What Will Be Gawker’s Next Move After Being Ordered To Pay Hulk Hogan $115 Million?

As everyone knows, a Florida jury recently ruled in favor of retired wrestler Hulk Hogan in his invasion of privacy suit against Gawker Media. The verdict (involving a $115 million dollar award) was a devastating defeat for Gawker, which had long been known for its aggressive, caustic approach to celebrity news.

The damage did not just extend to Gawker Media, the corporation. The jury actually found Gawker founder and owner Nick Denton, as well as the site’s former editor Albert Daulerio, should be held personally liable for the damage. What happened? And what will be Gawker’s next moves?

The case involved Gawker’s publication of a 9-second excerpt of Hogan having sexual intercourse. According to Hogan, neither he nor the woman involved had been contacted by Gawker prior to the publication of the video. Gawker tried to paint the case as a “free speech” issue, and claimed that Hogan had put himself sufficiently in the public domain for the video to be fair game for news.


From the outset, it was clear that Gawker did not have a strong set of facts. Hindsight is always perfect, of course, especially when one is arm-chair quarterbacking someone else’s case. But even making allowances for this, it seems odd that Gawker would have allowed this case to go to trial, and not instead try to settle it with the plaintiff, Hulk Hogan.

I do not know if the parties tried to settle the case before trial, but it is common practice for attorneys to do so. I can only assume that settlement was explored, but nothing came of it. Perhaps the parties were too far apart on what they each wanted, and what they expected.

Gawker’s attorneys had a very difficult task in this case. Juries do not like to hear stories about tabloid websites publishing intimate details of people’s lives. And it is clear that Gawker’s claim that Hogan had “put himself” in the public domain fell flat with the jury. Just because someone may be a public figure, Hogan’s legal team argued, does not mean that they give up all right to have a private life. Hogan was evidently able to make the point that Gawker’s motivation had everything to do with page views and revenue, and very little to do with free speech.

Gawker’s next moves on the legal chessboard will be interesting to watch. They have already made it clear that they will appeal the verdict, and expect to have it overturned on appeal. Denton said in a recent statement, “Given key evidence and the most important witness were both improperly withheld from this jury, we all knew the appeals court will need to resolve the case.”

Gawker Media is the “parent” company of several other companies. According to Gawker’s Wikipedia page, these subsidiary websites include Gawker.com, Deadspin, Lifehacker, Gizmodo, Kotaku, Jalopnik, and Jezebel. The company is apparently based in New York City, and incorporated in the Cayman Islands.

One strategy that Gawker might pursue while its appeal is pending would be to file for bankruptcy protection. This would almost certainly be a Chapter 11 case (reorganization) rather than a Chapter 7 liquidation. A Chapter 11 filing would put an automatic stay in place, and give the company time to sort out the appeal process, keep the creditors at bay, and possibly buy some time to explore some sort of settlement of the verdict with Hogan.


But things can get complicated here very quickly, and a number of variables remain unknown. Remember that Nick Denton himself was found personally liable for the judgment, as well as his company. He would also, presumably, have to file his own personal bankruptcy case.

If Gawker and Denton lose their appeal, they would almost certainly have to file. Even if they win their appeal, they might still have to file, as the outflow of corporate revenue might make continuation of their businesses nearly impossible. Adding to the complexity of things is that Hogan himself could possibly force Gawker into bankruptcy by filing an involuntary bankruptcy petition against the company.

Involuntary bankruptcy cases are rare, but do happen. Hogan would have to meet the statutory requirements for such a filing (he would basically have to find several other creditors to join him, among other things). But even if Denton and Gawker try to checkmate Hogan with a bankruptcy filing, he can make countermoves of his own. Certain types of debts are not dischargeable (i.e., cannot be wiped out) in bankruptcy. One of those types of debts are those incurred through “willful and malicious injury” under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(6).

Assuming, then, that Gawker or Denton filed a bankruptcy case, Hogan could counter with his own filing of an adversary proceeding within the bankruptcy case. He could claim that Gawker’s (and Denton’s) debt to him should not be discharged since it was incurred as a result of a “willful and malicious injury.”


