Well no. Had theil not been backing it would have both been easier to secure funding but also hogans lawyers would likely not have pressed for a harder to prove case just so that the case would not be covered by insurance
If Thiel wasn't funding the case, it almost certainly would have settled before trial.
It's a weak case on appeal and there's a substantial risk to Hogan that he won't recover anything. Gawker, obviously, has substantial exposure because the jury hated them.
The point of the bond is so the loser doesn't just spend all the money they now owe appealing the verdict. Let's say you do spend all of it and still lose, now the winner gets nothing. The problem in this case in not Thiel, or Gawkers inability to raise the bond. It's the outsize monetary award. If it had been a normal award, say 10 million, things would have gone apace and nobody would even care that some rich guy is funding the case.
Well, it could also be the extraordinary cap Florida has on the bond. Which is an enormous 50 million. So even with an award of 140 million, if the bond cap had been more reasonable, at say 10 million, things would also have proceeded apace.
I think the situation is similar to the ripoff of the bail bond industry.
Really, the main problem is that it leaves absolutely no recourse for people who genuinely can't afford to pay.
In order to make an argument that the jury award is outrageous based on both Gawker's real earnings and Hogan's real net worth, Gawker has to pay 20 times more than their actual profit margin and 10 times more than Hogan's actual net worth.
Basically, you have to have money in order to argue that you don't have money. In what world does this make any sense?
It's also similar to the issues that we see in a lot of poor communities, where poor people are locked up in jail for failing to pay a fine, and now they lose their job which means that they'll never be able to pay the fine.
Really, the main problem is that it leaves absolutely no recourse for people who genuinely can't afford to pay.
...
Basically, you have to have money in order to argue that you don't have money. In what world does this make any sense?
You do realize that you're trying to defend Gawker, right? The Gawker that ruined the lives of dozens of non-celebrities and dared those non-rich private citizens to sue them? That someone richer than Gawker used his money to screw over Gawker, just like how Gawker was using their millions to screw over dozens of non-celebrities, is quite karmic.
Really, the main problem is that it leaves absolutely no recourse for people who genuinely can't afford to pay.
...
Basically, you have to have money in order to argue that you don't have money. In what world does this make any sense?
You do realize that you're trying to defend Gawker, right? The Gawker that ruined the lives of dozens of non-celebrities and dared those non-rich private citizens to sue them? That someone richer than Gawker used his money to screw over Gawker, just like how Gawker was using their millions to screw over dozens of non-celebrities, is quite karmic.
Things aren't good just by virtue of being done to bad people.
Really, the main problem is that it leaves absolutely no recourse for people who genuinely can't afford to pay.
...
Basically, you have to have money in order to argue that you don't have money. In what world does this make any sense?
You do realize that you're trying to defend Gawker, right? The Gawker that ruined the lives of dozens of non-celebrities and dared those non-rich private citizens to sue them? That someone richer than Gawker used his money to screw over Gawker, just like how Gawker was using their millions to screw over dozens of non-celebrities, is quite karmic.
Things aren't good just by virtue of being done to bad people.
Seriously there is a very scary under current of "They deserved it so it doesn't matter what happened to them." And I have never liked that sentiment in just about anything.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
You do realize that you're trying to defend Gawker, right?
No, I'm trying to defend a system that doesn't put people who genuinely can't afford to pay in a Catch-22 situation where they need to have the money in order to argue that they don't have the money.
That's a bad thing.
Imagine if you went to court over a $10,000 property dispute and the jury didn't like your attitude, so the jury fines you $1.5 million for the dispute and then charges you $500,000 if you wanted to appeal the decision. Which obviously you can't afford. Is that a good system?
The point of the justice system shouldn't be to give zero recourse to the accused, because sometimes they might be genuinely guilty and deserve it and you can laugh at them.
The point of the justice system should be to give the recourse to the accused, and if the accused party is genuinely guilty, you continue to prove your case with the recourse in mind.
Really, the main problem is that it leaves absolutely no recourse for people who genuinely can't afford to pay.
...
Basically, you have to have money in order to argue that you don't have money. In what world does this make any sense?
