News
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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
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.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
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.
view the rest of the comments
But this is not what happened.
They are not telling the onion to offer more money, they are giving the one with the highest bid the chance to make it even bigger.
This is highly unusual to be honest. But it was unusual from the beginning.
No, the Jones-affiliated bidder had a smaller bid, but should've been given the opportunity to try to outbid the then-highest bid from the Onion.
Basically the judge said that the trustee, as auctioneer, should've gotten the two bidders into a bidding war to maximize the price.
The Jones one was the largest of the two, but the onion was favored by the families
The value of the Onion's bid was $7 million ($1.75 million in cash, $5.25 million in credit), when you include the credit bids from the families. That's where you're getting tripped up in trying to understand what the court was ruling.
No, there was no 5.25 in credit. I'm happy to see any source for that claim though.
There was some future payments promised and a better than usual split for some families, so they "valued" the bid at 7 million.
That is exactly what counts as credit in this case, because this split is made possible by some other families crediting the bid. Basically writing "i dont want this money give it to someone else" on a figurative piece of paper and bidding with that instead of cash.
So even with that definition, there was no 7 millions anywhere. Thanks
It's not future payments promised. Just a division of who to split the proceeds with. And so for the typical creditor who didn't credit bid, The Onion's bid was worth the equivalent of a $7 million cash bid, and therefore was more valuable than the Jones affiliates' $3.5 million cash bid.
It's just math. The Onion bid was higher, and the judge said that the losing bid should've been given an opportunity to improve the bid to get a chance to win, and maybe raise even more money.
Murray valued it at that amount, it didn't have that real value. Even future payments were a percentage of profits and but not guaranteed.
That equivalence is only theoretical, not real. If you think they can write "it's 7 million but I let you hav 5.75, then we can have the bid at 99 trillions! Why not? They can just say they only Want 1.25.
That's not part of the bid. The bid only had two components: a cash portion and a commitment to reduce claims by certain creditors. For non-participating creditors, it's the exact same equivalent as a $7 million cash payment to the estate.
Future promises were made to families to incentivize them to reduce their claims (and therefore bring more money to the estate), but that's not part of the bid itself.
I think you're struggling to understand what's happening here because you're so anchored on your initial incorrect perceptions.
I'm only struggling with keeping with your mental gymnastics.
I get it, you want the onion to win. Me too. That shouldn't mean we make up the facts.
You're the one getting facts wrong!
You've said that the Jones-affiliated bid was higher, which is incorrect. The Onion's $7 million bid was higher, which is why the bankruptcy judge said that the other bidder should've been given an opportunity to improve its bid.
You've said that the $7 million valuation wasn't based on anything. It's a straightforward formula for determining the value when to reduce the claims of the creditors who wanted to credit bid.
You've said that the $7 million valuation was made up based on estimates of future cash flows. Future payments have nothing to do with the bid, and weren't used in the formula to calculate the value at $7 million. That value is how much this bid brings to the estate immediately.
It doesn't sound like that's happening - just that they should have known about what was happening more.
Honestly the reporting on this sucks. We'll need to wait for some legal commentators to weigh in on how unusual or standard this is and what happens next.
The reporting is OK, you need to read past the headline
Piss off? I read the rest of the article. In fact it says this:
That is a far cry from
they are giving the one with the highest bid the chance to make it even biggerby a long shot.So no need to be weirdly aggressive about my reading skills. The reporting so far is thin and being done by reporters who don't know the law enough about what happens next.