The analysis here can be complex, depending on the case law of the jurisdiction where the bankruptcy were filed. For the sake of simplicity here, let us just note that the determination of what is “willful and malicious” by bankruptcy courts focuses on the infliction of an intentional tort on another party. And since Gawker has already been found liable for invasion of privacy (an intentional tort), it would be facing an uphill battle to try to have its debt to Hogan wiped out.

It is clear that both Gawker and Denton are facing some serious challenges. If they do not win their appeal, their best option would seem to be a Chapter 11 filing, followed by a very focused negotiation session with Hogan. Their best negotiation position might simply be blunt honesty.

They might say to Hogan: “We’re insolvent. You know it, and we know it. There is no way we can pay you $115 million. But if you can take less as a settlement, you will at least get something, rather than nothing. Vote for our reorganization plan, accept a settlement, and let us pay you in a way that enables you to get some compensation.”

It sounds logical, perhaps, to us as we sit on the sidelines. But when emotions are inflamed, it is difficult to make predictions as to what will happen. No one knows if Hogan is going to be much in a negotiating mood after all he has been put through. On the other hand, he might accept a lesser amount, and be satisfied with having made his point.

At this point, it is too early to tell.

Read More: The 7 Deadly Sins Of Manhood

140 thoughts on “What Will Be Gawker’s Next Move After Being Ordered To Pay Hulk Hogan $115 Million?”

    1. Exactly bro.I never knew Gawker had other garbage so called journalism websites like Kotaku(rabid anti-gamergate) and Jezebel(feminazi puke) under its vicious wings. These websites don’t add anything of value to humanity except maybe a good fodder for hilarity for sane humans like us.

      1. True, but Gawker had a great Hollywood gossip site called Defamer, which kinda sorta still exists. About ten years ago Defamer was run by a cracker-jack editor named Mark Lisanti whose writing was fantastic. It was a go-to for anybody working in entertainment: hilarious, satirical, etc. Lisanti despised his overlord Nick Denton and eventually bailed.

      2. Kotaku used to be good until social justice ruined it. Take note any future sites.

      3. The whole lot were part of the male-shaming antics used against guys during the GamerGate fiasco.
        They all pushed “articles” demonizing those reasonable male gamers who were caught in the middle. The writers were all of the same type and very callously SJW-ish and manginas/male-feminist types.

    2. Spot on, and gratifying to see so many opponents of the ‘manosphere’ getting their comeuppance… Roosh predicted 5 years for them to be unemployed, that is turning out to be a woefully inadequate prediction and in a good way!
      Mike over at D&P showing what journalism really should be (and once was) about.

        1. Well he’s scored some pretty decent scalps the past few weeks, and building a media operation seems to be on, perhaps near the top, of his todo list right now.
          I’m hoping too…

        2. He got great funding for Silenced – who knows he may come back to start a media operation and even recruit some masculine journalists (plenty unemployed in the not-too-distant, and at least some might have just received their wake-up call and get themselves unplugged!)

      1. 5 years was not accurate, as Roosh pointed out. This is happening at a much faster rate than expected. Trash writers now have to find another company to bleed out.

    3. Gizmodo had some good articles related to technology addition. Too bad they are lumped in with all the failure
      of the other groups.

