Recode (Vox Media) reports
Gawker and owner Nick Denton are making the Chapter 11 filing today, in order to avoid paying Thiel and Hulk Hogan the $140 million judgment they won in Hogan's privacy trial earlier this year.
Update: In a memo to employees, Ziff Davis CEO Vivek Shah says his company has an "asset purchase agreement" to buy seven Gawker titles, and says there is a "tremendous fit between the two organizations".
Previous: Hulk Hogan's Sex Tape and a Tech Billionaire's Revenge on Gawker
Gawker Becomes First Online Media Outlet to Unionize
Related Stories
The Center for American Progress reports:
[June 3], Gawker Media voted to unionize. The stats: 107 of 118 eligible voters cast secret ballots, 80 of whom voted yes. Just like that, Gawker will become the first digital-only news site to have a union.
Hamilton Nolan, longtime Gawker writer, announced the editorial staff's decision to organize in a post this April. At the time, he listed the motivations: that a union "is the only real mechanism that exists to represent the interest of employees in a company," the continued pursuit of fair and transparent salaries, and the ability to make a little history as the first major site of its kind to organize.
According to Gawker senior writer Sam Biddle, who answered questions via email, "The origin of the union isn't any particular grievance or crisis---we all love our jobs and our workplace, and thought a union would be a great way to protect that, and make it even better for ourselves and our colleagues." In his five years at Gawker, he doesn't recall unionizing being "seriously discussed."
"I think it happened now because the [Writers Guild of America, East] was so enthusiastic about making this happen for us," he said. "It didn't take very much convincing, to be honest."
[...] Both [WGA and Gawker] insist the desire to form a union arose from a desire for the perks of organization, not as a reaction to poor working conditions.
Original Submission
Two Soylentils wrote in with an update on Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker. After these stories were submitted, it appears to have been confirmed by The New York Times that Thiel paid $10 million to fund the lawsuit.
Peter Thiel Funded Hulk Hogan's Lawsuit Against Gawker
Peter Thiel, the billionaire Silicon Valley venture capitalist and libertarian who we have reported on several times, reportedly bankrolled former wrestler Hulk Hogan's (real name: Terry Bollea) lawsuit against Gawker. After Gawker published a sex tape featuring Bollea, Bollea sued and was eventually awarded $140 million by a jury. That decision is being appealed.
Thiel has had several run-ins with Gawker's reporting on his political and financial decisions, but the most prominent incident was in 2007, when the website's then-running gossip vertical Valleywag outed Thiel's sexual orientation in a post titled, "Peter Thiel is totally gay, people."
Thiel, who is now open about being gay, later called Valleywag "the Silicon Valley equivalent of Al Qaeda."
Although the exact details of the arrangement between Thiel and Bollea are unknown, if Thiel negotiated for a share of the lawsuit's proceeds, he may get to stick it to Gawker while earning millions of dollars.
[Continues...]
Thiel Makes a Bid for Gawker.com, a Site He Helped Bankrupt
Peter Thiel, the technology billionaire, submitted a bid this week to purchase Gawker.com, the remaining unsold property from the Gawker Media gossip empire that was nearly destroyed in 2016 by a lawsuit largely bankrolled by Mr. Thiel.
If approved, the acquisition could be the last step in a yearslong effort by Mr. Thiel to finish an independent journalism outfit that angered him in 2007 when it reported, without his permission, that he is gay, a fact widely known at the time in Silicon Valley.
Gawker.com has received other offers, and it is not clear if Mr. Thiel, a co-founder of PayPal and an early investor in Facebook, will prevail. A winning bid is expected to be announced in the coming weeks, if representatives of Gawker.com do not take the site off the market.
Previously: Hulk Hogan's Sex Tape and a Tech Billionaire's Revenge on Gawker
Gawker Files for Chapter 11; Won't Pay Hulk Hogan and Peter Thiel
Peter Thiel Wants to Buy Gawker!
CBS News reports that Univision has won the auction for Gawker Media. Univision bid $135 million for the company. The only other bidder was Ziff Davis. The sale must be approved by a bankruptcy court.
From the article:
Spanish-language broadcaster Univision won an auction Tuesday for Gawker Media, which was put on the block in the aftermath of a $140 million judgment against it in the Hulk Hogan invasion-of-privacy case.
Univision is paying $135 million for the online gossip and news publisher, according to a person familiar with the matter who asked not to be identified because the deal had not been formally announced.
In a statement Tuesday evening however, Gawker's founder confirmed they agreed to sell their business and brand to Univision.
Expanding from its Spanish-language base, Univision has been investing in media properties aimed at young people, including taking a stake in satirical website The Onion in January. In April, it said it was taking full control of Fusion, a TV channel and website aimed at English-speaking young people it had launched with ABC in 2013.