You do realize that you're trying to defend Gawker, right? The Gawker that ruined the lives of dozens of non-celebrities and dared those non-rich private citizens to sue them? That someone richer than Gawker used his money to screw over Gawker, just like how Gawker was using their millions to screw over dozens of non-celebrities, is quite karmic.
Things aren't good just by virtue of being done to bad people.
Seriously there is a very scary under current of "They deserved it so it doesn't matter what happened to them." And I have never liked that sentiment in just about anything.
It's really a parallel we saw in the Bush years, where anyone who tried to criticize the PATRIOT Act for any reason was accused of literally defending Osama Bin Laden.
there's a difference between saying 'they deserved it because I don't like them' and 'they deserved it because what they did caused actionable harm'
If you think that posting the video of Hogan shouldn't be actionable (either because it was sufficiently newsworthy or for some other reason) then fair enough, but it isn't somehow problematic to believe that people who commit civil wrongs ought to actually be held liable.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
there's a difference between saying 'they deserved it because I don't like them' and 'they deserved it because what they did caused actionable harm'
If you think that posting the video of Hogan shouldn't be actionable (either because it was sufficiently newsworthy or for some other reason) then fair enough, but it isn't somehow problematic to believe that people who commit civil wrongs ought to actually be held liable.
Can you point to anyone who said that gawker's actions weren't actionable at all?
The point of the bond is so the loser doesn't just spend all the money they now owe appealing the verdict. Let's say you do spend all of it and still lose, now the winner gets nothing. The problem in this case in not Thiel, or Gawkers inability to raise the bond. It's the outsize monetary award. If it had been a normal award, say 10 million, things would have gone apace and nobody would even care that some rich guy is funding the case.
Well, it could also be the extraordinary cap Florida has on the bond. Which is an enormous 50 million. So even with an award of 140 million, if the bond cap had been more reasonable, at say 10 million, things would also have proceeded apace.
I think the situation is similar to the ripoff of the bail bond industry.
Really, the main problem is that it leaves absolutely no recourse for people who genuinely can't afford to pay.
In order to make an argument that the jury award is outrageous based on both Gawker's real earnings and Hogan's real net worth, Gawker has to pay 20 times more than their actual profit margin and 10 times more than Hogan's actual net worth.
Basically, you have to have money in order to argue that you don't have money. In what world does this make any sense?
It's also similar to the issues that we see in a lot of poor communities, where poor people are locked up in jail for failing to pay a fine, and now they lose their job which means that they'll never be able to pay the fine.
The difference here is that Gawker was ruled guilty by a jury of its peers at least once
If you think the damages were too high, take it up with the jury
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
If you think the damages were too high, take it up with the jury
That's sort of the whole point.
Normally, they would be able to take it up with the jury.
But this time they can't, on account of not having enough money.
That's our right, not Gawker's. They will never see this jury again.
Tort reform, which is what you're advocating, scarcely helps the party that spurred it. And even in the US, the national right to appeal is limited to getting a yes/no from the appellate court. Not everybody gets an appeal. Gawker already got one no. In most states, that's due diligence.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Come on paladin are you really arguing that there should be no right to have an appeal heard? What is even the point of SCOTUS then?
No, I am arguing that there is no guarantee an appeal sees trial. Contrary to the Judge's instructions, the jury did indeed hand down a death sentence to Gawker. But since Gawker is a corporation, not a person, I feel less sympathy for them than a poor person trapped in a vicious bail bond cycle.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Rights aren't for people we like. And gawker is not being denied an appeal on review they are being denied having their appeal even examined.
Gawker isn't a person. And we'll see what happens with the appeal when the dust settles.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Well, it makes a difference. This is an anomaly, but it's not like appeal bonds only exist to infringe rights. In a perverse way, they help prevent frivolous stalling tactics in patent lawsuits. We're thinking about this in terms of Gawker being a person forced to sell themselves to the highest bidder, but in reality rules are just different for corporations.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
We'll see. This isn't over, unless Gawker's lawyers suck.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
We'll see. This isn't over, unless Gawker's lawyers suck.