    4. “journalism” is an anacronym for any yahoo with a laptop, internet connection and agenda. This never was journalism. It was pure tabloid gossiping about private affairs of private individuals.
      QC’s analysis of the appeals and BK process are spot-on. The incorporation in the Cayman’s will present a challenge of grabbing Gawker assets should they belong to the offshore entity, but not impossible, especially since Gawker et. al have such a big US footprint.
      If I were the Hulk, I’d at least force the involuntary BK post-haste so that Gawker would have to disclose it’s domestic and foreign assets to a US Federal court before having time to try to move things around. Of course, there will motions back and forth (e.g.Request Stay Pending Appeal), but then the appeal will likely stay the judgment collection regardless. So, the next step is to grab Gawker’s financial nuts and get them accountable to a US Federal court. Then anything they do to hide the money to satisfy the judgment will smack of bankruptcy fraud — a federal crime. There will be plenty of time to collect on the judgement. And for $115 million, it’s well worth the wait, even if only a portion is recovered. Also, it’s very difficult for a business to continue normal operations when you’ve got their bank accounts and assets tied up in a BK proceeding, which could potentially hasten their impending demise.
      I think the real news about this award is that a jury is telling Gawker and the world of intrusive tabloid “journalism” is that companies, and even individuals hiding behind companies are liable for their actions and can’t hide behind a constitutional free-speech freedom intended for the individual citizen, especially when free speech is merely acting as a peeping-tom into the private lives of private individuals. Also, given the size of the ward, the jury is essentially putting Gawker out of business. This is their intention. And other media/entertainment outlets (that’s what the Gawker’s of the world are) are on notice that they should carefully consider their future writing, as juries aren’t putting up with their so-called free speech.
      So even if this verdict is overturned on appeal, it’s still a victory. Congrats to the Hulkster!

      1. My feelings exactly.
        Like you say, these aren’t journalists, they are hipster SJW click-bait contributors. They don’t go through an editor, they aren’t “on-staff,” they type up opinion-based submissions dependent on their personal petty agendas and vendettas, and they have no integrity.

      2. Thanks, man. It really is an interesting case. What is truly devastating to Denton and his editor (who performed terribly on the stand, coming across like a callous dolt) is that they have been held personally liable. So they won’t be able to hide behind the corporate veil on this one. If Denton loses on appeal. and the Hulkster refuses to negotiate, he could see his earnings garnished for the rest of his life to satisfy the judgment.

        1. I read there are a bucket load of the big time websites/IT outfits that are registered in the Cayman Is or Cyprus or Bermuda, and so on. They can have a HO in one country, some staff there and others scattered, a digital presence in every county and a registered holding company in some tax haven where all the subscriptions and ad revenue gets credited to.
          If the damages are only liable to the two individuals then they for sure declare bankruptcy, though Denton’s assets in the Cayman’s will be need to be declared. A lot of them are not paying no where near their obligation to society for the millions/billions they reap.
          Its a colossal payday for the Hulk. I don’t know how the damages bill was calculated but given his wrestling career is over an 8 second clip has hardly damaged his reputation to that extent and I would argue the damage there is is partly due to him f*cking his friend’s missus. That friend was probably the one that sent it in to Gawker. He inadvertently gave the Hulk a big payday on top of banging his missus.
          This will certainly make mainstream media sites shy away from any future celebrity sex tapes. The porn sites probably wont give a f*ck though as many of them operate from overseas

      3. Is there a precedent where a Cayman based firm operating in the US was forced to pay up? If there isn’t one then I thing it could set a precedent and a few millionaires might side with Gawker for the sake of saving their own tax dodging asses, maybe provide money and pull a few strings to help prevent it from happening!

    5. Take less and get something, or take nothing and do humanity the service of destroying this shit company and all of its festering subsidiaries? To me choosing the latter seems obvious. I could make a nice “something” on the book I’d write about the experience.

    6. I hope it works out that way. Journalism as news and information sharing has died out. Anyone who tries to report or write about real things that affect real people is shouted down.

  1. Gawker won’t learn anything from this (and good riddance to bad rubbish), but others should take note, taking clandestine videos of someone in a hotel room is nothing close to being in public (what’s next spy cams in dressing rooms and toilets?).
    And if the appeals court overturns this ruling, then Hogan should sue them based on discrimination, how is this any different than the sports anchor chick who got 55 million?
    Just another reason Flynt vs. Falwell should never have happened.

    1. But Hogan is a public figure who makes his living in front of the camera. Before the tape he did go on the radio with the woman’s husband and discuss his sex life. Hogan wasn’t acting like a person who was protective of his own privacy regarding his sex life. Gawker didn’t make the tape. If you’re in the media and some unrelated source gives you a story that falls into your lap by accident, have you done anything wrong? Seems like if Hogan has a dispute its with the woman and her husband who conspired to set him up and tape him without his knowledge, and then release it. I can seen gawker shifting liability to the woman and her husband during the appeal.