Univision outbid Ziff Davis, the owner of tech and gaming sites, in the auction for Gawker Media. They were the only two bidders, according to a person familiar with the bankruptcy auction. A judge must still approve the sale at a hearing Thursday.
previously:
Hulk Hogan Awarded $115 Million in Privacy Suit Against Gawker Media
Hulk Hogan's Sex Tape and a Tech Billionaire's Revenge on Gawker
Gawker Files for Chapter 11; Won't Pay Hulk Hogan and Peter Thiel
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @03:04AM
... how can I change?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ilPapa on Sunday June 12 2016, @03:08AM
Some lawyers made some money and rich guys flexed at each other and in the end nothing changed.
The only loser was poor Hulk Hogan who actually used to be somebody. Now he's a has-been with a rag on his head who has to ask Bubba the Love Sponge's permission to bang some old skank.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Sunday June 12 2016, @03:29AM
didn't that 'hulk' guy make huge amounts of money when he was in his prime?
did he squander it all?
and when you are making your living in the public eye and making millions of dollars from it, well, I have zero sympathy what happens to you via reputation or other crap like that. its part of what goes along with the whole scene. you rake in more than I'll see in my lifetime, in one wrestling match (just a WAG; maybe its a few matches) and you will get zero sympathy from me if need 'help' later on.
now, unwilling public figures, those I would have sympathy for. but for someone who went into 'the biz', no, no sympathy. you made bank when you were young. fuck you, if you have 'issues' now. many of us have life problems and we didn't have that kind of income to fall back on when we get older.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @03:39AM
Rich folk who squander their money shouldn't have to starve when they get old! Let's give everybody a Basic Income so we don't have to listen to the pitiful whining of broke has-beens.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday June 12 2016, @04:19AM
I said it before as concerns the 2007 uncertainty and I'll say it again, as regards the architects of the 2017 economic collapse. I want the see them in soup lines. That's probably too good for them.
My ideal government, which devotes 10% of its GDP to a basic income, would probably give those people something. I would not argue with giving them something. I want to see them humiliated when all of a sudden their sociopathy can't make anything.
As far as Mr. Bollea, it's complicated. I support Mr. Thiel in bankrupting assholes who would out somebody without their consent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:06AM
My ideal government is one based exclusively on voluntary participation, not armed robbery. It's all fun and games while you can imagine your guy/gal/whatever at the other end of the gun, but unless you're already a big shot, you're just cannon fodder no matter your allegiance.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @08:04AM
YOUR ideal society is a mix of calcutta and somolia; unmaintained streets littered with waste, starvation, disease and rotting bodies.
YOUR opinion is worth less than nothing.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @11:30AM
That'll work just fine in my ideal world were everyone respects the rights of others and doesn't take advantage because they have more physical or financial power.
(Score: 1) by cheshire on Sunday June 12 2016, @05:09PM
25 million according to this
http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-athletes/wrestlers/hulk-hogan-net-worth/ [celebritynetworth.com]
he had more but he lost a lot in a divorce. I'm not clear on why his wife was awarded 70%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Hogan_%28TV_personality%29 [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Hairyfeet on Sunday June 12 2016, @04:04AM
IIRC since there is a judgement against them the money will go into escrow and if the appeals fail then Hogan gets the money and anything left will pay the investors.
So this is more about Gawker getting one last "fuck you!" by screwing their investors on the way out. Lets just hope Ziff Davis sees what a toxic mess their sites are and backs out, I've noticed a lot of comments on ZD properties saying they'll blacklist anything by ZD if they buy Gawker properties.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @04:24AM
judgments are unsecured debt
corporate bonds can be secured or unsecured
but secured debt gets 100% priority over unsecured debt
if gawker's bonds were unsecured, you can bet they would have restructured them as much as possible to secured bonds before declaring bankruptcy
otherwise they would have nothing left to sell and clearly they intend to sell if they lose on appeal
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:55PM
but secured debt gets 100% priority over unsecured debt
Only with respect to the asset that backs the secured debt right? And what happens if it can be shown that Gawker did so to put assets out of reach of the claimants in a lawful court judgment. I suspect that the secured debt might not turn out secured in that case.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @04:35AM
So how come its ok to shame Hulk Hogan on camera and not Erin Andrews? Because Gawker was all over one of those and defending the other.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @11:50AM
IMO, Gawker is to journalism as leprosy on a dick is to birth control. Yes, I just opined that Gawker is leprosy on the dick of journalism. And what needs to happen to leprosy? Eradication.
(Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Sunday June 12 2016, @03:17AM
Gawker and owner Nick Denton are making the Chapter 11 filing today, in order to avoid paying Thiel and Hulk Hogan the $140 million judgment they won in Hogan's privacy trial earlier this year.
That's not how bankruptcy works. The lawsuit claim still remains as does every other claim on Gawker assets. Not having anywhere near the $140 million (after higher priority parties get their cut) is what will work.
It's also worth noting that no one mentioned in the story aside from the journalist writing the story has claimed that the bankruptcy would be to avoid paying out on the judgment above. But if someone involved in the bankruptcy decision does said so, then that's going to be useful in court to insure that Hogan gets more of his judgment money.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @03:35AM
> That's not how bankruptcy works.
So why do you think they filed for chapter 11 then?
It is just a complete coincidence that an otherwise profitable operation suddenly decided to file for bankruptcy?
Or... corporate lawfare is a lot more complicated than you make it out be.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 12 2016, @03:48AM
So why do you think they filed for chapter 11 then?
Don't care. I wasn't speculating on why they did what they did. I just merely pointed out the flawed thinking in assuming that bankruptcy somehow keeps money out of the hands of creditors.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @03:54AM
> Don't care.
How convenient.
Well I'm just merely pointing out that your logic doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
At best its nothing more sophisticated than something you read on nolo.com.
(Score: 5, Touché) by khallow on Sunday June 12 2016, @04:33AM
Well I'm just merely pointing out that your logic doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
No, you haven't. Let's recap what happened. I made a specific observation about a comment from the article:
Gawker and owner Nick Denton are making the Chapter 11 filing today, in order to avoid paying Thiel and Hulk Hogan the $140 million judgment they won in Hogan's privacy trial earlier this year.
with the correct observation that the Hogan claim on Gawker assets doesn't vanish just because the company entered bankruptcy. That's standard bankruptcy law, folks. I didn't speculate on why Gawker did so and my next observation didn't actually imply any unseemly motives nor rely on them.
It's also worth noting that no one mentioned in the story aside from the journalist writing the story has claimed that the bankruptcy would be to avoid paying out on the judgment above. But if someone involved in the bankruptcy decision does said so, then that's going to be useful in court to insure that Hogan gets more of his judgment money.
Then you come up with the non sequitur
So why do you think they filed for chapter 11 then?
It is just a complete coincidence that an otherwise profitable operation suddenly decided to file for bankruptcy?
Or... corporate lawfare is a lot more complicated than you make it out be.
By "non sequitur", I of course, mean that none of the above had relevance to my post. It's not complicated to figure out that a huge sudden cost might drive a business into bankruptcy court even in the complete absence of spite. One does not need some sophisticated theory of "lawfare" to understand that. And it's also not complicated to figure out that if the motives were unseemly or even illegal, they better shut up about them or they'll feed ammunition to the ongoing Hogan lawsuit. But these motives or the reasons for bankruptcy do not change my observation (which was not conditional on them) and hence, are irrelevant.
And if we're going to speak of the supposed "complicated" "lawfare" we need to keep in mind that showing bad faith by saying you're doing some activity, like entering bankruptcy, in order to avoid a lawful judgment of a court is not going to look good in bankruptcy court. We also need to remember that the original judgment was a stupid own goal by Gawker executives in the first place who made a series of poor decisions that led to the high amount. I just don't buy that Gawker has some sophisticated lawfare strategy at play here. If they were capable of that in the first place, they wouldn't owe $140 million.
Now you say
Well I'm just merely pointing out that your logic doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
You didn't bother to read my post. You didn't bother to come up with a reasoned argument. You post your cowardly accusations anonymously. And now you brag that you have "pointed out" that my logic doesn't hold up to the scrutiny you didn't bother to deliver? Fuck you, dumbshit.
(Score: 4, Informative) by sjames on Sunday June 12 2016, @03:57AM
They didn't file it so they don't have to pay Hogan, they did it because they CAN'T pay Hogan. That is, they have less than they owe and no loans are available to them.
They will still end up wiped out. They must pay their creditors in order of priority (as decided by the court) until the well is dry.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @05:09AM
On top of that most of their assets are their publications.
They had only a few available ways out.
1) borrow money (not happening)
2) sell off assets. What ch11 will let them do. Try to negotiate for less debt.
3) do nothing and just shut down. Putting them in ch7 assets still sold off but they are totally shut down.
Gawker is not going away. It is just being split up. If they catch a hint of financial shenanigans. They will just sue both parties. The ones now attaching themselves to Gawker will be on the hook.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @10:36AM
They didn't file it so they don't have to pay Hogan, they did it because they CAN'T pay Hogan. That is, they have less than they owe and no loans are available to them.
