Gawker stock value only around 81 million

>>63775
81 million is still a decent penny.

>>63775
Gawker's already dead from the ruling -- the sale was essentially a formality.

But this is a little fucked up, since first of all the valuation was based on the stock price *before* Hogan's judgement, and second, at 30% share this guy should not be subject to personal asset seizure.

If it were a Wall Street company that fucked over thousands of peoples' pensions then I'd have no sympathy. But this is seriously just a single mistake in an ever-more-rules-lax internet-tabloid environment. The judge and Hogan are making an example of Gawker that the tabloids can only go so far, and that's fair (though I don't think destroying the company is necessarily fair nor conducive to the goal of setting an example). But now that a single exec with plurality share is paying out of pocket, this is just getting ridiculous.

I guess, barring appeal, civil courts have more power than criminal courts when it comes to prosecuting corporations. Maybe that's where the Wall Street banks should be sued?

LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHIN' BROTHER. GAWKER IS ABOUT AS DEAD AS ANDRE AFTER I SLAMMED HIS ASS ON THE MAT AND THE REF COUNTED TO THREE BROTHER JACK. I DROPPED THE LEG ON THOSE SONS OF BITCHES BROTHER JACK DUDE, YOU MIGHT AS WELL COUNT TO A HUNDRED BECAUSE THEY AREN'T GETTING BACK UP.

>>63792
To be honest, given their brazen sexism, I think they deserve whatever they get. He made his empire, and made it what it is with his own choices. We hold CEOs and executive boards accountable for workplace safety already, because we recognise that the buck stops with them. Ultimately they are responsible for what their business does, and how it conducts itself.

>>64016
>brazen sexism
fuck off back to the place you came, redditor

>>64032
>he didn't get a justice boner when hulk Hogan bodyslammed gawker

>>63800
It's impossible to not read anything like this without doing it in Hogans voice it's always fucking funny.


Too bad it wasn't tmz that got crushed

>>64016
>We hold CEOs and executive boards accountable

But not directly, as in not with personal assets, even if any one of them actually had a majority share. That's the good thing about corporations from an innovation/market standpoint: they disjoin risk so that the consequences of financial failure (like say if your product isn't successful) are limited to one's investment in the corporation.

That's not the case for criminal liability, however, but from what we've seen in the U.S. those cases seem to mostly be prosecuted for violations by an individual (e.g. insider trading, wanton investor fraud) -- only in extremely rare cases like Enron has an entire corporate hierarchy been held accountable. And for the 2007/8 crash, there has been no such accountability.

But this is civil, not criminal, which means that if the corporation is held accountable then the penalties should be limited to assets within the corporation. Otherwise it sets a bad precedent for how one's risk is protected.

>>64042
My kingdom, my kingdom, my kingdom for the death of tmz.
And Perez Hilton.