      1. Irrelevant that he is a public figure, should one be able to walk into a restroom housing J-Lo just because she is a public figure? Is a public figure denied any sort of privacy? It’s bad enough Flynt vs. Falwell allowed for intentional injury to be done to someone in the public consciousness (so long as a reasonable person knew it was fake). His discussing it, is not an open invitation to publish a tape. “Oh, so there’s his personal line, let’s obliterate it for money!” They may not have commissioned the tape, (who knows really?) but they sure paid to obtain it.
        If you were pick-pocketed so that someone could steal your identity and then that person randomly handed me your wallet and I spent the money out of it…I didn’t steal it directly, didn’t even know it was yours, did I do wrong? Of course. So, yes, Gawker was in the wrong, it’s not only the question of legality, but ethics and integrity for which they have been found wanting.
        As to the beef with the others, I agree with you, that too would be up to Hogan to pursue, but it doesn’t exonerate Gawker in any form. Journalists have to be held to account, they have to be able to source stories, and they are, in all ways, responsible for what they publish (the story’s accuracy, the harm it does the subject, etc.).

        1. That’s why I said:
          “it’s not only a question of legality, but ethics and integrity…” intending to draw such distinction. So far, Gawker is short on all counts. They didn’t do this for free speech, but for profit and possibly with malicious intent, hence they lost this first trial. The question will ultimately be whether they had legal standing for publication or not, we’ll have to wait for the appeals court, but so far they did not.

        2. Or maybe gawker got out-lawyered and didn’t do a good job with jury selection. If the husband hadn’t released the tape then gawker never would have had it.

        3. You may have noticed the disclaimer on shows like Ridiculousness, Tosh.0, and Jackass saying that the channel and producers do not want your submissions and will not view them. This is because accepting them would allow for profit and/or notoriety making them complicit in the activities portrayed.
          The fact is Gawker published the video rather they shot it or not, no different legally than purchasing stolen goods unknowingly after the fact.
          Hopefully (for all our sakes), courts will continue to find this was a violation of Hogan’s expectation of privacy and therefore not proper material for publication, otherwise look out. Gawker made bad choices and now they have to face the consequences and pointing the finger and blaming others for their faults shouldn’t win them anything but disdain. Sometimes you can warn a bully all day to back off or something bad will happen and he’ll keep coming so long as nothing does. Sometimes he has to get his nose bloodied.

        4. Bragging about cheating and publishing a nude video of someone from the privacy of their hotel room are not the same.
          The amount may be debatable, the degree of injury as well, that’s why such decisions are left to a jury/court, in this case they agreed with Hogan.

        5. If hogan bragged about cheating on his wife he can’t claim that the tape ruined his marriage. Hogan made his infidelity a public story before the tape.That works for gawkers defense. Different lawyers, different jury, different outcome on appeal.

        6. He claimed 60m for emotional damages and 55m for economic damages, neither claim for what was done to his marriage, the argument about it not harming his marriage is a false flag.
          It’s easy to see Gawker abused the already broad allowances given the press for self-determining what constitutes as “news” solely to generate profit through inappropriate coverage and reinforced by their own flippant attitude in being willing to publish any celebrity sex tape for money.
          This is a case as much about whether someone has any right to prevent their nudity or intimacy from being published without their prior approval as anything else. So far, people want that right, see the Andrews case.

        7. If you can’t prove injury there’s no case for damages. Wrongful death gets $3.5mm in damages and hogan gets $115mm? Did gawker kill hogan 33 times? It will be appealed.

        8. All he has to prove is that it cost him money he would have otherwise made or kept and the standard for emotional distress is even lower. The amount may be exorbitant or it might be a message to the media that this was one step too far. Like I said a while ago, we’ll have to wait for the appeals court.

        9. If hogan sold his personal image by bragging about his infidelity, then its difficult to argue for lost business opportunity or emotional distress.