No. Whether or not this is over depends on whether or not gawker can liquidate in a fashion that leaves them with enough cash to continue and whether or not Theil's lawyers prevent that [as the primary creditors/claimants they have a place at the bankruptcy proceedings].
Do you have some special insight that suggests its likely they will prevail here or will find a buyer?
Edit: Or Denton will get the same protections as apparently he is on the same chopping block
We'll see. This isn't over, unless Gawker's lawyers suck.
No. Whether or not this is over depends on whether or not gawker can liquidate in a fashion that leaves them with enough cash to continue and whether or not Theil's lawyers prevent that [as the primary creditors/claimants they have a place at the bankruptcy proceedings].
Do you have some special insight that suggests its likely they will prevail here or will find a buyer?
Edit: Or Denton will get the same protections as apparently he is on the same chopping block
I have as much insight as you do that they won't. How much are you willing to stake that this never gets an appeal?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
We'll see. This isn't over, unless Gawker's lawyers suck.
No. Whether or not this is over depends on whether or not gawker can liquidate in a fashion that leaves them with enough cash to continue and whether or not Theil's lawyers prevent that [as the primary creditors/claimants they have a place at the bankruptcy proceedings].
Do you have some special insight that suggests its likely they will prevail here or will find a buyer?
Edit: Or Denton will get the same protections as apparently he is on the same chopping block
I have as much insight as you do that they won't. How much are you willing to stake that this never gets an appeal?
I donno. Now that this is getting wrapped up into a broader culture war, its always possible Gawker gets an equally driven ideological billionaire supporter who puts his money where his mouth is.
We'll see. This isn't over, unless Gawker's lawyers suck.
No. Whether or not this is over depends on whether or not gawker can liquidate in a fashion that leaves them with enough cash to continue and whether or not Theil's lawyers prevent that [as the primary creditors/claimants they have a place at the bankruptcy proceedings].
Do you have some special insight that suggests its likely they will prevail here or will find a buyer?
Edit: Or Denton will get the same protections as apparently he is on the same chopping block
I have as much insight as you do that they won't. How much are you willing to stake that this never gets an appeal?
I donno. Now that this is getting wrapped up into a broader culture war, its always possible Gawker gets an equally driven ideological billionaire supporter who puts his money where his mouth is.
Also they could get an Avenue through bankruptcy to buy time and leniency to secure an appeal, and so far the process has been good for Gawker. Bankruptcy isn't the end. Heck, Trump did it four times, and look how he turned out.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
We'll see. This isn't over, unless Gawker's lawyers suck.
No. Whether or not this is over depends on whether or not gawker can liquidate in a fashion that leaves them with enough cash to continue and whether or not Theil's lawyers prevent that [as the primary creditors/claimants they have a place at the bankruptcy proceedings].
Do you have some special insight that suggests its likely they will prevail here or will find a buyer?
Edit: Or Denton will get the same protections as apparently he is on the same chopping block
I have as much insight as you do that they won't. How much are you willing to stake that this never gets an appeal?
I think I posted something like 2 weeks ago that I wasn't sure this appeal was going to be seen through. And not just because of Florida's bond law either. Thiel's role in this also, imo, makes a full appeal unlikely, if Gawker believes, as they reasonably may, that they're going to just get buried under litigation costs anyways. Even if they won this appeal, I'm not sure Gawker could survive a barrage of lawsuits if they're going to get as ridiculous as the guy who claimed he invented email; if that's the threshold, and if Thiel's willing to spend $250M (Gawker's net worth) on this, and if some sort of frivolous lawsuit law doesn't get triggered, Gawker's just going to drown under legal costs.
We'll see. This isn't over, unless Gawker's lawyers suck.
No. Whether or not this is over depends on whether or not gawker can liquidate in a fashion that leaves them with enough cash to continue and whether or not Theil's lawyers prevent that [as the primary creditors/claimants they have a place at the bankruptcy proceedings].
Do you have some special insight that suggests its likely they will prevail here or will find a buyer?
Edit: Or Denton will get the same protections as apparently he is on the same chopping block
I have as much insight as you do that they won't. How much are you willing to stake that this never gets an appeal?
