Because there is no actual money, there must be consensus among creditors, and the assets in question might more than pay the debt (in general).

What makes you think there wasn’t agreement from all the creditors? There is zero chance the assets can cover the debt (which is close to a billion dollars). The whole point of the deal was that the primary creditor was giving up part of their claim to allow the other creditors to actually see a real payout. There was real cash on the table, and under the rejected deal, every creditor, except the biggest, would see more actual cash in their pocket.

All of this was only possible because the largest creditors worked with the trustee to create a better deal for everyone involved. The fact it also allowed the largest creditors to stick it Alex Jones was icing on top.

> So no, you can't just go rogue and take possession of someone's property for any price you like without even having the cash, just because they haven't paid their debts or they are an unlikeable person.

If you’re the one that owns their debts, then yes you absolutely can. The current owner has already forfeited their claim to the property when they defaulted on the debt and started bankruptcy proceedings. Why the hell would the owner of the debt be required to have the needed cash on hand to repay themselves, that’s ridiculous.

it very much was a case of FAFO. he lost the case by repeatedly skipping his deposition (once with a fake doctor's note), and by refusing to participate in the discovery process. them during the damages trial, he repeatedly lied on the stand in obvious ways, and also went on air repeatedly while the trial was ongoing to call the judge and jury insane, on drugs, etc. the trial strategy of loudly and repeatedly defaming the jury turns out to be a bad one since it does a very good job explaining to the jury just how awful being a target of Jones was.

Bankruptcy is a process to make whole the debtors - in this case the primary debtors (those representing far more than 90% of the debt) were content with the outcome. The process was approved by everyone who is a relevant party to this matter - the original owner (Jones) no longer has any say in what happens to their former assets.

Just to reiterate - the trillions number is irrelevant - it's just an initial damages claim. The judgements were for 965M and 50M - slightly over 1B in total - and the expected final award to the injured parties is likely going to be below 200k.

Sealed auctions are a competitive manner and the sandy hook families are in all practical reality the only creditors of note. Their damages absolutely dwarf his other creditors to the point where they were already in line to effectively receive nothing. Going against the will of the families is absurd to begin with.

> But clearly restitution is not the objective.

Sure. And damages can be punitive in nature.

In this case, about half a billion dollars in punitive damages.

Free advice, kids: stay in school, don’t do drugs, and comply with court orders when you’re sued.

>Sealed auctions are a competitive manner [sic]

No they are not. Technically nobody knows what someone might be willing to pay. That is why public auctions are the default. The only reason an auction should be private is to protect the identity or interests of the bidders. Taking one round of bids from private parties is not an auction.

> No they are not.

Yes they are. They encourage people to make the best bid they reasonably can based on their desire to ensure the purchase goes through. There's a reason they are the de facto standard for bidding on government contracts.

> Technically nobody knows what someone might be willing to pay.

This is correct. But what you don't seem to understand is that this also causes people to overbid. This is the reason why the vickrey method was created - to ensure that the highest bidder does not massively overpay against the second.

> That is why public auctions are the default.

Public auctions are the default for... what? Bankruptcy? In the US, yes. In Canada and other parts of the world, no. And default does not mean only option or best option.

> The only reason an auction should be private is to protect the identity or interests of the bidders.

They are frequently used explicitly because they often get the person selling the best offer. If the people bidding in auction have asymmetric purchasing power, in an open auction, the winning bid will be slightly over the purchasing power of the weaker party. In a sealed bid auction, the winning party will frequently have a bid with a larger delta than they would have in an open auction.

> Taking one round of bids from private parties is not an auction.

Nothing about the word 'auction' precludes a single round of bidding, sealed or otherwise.

Some societies in the past would suggest indentured servitude. In this case, I'd find it rather amusing.

Yeah, but nobody ever argues conservative values when adhering to those gives a disadvantage to the one arguing. Proper conservative argument should make my life easier and predictable at the expense of other.

Exactly. On the same vein, it's only legal if it benefits them (“Finally, a judge followed the law.”), otherwise it's illegal persecution trying to silence his free speech.