        10. Who can say, bragging about a conquest is a macho endeavor for some (see any male sport locker room), having one’s aged wrinkled ass and balls on display, might be a more ego shriveling experience.
          Point is, the jury didn’t seem to believe it was within Gawker’s rights to show him in such a state at this time. We’ll see what the future holds, hopefully a Gawker-free life regardless the final outcome of this case.

        11. The only issue I see there is reasonable expectation of privacy. That falls on the woman and her husband who no doubt conspired to set up hogan. She is claiming she’s an innocent victim also, but she made previous sex tapes with other men with her husband’s knowledge and they didn’t release those tapes to the media. I see them bearing most of the liability in this. They didn’t have to make the tape or release the tape to anybody. I’m sure no doubt the woman was trying to position herself as a “reality” sex star, and the husband was pimping her that way, and they finally found a male celebrity to bang her to make her famous. Instafame, instawhore.

        12. That is probably right, I could easily believe someone like this was trying the Instafame path.
          Still, Gawker chose to publish it, the courts are having to decide whether that crosses a line, as I’ve already stated participating in the crime after the fact is still wrong. If it was wrong of the couple to film him, it was wrong for Gawker to publish him.
          They might have saved themselves all this trouble by simply choosing to have better (and more ethical) rules in place to begin with.

        13. Journalists publish stories about car wrecks all the time without getting the consent of the people involved.

        14. Now that’s just intellectually dishonest, unless of course you mean they were getting it on when they got into the wreck. 🙂
          Anyway, now that this has devolved to such a state, I’m done with it.

        15. That’s not clear. By bragging about his infidelity hogan said he was involved in a car wreck. At that point the media is just covering the story.

        16. When hogan bragged about his infidelity on the public radio airwaves in order to promote his image, he made that part of his private life a public story, he put his car wreck into the public view. Gawker didn’t hack his phone for pics or have anything to do with the making of the tape. If hogan’s privacy was violated, and it might have been, that was done by the woman and her husband who made the tape and released it.
          This sums up what I’m saying better:

        17. Talking about it and actually showing the deed for all to see are different things. Also, a judge told Gawker to take down the clip and they refused to do so. So they got what they deserverd.

        18. Before this florida state court, a federal court didn’t think this case was worth hearing. First amendment will become a bigger issue at a higher appeal court, different from 12 bubbas on florida jury who decide on emotion. So paris hilton, kim kardashian, they all get to sue the internet for $140mm? Its not adding up.

        19. Those are different cases. The women you mentioned made deals with adult film companies to make a profit from their sex tapes. Their videos were not posted on some news site without their consent so they didn’t have anyone to sue.
          The case you can compare it to is Erin Andrews. The jury awarded her $55 million in her civil lawsuit over the secret recording and release of a video showing her naked during a hotel stay.
          So yes, it does add up.

        20. I can understand where you’re coming from but ultimately Gawker put it online for anyone to see, they generated a profit from page views, and they refused to take it down when asked. We can agree to disagree but the jury thinks otherwise.

        21. You actually think all the internet sites showing paris hilton sex video has paid her for it? That’s too stupid to respond to.
          Its not comparable to the andrews case on key points. Andrews never promoted her image in the public as an unfaithful spouse, hogan did. In the andrews case it was the same person who made the tape and put it online, different parties in the hogan case. Andrews ridiculous award judgement against marriot which should be reduced on appeal, was because marriot has an obligation to not release names and room numbers of guests. The andrews case was a negligence case. The hogan case is 1st amendment case. They are different.

        22. That jury is not the final word in the american legal system. Its going to be appealed to federal court that won’t have 12 bubbas in the jury box who get swayed on emotion.

        23. Clearly the jury does not agree with you. Talking about doing something is not the same as giving consent to show the world how you do it. Like I said, a judge even ordered Gawker to take down the film, which they refused to do. You know the consequences.

        24. Are you american? Do you know what an appeals court is? It doesn’t matter what a jury in lower court says if/when a higher court overturns it. Gawker will appeal, they have no other course of action, by making the award judgement so preposterous in amount that lower court jury guaranteed an appeal.

