TL;DR: According to Twitter... erm, X, accounts are their property and they don't have to allow the transfer of accounts.
That's it, that's the whole argument. There is not stated reason why X should care. And it's not like any time a company has been bought or sold before that they have jumped in and say "nuh-uh".
IANAL, but AIUI, the situation is somewhat analogous to “debtor in possession”.
For example, if a “factory and everything in it” is sold in a bankruptcy auction, the buyer doesn’t get the vending machines owned by the 3rd party caterer. The vending machines are in possession of the debtor, but not owned by him. So the bankruptcy court can’t transfer them.
X is arguing that users do not own their handles, so X cannot be compelled to transfer a handle from one user to another as part of a bankruptcy auction.
It’s not blocked, and there is no improper sale. Well, there is if you listen to Jones.
Jones is alleging that there was fraud and collusion between the Sandy Hook parents/victims and the executor of the sale. The judge will make a decision in a couple of weeks. There are two things being discussed with the judge—Jones’ allegations and a request from the appointee to approve the sale, and the judge has decided to handle both things in a single session.
Jones is trying to delay thing, and spouting a lot of nonsense in the process as usual.
InfoWars does tens of millions in revenue per year, but is nothing without Alex Jones.
A Jones-friendly bid was made for $3.5M, while Onion bidded $1.75M.
Onion won the 'auction' (where you get a single bid, and no knowledge of other bids), because with their bid also came commitments from some of the Sandy Hook families to drop their claims for compensation ($1.5B in total). This $1.5B was never collectable in the first place.
That's it, that's the whole argument. There is not stated reason why X should care. And it's not like any time a company has been bought or sold before that they have jumped in and say "nuh-uh".
reply