“It seemed doomed almost from the moment they decided to go to a sealed bid,” Judge Lopez said. “Nobody knows what anybody else is bidding,” he added.

  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 days ago

    It’s technically the law. Bankruptcy procedures are geared to enable the return of the maximum amount of proceeds for the creditors.

    Sealed bid kind of torpedos that I suppose, but considering the shit stain on history that Infowars is, I feel like an exception should have been made here.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      Sealed bids encourage last and best offers, and prevent the deepest pockets from submitting a “highest plus one” bid that minimizes the proceeds from the sale.

      This judge is either a dipshit or corrupt.

    • SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      Problem is why did that auction even happen or rather was allowed if it was technically now allowed for a bankrupcy case?

      Feels like intentional so they can go “well, we don’t like the winner. time to revoke it”

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      Sealed buds are usually better for that.

      https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sealed-bid-auction.asp

      Each party is incentivised to make the highest offer they’re willing to pay from the beginning, as opposed to negotiating the best price they can get.

      Additionally, the families forgiving a significant amount of money as part of the bid should factor in, since the responsibility of the estate is to get the best deal, not the most cash.

      • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 days ago

        The article says “the potential for an additional $1 million was not worth the risk of increased costs to the estate”. I don’t think that’s the case here.