      2. I was wondering were that liability nexus sat. Is it mote with his ex friend who secretly shot the vid and then likely passed it on to the media or the media that ran with the story. I would have thought you could argue there is 50:50 liability there. Of course Hulk is going after the one with the deeper pockets + likely could not prove without doubt that the ex friend was the one that taped the vid if he denied it.

      3. Publisher and distributor has greater liability than author.
        Generally because they have deeper pockets, access to legal advice and experience, so no excuse.
        That’s the way journalism and media has always worked.

    2. CBS News ran a puff piece on Gawker yesterday, kinda pathetic, Denton had to bring up the fact he is gay, and he has always been an outsider…

      1. I’m 27 and I’m starting to bald , I just keep it tight . No reason to wear a durag 24/7

        1. I’ve known lots of bald guys just go full Jason Statham or Bruce Willis and get knee deep in pussy. I’m in my 40s and have all my hair (heck, after learning not to argue with women and let them stress me out, the hairline that was just starting to recede back then stopped and has since grown back!) but the bald guys still run circles around me.

        2. A man’s hair is irrelevant on the sexual market. No need for anybody to worry.
          Focus instead on lowering the body fat to 15%, or even 12% if possible. Women care far more about that.

        3. i read somewhere that it was a myth about stree causing hair loss and greyness ???

        4. My maternal grandfather was bald in his early twenties. Ironically he was a barber.
          Thankfully I don’t take after that side of the family. Were I bald I’d look like the protagonist from the “hitman” video games.

        5. I started losing my hair when I was 18. Gone by 24. Like you say, just keep it tight.
          Maybe add some facial hair.

        6. If the guy is a thick neck then the bald look is a good look, but if the guy is a pencil neck geek then its not such a cool look.

        7. Depends more on the shape of the bald head then the neck size, unless your neck is way off in size.
          People say bald fits me and i can pull it off.
          Staying in shape and not giving a F helps a lot too.
          Men should thank God they are men, since men are valued more for their abilities and production. Looks are secondary for us in life.
          I pity young woman, most of their value comes from their looks and sex appeal.
          Most women do not develop as human beings until after 50, if at all.
          Their looks are a handy in their personal development most times.
          On the other hand, no matter how good looking a guy is. He is judged more on what he has done among his fellow men.

        8. I am 60, have all my hair, and retained most of my colour.
          Was divorce raped 10 years back, and jailed (unlawfully).
          So no.

        9. Women only care about the money you can spend on them, or give them. A pool boy with a great body might get a free one, now and again. But when he’s poor and over 35 he’ll be gone form all womens minds.

  2. A hero of the 80’s taking out a malicious enemy of GamerGate. They could turn it into a comic book series.

  3. I don’t know much about Hogan these days, as I haven’t followed him since I was a kid, but I would think his motivations here are mainly revenge against Gawker for lying about him. I mean I’m sure he wouldn’t mind a few million dollars from ad trolls kicked his way, but I would think his main motivation for using the courts was to destroy the piece of crap who did this to him. The same way Jesse Ventura took the psychopath snipo killer to court. It wasn’t about the money.
    But holy shit, to lose Gawker and Jezebel would be amazing. This could be the start of a great pushback!

      1. No it would totally destroy them. I saw an article, they earn between $3 and $6 million per year in profit.

      2. Out for good…
        In terms of cash they’ve git no hope, and I’d be surprised if it didn’t seriously dent, if not wipe out, their equity…

    1. Jezebel is the single largest foe. Their “articles” are all hit pieces and slut tips.

      1. It seems to be all celebrity garbage.. IE the stories People Magazine throws out because they’re too trashy and insignificant. I browsed their front page and didn’t know a single person in any of their articles (well, OK, except Pee Wee Herman). Not only won’t they be missed, the world will be a measurably better place without this trash.

    2. Well the Hulkster did get fucked pretty hard in his divorce. Shockingly, the courts decided a do-nothing wife was due the majority of money that her husband had earnt. So he could actually use the money.
      But I still got the sense he was more in it for the revenge
      And Gawker and Jezebel are two of the nastiest popular sites I know of, so it was real sweet to see this ruling

      1. Really…his wife came out better off than him? I would have thought any kids he had would now be late teens so there is no need to kick her extra for looking after them. That sucks. I read somewhere that it was possible for an ex wife to make a grab for any future windfalls from their ex husband but not sure what country that was.