I think I posted something like 2 weeks ago that I wasn't sure this appeal was going to be seen through. And not just because of Florida's bond law either. Thiel's role in this also, imo, makes a full appeal unlikely, if Gawker believes, as they reasonably may, that they're going to just get buried under litigation costs anyways. Even if they won this appeal, I'm not sure Gawker could survive a barrage of lawsuits if they're going to get as ridiculous as the guy who claimed he invented email; if that's the threshold, and if Thiel's willing to spend $250M (Gawker's net worth) on this, and if some sort of frivolous lawsuit law doesn't get triggered, Gawker's just going to drown under legal costs.
Whatever happens, odds are it will go into the years territory before resolution. And Gawker seemingly has been drowning for almost a decade in frivolous lawsuits until the Bollea guilty verdict. It's a safe bet that they can probably breathe water by now.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Rights aren't for people we like. And gawker is not being denied an appeal on review they are being denied having their appeal even examined.
Gawker isn't a person. And we'll see what happens with the appeal when the dust settles.
If Gawker isn't a person, then it can only be sued in rem. Corporate personhood cuts both ways.
I was under the impression Denton's personal assets were protected and his stake in the company was offered voluntarily as good faith for the appeal bond
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Rights aren't for people we like. And gawker is not being denied an appeal on review they are being denied having their appeal even examined.
Gawker isn't a person. And we'll see what happens with the appeal when the dust settles.
If Gawker isn't a person, then it can only be sued in rem. Corporate personhood cuts both ways.
I was under the impression Denton's personal assets were protected and his stake in the company was offered voluntarily as good faith for the appeal bond
Don't think so. His stake in the company is his personal assets. That is his limited liability in terms of any debt the company owes. Denton is personally liable for 10m of the punitive damages (gawker itself for 115 of the compensatory and 15 m of punitive, of which Denton and his family is at least 30% of)
The second part is obvious. His stake in the company isn't worth anything (well much) and theil doesn't want it. Even if Denton accepted the debt on behalf of gawker (which he is not as Gawker is in bankruptcy) there is no way to agree on a price since theil doesn't want it.
To Harder’s first point, Feinberg never claimed that Trump had been Ivari’s client. Instead, her story analyzed a wealth of circumstantial evidence—including Ivari’s prior location in the Trump Tower....
Harder asserts another falsehood in his letter on June 24, writing, “Gawker ... leaped to the false conclusion that Mr. Trump was a client of Ivari.” That’s wrong. Feinberg never concluded or stated as fact that Trump was a client of Ivari. At the end of the piece, she wrote, “This is merely a thought exercise; like Donald Trump wondering aloud what Ted Cruz’s father was doing with John F. Kennedy’s assassin, I’m just asking questions.”
Even in their own piece they can't help but come off as dishonest douchebags.
If you are trying to elicit some sympathy from your readers, maybe going with the Glenn Beck "I'm just asking questions" approach to journalism should be reconsidered.
RJ Bell, the “Vegas oddsmaker” in charge of the sports betting website Pregame.com, and subject of a lengthy investigation by Ryan Goldberg on Gawker’s sister website Deadspin, has enlisted Charles J. Harder—the same lawyer who has threatened Gawker over Ashley Feinberg’s reporting on Donald Trump’s hair—to demand a retraction of the article. Meticulously reported over the course of a year, Goldberg’s piece exposed some of Bell and Pregame’s questionable business practices.
Forbes has reported that Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel is funding numerous lawsuits brought by Harder against Gawker Media, which owns Deadspin. Aside from Hulk Hogan’s suit against Gawker, neither Harder nor Thiel have stated which lawsuits in particular are being funded by Thiel. In a May interview with Thiel on his “clandestine war against Gawker,” he told the New York Times that he planned to wage a “deterrence” campaign against Gawker Media, which he believes has “ruined people’s lives for no reason.”
According to email correspondence between Harder and Bell—portions of which the latter forwarded to Goldberg—Harder took just five minutes to decide to he was interested in Bell’s case, and only a few days after that, over a weekend, to get comfortable enough with the matter to put together a 13-page retraction demand in which he asks that Deadspin “immediately publish a full, fair and conspicuous retraction, correction and apology as to each false and defamatory statement” or else risk “immediate litigation.”
