A federal judge in Texas is set to hold a hearing on whether the satirical news outlet The Onion made a valid bid for the Infowars platforms of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.

A bankruptcy judge is set to hear arguments Monday in conspiracy theorist Alex Jones ’ effort to stop the satirical news outlet The Onion from buying Infowars and turning it into a parody.

Jones alleges fraud and collusion marred the bankruptcy auction in which The Onion was named the winning bidder on Nov. 14 over a company affiliated with him.

It’s not clear how soon U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez in Houston will issue a ruling. He could allow The Onion to move forward with the sale, order a new auction or name the other bidder as the winner. At stake is whether Jones gets to stay at Infowars’ studio in Austin, Texas, under a new owner friendly to him, or whether he gets kicked out by The Onion.

  • themeatbridge
    49•1 month ago

    Fraud and collusion? Every accusation is a confession. Bitch, there’s no law against “colluding” with the vultures picking your bones clean. You are bankrupt because you spread vicious lies, and now you’re mad that your attempt to reduce your penalties has been rejected. You could keep Infowars if you just paid your debts, but you wanted to delay payments and minimize the cost by colluding with an intermediary and committing fraud in buying your own assets back at a discount. You’re suing because they saw through your bullshit and took a lower payment to avoid enabling your further crimes. That’s perfectly legal.

    • @Botzo
      28•1 month ago

      But it isn’t even a lower payment!

      The only reason the business is being auctioned is to pay down his debts to his creditors. The onion bid reduces his debt more because some of the creditors are reducing the IOU they got in addition to the cash from the onion.

      The net effect is a greater reduction in the amount Jones owes by taking the onion bid even though there is less cash.

      Jones could have avoided such an insane judgment by working in good faith with the courts, but this turd was wildly contemptuous throughout, leading to liability by default in the separate cases.

      • themeatbridge
        12•1 month ago

        The bankruptcy proceedings lower his overall payment by liquidating his assets and settling for lower amounts. It’s common to see people go through bankruptcy and then try to buy back their auctioned assets through an intermediary using undisclosed or borrowed funds. This is fraud, because if they had the means to acquire such funding, they should have used those funds to pay their debts instead of declaring insolvency. That’s why there is a trustee, to ensure that the bankruptcy auction is at arms length from the person who owes.

        He’s trying to buy back his company so he can continue doing his show. The people he owes have an interest in making sure he does not continue to do his show, so they have every right to participate in the evaluation and selection of the bids.

        Like, imagine Alex Jones owed $10 million and also owned a Picasso. Jones declares bankruptcy because he can’t afford to pay $10 million, and the painting is the only asset he owns. The painting goes up for sale, and there are two bidders. One is a museum offering $5 million, and the other is Blex Hones, LLC, an anonymous collector offering $6 million, who wants to place the painting in a private collection.

        He’s trying to lower the amount he pays by $4 million and keep his Picasso. The people he owes are not fooled, and have an interest in seeing that the museum receives the painting so that it can be shared with the public. It is their decision to accept $5 million instead of $6 million, and they have no obligation to give Blex Hones, LLC another shot at bidding more. It is neither collusion nor fraud to take a lower bid because you prefer that buying receive the asset.