They will still end up wiped out. They must pay their creditors in order of priority (as decided by the court) until the well is dry.
sjames is exactly correct.
Almost twenty years ago I was sued for (cue pinky in mouth) one...million...dollars.
The details are unimportant, but the claim was not covered by any insurance. As such, I retained counsel and spend a significant chunk of my assets just getting to the point (after offering most everything I had in an attempt to settle -- such offer was rejected) where the trial would get under way.
Even though I live in a state with a comparative negligence [findlaw.com] rule, if I lost I could still find myself with a hefty judgement against me.
I was advised by my attorney to file for (chapter 7) bankruptcy, given that I would most likely not even be able to pay (after spending many tens of thousands of dollars already) the lawyers' fees stemming from a trial, let alone any judgement against me.
Note that there was no judgement against me, nor was I insolvent. In fact, I had a significant amount of assets and zero debt. However, since the lawsuit made a claim for US$1,000,000.00, which vastly exceeded my assets, that was enough for me to file for bankruptcy protection.
In the end, I had to surrender what liquid assets I had (not including IRAs and 401ks, which I'd offered to liquidate to pay these folks when I made the rejected offer) and that money was paid to those who had liens on anything the plaintiff recovered.
Obviously, this isn't the same as a corporate bankruptcy, but the idea is the same.
And Gawker has an actual judgement (my case never went to trial, as I filed for bankruptcy first) against them. As such, assuming that their liabilities (including the US$140,000,000 judgement) exceed their assets, they have the right under the Federal Bankruptcy Code [uscourts.gov] to do so.
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Sunday June 12 2016, @12:34PM
1. i believe there is still an appeal to go through, which legal analysts i've read bet the judgment will not hold up...
2. "the details are unimportant..." oh, the devil is in the details...
3. appreciate the insight of your experiences, thanks...
4. on a 'social justice' scale, kind of difficult to work up much sympathy for either side: a trained circus animal vs a media klown-kar...
5. not sure if i missed this: but how much was bubba the love parasite dinged for this ? didn't HE MAKE and GIVE (sell?) the video to gawker ?
isn't HE the primary offender in this celebutard vs celebutard tempest in a teevee pot ? ? ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @11:32PM
1. i believe there is still an appeal to go through, which legal analysts i've read bet the judgment will not hold up...
2. "the details are unimportant..." oh, the devil is in the details...
Same AC here.
1. Regardless of whether or not an appeal is in process or the relative likelihood of the success of said appeal, Gawker is still legally entitled to file for bankruptcy protection. As I mentioned in my own experience, there was no judgement or even an adjudication of the claim against me, and I was well within my rights to file for bankruptcy.
2. The details of the civil tort against *me* are unimportant to this discussion. Obviously, they were important to the lawsuit against *me*. But that's not what we're discussing here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @04:13AM
A similar case just happened in my home town. A neighborhood newspaper (advertiser supported, distributed for free) seemed to be doing rather well, when they lost a lawsuit filed by a former employee or contractor. They published a note on the front page saying "Thanks/sorry, this is our last issue". About six weeks later, a new paper sprang up under a different name and logo, but run by the same folks (they may have shuffled the titular owner for legal reasons), with the same format for stories and classified ads. Most or all of their old advertisers (mostly real estate agents) came back.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @03:22AM
This should be illegal. Anyone who does that goes to jail and has their personal properties seize. AND disbar any judge who granted it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @03:31AM
You're advocating debtors prison? How civilized you are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @03:50AM
You don't want debtors' prison *or* basic income? What the hell do you want?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @04:21AM
I have this theory that "Anonymous Coward" has no firm point of view.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @04:29AM
AC suffers from Multiple Person Disorder.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @04:36AM
No, I don't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @05:00AM
Yes 'WE' do. Me, myself and I can never agree on anything
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:10AM
What a preposterous claim. I agree with myself all the time!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @01:27PM
No, i'm advocating prison for people who cheat to get out of it.
They should pay up what they have, then after its all gone file. But not before.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 12 2016, @05:36PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @03:10PM
Have you ever run a business with employees outside your immediate family? Have you ever thought about personal liability?
I'm guessing no, but it's easy to post shit on the Internet.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @03:25AM
step 1: make sex tape
step 2: have sex tape leaked
step 3: sue
step 4: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @03:28AM
I would, but nobody wants to watch my sex tape.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @05:53AM
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:30AM
Hollywood Hogan is blacklisted not for the sex, not for the triangle, but for saying thoughts our media gatekeepers frown upon. Nick Denton knew this and took an American Icon, for better or worse, out to be slaughtered in the public square. Hopefully Ziff Davis buys the brands and leaves the trashy people behind.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]