• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

The Official Alex Jones Thread!

Seems like it would be better to not have a clandestine sealed bid going on? Just an open air barker like Sotheby's and sunshine all over the process?
 
Nope, he said both were too low. At this point I think it's kind of up in the air for the next 30 days, but Jones retains control during that period. Murray will come up with a plan forward during that time.
The gist of it that I heard on some legal podcast somewhere was than $3 million or $7 million is too low a price for a company that consistently produces $30-50 million per year in profits. The other part of it was the handwavy accounting that the Onion was doing to show how it was really somehow a better deal. In a more serviceable auction you would be dealing with concrete dollar amounts, not a bunch of contingencies that kick in depending on other bids.
 
What is the worth of a company that produces millions in profits, but billions in legal liabilities?

My thought as well. It's all well and good for the judge to cite the fact that it generates millions worth of profit, but if the brand itself is toxic to all but the most nefarious and ill-intentioned buyers, who else is going to buy it?
 
What is the worth of a company that produces millions in profits, but billions in legal liabilities?

Technically the company won't have any legal liabilities to whomever it's sold to through auction. They'd get a clean slate and all they'd have to do to not get into legal trouble is not slander people. Jones has had no troubles up until now (relatively). He's lied, grifted, and hoodwinked millions of people to listening to what he says on that show all while denying what he's saying in legal case after legal case.

I have no idea what amount the judge would be looking for because the company itself won't be worth all that much unless, as you guys implied, the company who buys it keeps saying the same ◊◊◊◊.
 
Technically the company won't have any legal liabilities to whomever it's sold to through auction. They'd get a clean slate and all they'd have to do to not get into legal trouble is not slander people. Jones has had no troubles up until now (relatively). He's lied, grifted, and hoodwinked millions of people to listening to what he says on that show all while denying what he's saying in legal case after legal case.

I have no idea what amount the judge would be looking for because the company itself won't be worth all that much unless, as you guys implied, the company who buys it keeps saying the same ◊◊◊◊.
So selling a company that is deep in unrecoverable debt means those debts magically disappear and only the assets remain?
 
So selling a company that is deep in unrecoverable debt means those debts magically disappear and only the assets remain?

Most of the debts are to the people who sued him for the Sandy Hook stuff that would receive the payment provided to buy the company or else the company wouldn't be worth a God damn thing at all. Selling it would be useless.

That being said, I don't ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ know lol. I don't do bankruptcy stuff so if your end game is to prove me wrong it shouldn't be all that ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ hard. I'm just going off the snippets I've read. By all means feel free to correct me or provide other information.
 
Winning a judgement isn't always about the amount of money, it's about making the plaintiff "whole". If this outcome is what the Sandy Hook families desire, the judge is overstepping his bounds deciding what's best for them.

It can be argued that if Jones is allowed to keep doing what he does, which a sale to the other group would most likely facilitate, the whole process has been a waste of time. The judge needs to stay in his lane.
 
Most of the debts are to the people who sued him for the Sandy Hook stuff that would receive the payment provided to buy the company or else the company wouldn't be worth a God damn thing at all. Selling it would be useless.

That being said, I don't ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ know lol. I don't do bankruptcy stuff so if your end game is to prove me wrong it shouldn't be all that ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ hard. I'm just going off the snippets I've read. By all means feel free to correct me or provide other information.
The question was seeking information, not a put-down. I don't live in your country; don't know your business laws. So take a seat and chill for a bit.

As I understand it...

InfoWars was just Jones' megaphone. But he owns it so it is his asset. Any value in InfoWars is the vitamins and the prepper-buckets (i.e. sweet FA), and the brand & studio equipment. All that has an asset value, albeit not a huge amount. My question was does InfoWars also have huge debts? If so, what form do these take? For example, has Jones defaulted on his suppliers? Is InfoWars still liable for some court-adjudicated payout to a victim that hasn't been paid? In short, what is the state of InfoWars' balance sheet?

Is it not also the case that it is Jones personally who is on the hook for $1.5B, which he owes to the Sandy Hook victims? AIUI, Jones was being forced to sell InfoWars to pay back some fraction of this personal debt. But if InfoWars is also deep in unrecoverable debt, what value is it at sale? While the asset values may be hundreds of thousands, do multi-million-dollar debts somehow no longer count when it is sold under those circumstances?

Another scenario is if InfoWars has assets and no massive debts, but the whole operation is an unrecoverable and embarrassing wreck and the brand name is an embarrassing pile of rotting manure nobody wants to touch. So this would be a basic firesale of the tangible assets alone that the Onion was trying to buy, with the name being of no value beyond the shiggles. The bug-out buckets could be used as snacks... In which case my question doesn't apply, I suppose.