And just like that Nick Denton gives us an instant excuse to hate him again.
Denton is claiming that the valuation was Hogan's. That Denton had claimed that the valuation was likely wrong and they had no way to know what the shares would be worth. So probably can't put that on Denton if its true.
Thinking about it more I am with Denton on this. There can't be any failure to disclose materially relevant facts since an agreed upon sale wouldn't actually matter to the value of the stock. The estimated value of the assets depends entirely on whether or not Hogan wins the appeal not on what its sold for now*. If Hogan loses then its value goes up a whole bunch, if Hogan wins then its worth shit as the fine is essentially paid out of the firms value.
Hogan taking assets as escrow assumes he would win and so they should have valued the assets accordingly. I am not sure how Denton could "fail" to materially disclose this fact, or really materially disclose anything since the value of the company depends not on a bankruptcy sale price* but on the outcome of the case.
*this "sets" a market price but it really isn't for a number of reasons.
Posts
If Thiel wasn't funding the case, it almost certainly would have settled before trial.
It's a weak case on appeal and there's a substantial risk to Hogan that he won't recover anything. Gawker, obviously, has substantial exposure because the jury hated them.
I think the situation is similar to the ripoff of the bail bond industry.
Really, the main problem is that it leaves absolutely no recourse for people who genuinely can't afford to pay.
In order to make an argument that the jury award is outrageous based on both Gawker's real earnings and Hogan's real net worth, Gawker has to pay 20 times more than their actual profit margin and 10 times more than Hogan's actual net worth.
Basically, you have to have money in order to argue that you don't have money. In what world does this make any sense?
It's also similar to the issues that we see in a lot of poor communities, where poor people are locked up in jail for failing to pay a fine, and now they lose their job which means that they'll never be able to pay the fine.
Things aren't good just by virtue of being done to bad people.
Seriously there is a very scary under current of "They deserved it so it doesn't matter what happened to them." And I have never liked that sentiment in just about anything.
pleasepaypreacher.net
No, I'm trying to defend a system that doesn't put people who genuinely can't afford to pay in a Catch-22 situation where they need to have the money in order to argue that they don't have the money.
That's a bad thing.
Imagine if you went to court over a $10,000 property dispute and the jury didn't like your attitude, so the jury fines you $1.5 million for the dispute and then charges you $500,000 if you wanted to appeal the decision. Which obviously you can't afford. Is that a good system?
The point of the justice system shouldn't be to give zero recourse to the accused, because sometimes they might be genuinely guilty and deserve it and you can laugh at them.
The point of the justice system should be to give the recourse to the accused, and if the accused party is genuinely guilty, you continue to prove your case with the recourse in mind.
It's really a parallel we saw in the Bush years, where anyone who tried to criticize the PATRIOT Act for any reason was accused of literally defending Osama Bin Laden.
If you think that posting the video of Hogan shouldn't be actionable (either because it was sufficiently newsworthy or for some other reason) then fair enough, but it isn't somehow problematic to believe that people who commit civil wrongs ought to actually be held liable.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Can you point to anyone who said that gawker's actions weren't actionable at all?
pleasepaypreacher.net
The difference here is that Gawker was ruled guilty by a jury of its peers at least once
If you think the damages were too high, take it up with the jury
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
That's sort of the whole point.
Normally, they would be able to take it up with the jury.
But this time they can't, on account of not having enough money.
No guilty party can be judged by the same people twice.
That's our right, not Gawker's. They will never see this jury again.
Tort reform, which is what you're advocating, scarcely helps the party that spurred it. And even in the US, the national right to appeal is limited to getting a yes/no from the appellate court. Not everybody gets an appeal. Gawker already got one no. In most states, that's due diligence.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Do you believe that only billionaires should be allowed to appeal?
They're there for major corporations, the government(s), and well-funded lobbying groups.
'MURICA.
No, I am arguing that there is no guarantee an appeal sees trial. Contrary to the Judge's instructions, the jury did indeed hand down a death sentence to Gawker. But since Gawker is a corporation, not a person, I feel less sympathy for them than a poor person trapped in a vicious bail bond cycle.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Gawker isn't a person. And we'll see what happens with the appeal when the dust settles.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Also what appeal?