Any clues?
 
if Jones is the only way for Infowars to make the Big Bucks, and Jones is the only one who will, invariably, drag Infowars into further defamation cases, then what someone is willing to pay for Infowars WITHOUT Jones is the actual value, not what someone is willing to pay to keep Jones in the driver seat.
 
I was under the impression that InfoWars was the personal property of Alex Jones. If Jones as the owner of the company wants to guide it through Chapter 11 bankruptcy, that's one thing that would arise out of the bankruptcy of the company. But if Jones himself is in personal bankruptcy, then the company as a personal asset can be sold at auction for liquidation purposes under Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
 
A judgment in bankruptcy has nothing to do with making plaintiffs whole. Bankruptcy is about maximizing what value remains in an estate and equitably distributing that value among the creditors as far as it will go. The essential nature of bankruptcy means that no one will be made whole. Even still, courts generally don't want to exercise moral judgment. A plaintiff that can't be "made whole" by a dollar figure has a shaky claim.

Bankruptcy is not even a judicial proceeding as we understand from Article III. Bankruptcy is an administrative court. The bankruptcy process deals only with creditors. By virtue of decisions made in judicial courts, Jones is in debt to creditors who were plaintiffs in those prior proceeding, but any non-monetary interest those plaintiffs may have had does not extend into bankruptcy—bankruptcy is not an inevitable outcome of a judgment at trial.

If the bankruptcy is to be resolved by liquidating the petitioner's assets, the creditors themselves are under no obligation to purchase the assets themselves. Nor are they barred from doing so. The creditors' interest represented at bankruptcy is governed by entirely different principles than their interests at equity. They may express only a financial claim, and they are not obliged to participate in any part of the process beyond justifying their claim on the petitioner's estate. Here, the plaintiffs are attempting to operate the liquidation auction in a way that also addresses their non-monetary interest, but the judge may not consider those interests in his evaluation of the auction process.

Ultimately the judge decided that neither bid was high enough, even with the structured bid offered by the creditors that reduced their monetary claim.
 
if Jones is the only way for Infowars to make the Big Bucks, and Jones is the only one who will, invariably, drag Infowars into further defamation cases, then what someone is willing to pay for Infowars WITHOUT Jones is the actual value, not what someone is willing to pay to keep Jones in the driver seat.
In that case, it is only Jones' notoriety that would have any value. His name, not his assets. It would likely earn big bucks whether at InfoWars or on Fox. ...if they would have him. ;)

That also suggests InfoWars is worth much less on its own.
 
I was under the impression that InfoWars was the personal property of Alex Jones. If Jones as the owner of the company wants to guide it through Chapter 11 bankruptcy, that's one thing that would arise out of the bankruptcy of the company. But if Jones himself is in personal bankruptcy, then the company as a personal asset can be sold at auction for liquidation purposes under Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
That is what I understood to be the case.

So why is Jones trying to buy back his own asset at what looks like a liquidisation auction? Paying (not his own?) money for the ashes of his own burning business? It seems to me that is not achieving the required result: maximising the value at sale to pay debts.
 
Ultimately the judge decided that neither bid was high enough, even with the structured bid offered by the creditors that reduced their monetary claim.
Which is pretty dumb as Alex has moved all the sales of products to companies he does not personally own, making infowars much less valuable as he destroyed its money generating capacity. That is now on his fathers site Doctor Jones Naturals and the Alex Jones store which while it is using his name he does not own. All that is really left is the infowars name and the studio.
 
Which is pretty dumb as Alex has moved all the sales of products to companies he does not personally own, making infowars much less valuable as he destroyed its money generating capacity. That is now on his fathers site Doctor Jones Naturals and the Alex Jones store which while it is using his name he does not own. All that is really left is the infowars name and the studio.
Wasn't that ruled as some attempt to illegally avoid or minimise bankruptcy?
 
My understanding is that the supplements enterprise and the InfoWars brand are both still in play. But I don't know if I'm remembering that correctly.
Kind of, the supplements sold from his store would be, but he has switched to telling people to buy them from his fathers store that sells the same things and not the one owned by Infowars, making that store much less valuable. The infowars store would be part of the sale but I seriously doubt it is doing much business as he has been making it clear that his dads store is the one people should buy from now.
 
Wasn't that ruled as some attempt to illegally avoid or minimise bankruptcy?
Not in any ruling I have heard about. It really should have been but Alex is apparently to slick for the bankruptcy courts. Like how he gave his truck to his father and now his dad lets him use it.
 

Families who have sued Alex Jones over his false claims about the Sandy Hook massacre have resolved their disputes on how to divide the bankrupt conspiracy theorist’s assets, clearing the way for a sale of Jones’ Infowars platform, attorneys said at a Monday court hearing.
 

Back
Top Bottom