Well, it makes a difference. This is an anomaly, but it's not like appeal bonds only exist to infringe rights. In a perverse way, they help prevent frivolous stalling tactics in patent lawsuits. We're thinking about this in terms of Gawker being a person forced to sell themselves to the highest bidder, but in reality rules are just different for corporations.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
We'll see. This isn't over, unless Gawker's lawyers suck.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
No. Whether or not this is over depends on whether or not gawker can liquidate in a fashion that leaves them with enough cash to continue and whether or not Theil's lawyers prevent that [as the primary creditors/claimants they have a place at the bankruptcy proceedings].
Do you have some special insight that suggests its likely they will prevail here or will find a buyer?
Edit: Or Denton will get the same protections as apparently he is on the same chopping block
I have as much insight as you do that they won't. How much are you willing to stake that this never gets an appeal?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I donno. Now that this is getting wrapped up into a broader culture war, its always possible Gawker gets an equally driven ideological billionaire supporter who puts his money where his mouth is.
Also they could get an Avenue through bankruptcy to buy time and leniency to secure an appeal, and so far the process has been good for Gawker. Bankruptcy isn't the end. Heck, Trump did it four times, and look how he turned out.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I think I posted something like 2 weeks ago that I wasn't sure this appeal was going to be seen through. And not just because of Florida's bond law either. Thiel's role in this also, imo, makes a full appeal unlikely, if Gawker believes, as they reasonably may, that they're going to just get buried under litigation costs anyways. Even if they won this appeal, I'm not sure Gawker could survive a barrage of lawsuits if they're going to get as ridiculous as the guy who claimed he invented email; if that's the threshold, and if Thiel's willing to spend $250M (Gawker's net worth) on this, and if some sort of frivolous lawsuit law doesn't get triggered, Gawker's just going to drown under legal costs.
Whatever happens, odds are it will go into the years territory before resolution. And Gawker seemingly has been drowning for almost a decade in frivolous lawsuits until the Bollea guilty verdict. It's a safe bet that they can probably breathe water by now.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
If Gawker isn't a person, then it can only be sued in rem. Corporate personhood cuts both ways.
- John Stuart Mill
I was under the impression Denton's personal assets were protected and his stake in the company was offered voluntarily as good faith for the appeal bond
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Don't think so. His stake in the company is his personal assets. That is his limited liability in terms of any debt the company owes. Denton is personally liable for 10m of the punitive damages (gawker itself for 115 of the compensatory and 15 m of punitive, of which Denton and his family is at least 30% of)
The second part is obvious. His stake in the company isn't worth anything (well much) and theil doesn't want it. Even if Denton accepted the debt on behalf of gawker (which he is not as Gawker is in bankruptcy) there is no way to agree on a price since theil doesn't want it.
I do love the lawyer trying to argue he's not Thiel's catspaw.
Even in their own piece they can't help but come off as dishonest douchebags.
If you are trying to elicit some sympathy from your readers, maybe going with the Glenn Beck "I'm just asking questions" approach to journalism should be reconsidered.
And just like that Nick Denton gives us an instant excuse to hate him again.
Denton is claiming that the valuation was Hogan's. That Denton had claimed that the valuation was likely wrong and they had no way to know what the shares would be worth. So probably can't put that on Denton if its true.
Thinking about it more I am with Denton on this. There can't be any failure to disclose materially relevant facts since an agreed upon sale wouldn't actually matter to the value of the stock. The estimated value of the assets depends entirely on whether or not Hogan wins the appeal not on what its sold for now*. If Hogan loses then its value goes up a whole bunch, if Hogan wins then its worth shit as the fine is essentially paid out of the firms value.
Hogan taking assets as escrow assumes he would win and so they should have valued the assets accordingly. I am not sure how Denton could "fail" to materially disclose this fact, or really materially disclose anything since the value of the company depends not on a bankruptcy sale price* but on the outcome of the case.
*this "sets" a market price but it really isn't for a number of reasons.