  4. Perhaps roosh could do the same too the media who calls him a “rape advocate” ? It would sure stir things up quite a bit.

  5. God, just reading this layman’s summary gives me a headache, I can’t even imagine practicing law, lol. Not to impune the article, I appreciate it, but it just sickens me the lengths humans go to in order to obfuscate and deceive.
    I had some dealings with Kotaku “journalists” earlier in my career, and given the fact that Jezebel and Deadspin are similarly cancerous, I sincerely hope that anyone and everyone associated with Gawker is put permanently out of work.

  6. Call it Karma, call it consequences of bad behavior, this whole episode should serve as a warning to others about journalistic integrity.
    Of course, that assumes that Gawker was journalism in the first place.

    1. It won’t, though. Modern “journalists” are activists, and they’re not even bothering to hide it any longer.

  7. Unless I’m missing something, it seems like Hogan is holding all the cards. They can’t bankrupt out of an intentional tort. Longshot chance of successfully appealing the verdict. Hogan has a healthy net worth of about $25M so he doesn’t seem like he’s under any real pressure to take a settlement.
    Why not burn the company and owner to the ground and take every cent they have?

    1. I don’t think they can force the company into liquidation.
      As long as the company makes some reasonable effort to pay the judgement, they would probably be allowed to continue on.
      The problem, for the company, is that they are now a ‘zombie’. With such a large judgement against them, it is unlikely they will be able to raise additional capital, get new bank loans (or even get current loans/credit lines called in) or do a IPO at any point; since anyone could be in line after the judgement or the judgement could not be discharged, even after a bankruptcy. i.e. Everyone else would run the risk of being wiped out in a chapter 11 filing but the judgement would still survive the reorganization.
      I think the judgement would be what is called a ‘priority unsecured claim’ in that it can’t be discharged.
      It is also possible for the judgement to become secured by putting liens on assets or intangibles, like any trademarks; in which case the judgement would become secured for those amounts.
      If I was a vendor I would put them on a ‘cash only’ basis until this was settled. If I was their bank, I would pull their credit line at once since loaning them more money, without some kind of payment arrangements being made, makes it highly likely that the bank loan could end up never being repaid.
      Short discussion about wilful torts not being discharged in bankruptcy:
      Short discussion about unsecured and judgements in bankruptcy:

    2. Gawker seems to think that they have a “good case” for appeal. Of course they’re saying that, as every desperate appellant says that.
      On the other hand, even if they lose their appeal, they could still try to negotiate. But, as I said, it all depends whether the Hulkster cares about getting paid. Maybe he doesn’t care about the money, and doesn’t need it. I don’t know…time will tell.
      What is particularly brutal about this verdict is the fact that Denton and his editor were found PERSONALLY liable for the debt.
      That means that, no matter what job Denton does in the future, he can be garnished or collected on. Forever, until the judgment is paid off.
      Frankly, he should have settled this before letting it go to trial…his attorneys should have advised him that taking it to trial was nearly suicide. Juries hate stuff like this, and Gawker looked very bad.
      But that’s just my opinion.

  8. Gawker & Jezabel & some of the other blogs are still viable enterprises with actual readers.
    The parent company will go bankrupt, arrange some insider sales to close associates or perhaps even to Denton himself, and the blogs will survive under new, similar management.
    Every shelter will be used to see that Hogan gains but a fraction of the money he’s due.
    And the big media will continue to fight for the right to publish unauthorized celebrity sextapes in the name of news.

  9. Already seeing the feminists complain about how Erin Andrews had an internet backlash over her settlement but Hogan didn’t(unsure if this is even true I haven’t followed the internet’s response enough). However the differences seem pretty huge, one is simply being naked, the other is engaging in a very private act like sexual intercourse. Further she seemed to profitand gain fame from said video, whereas Hogan was already famous and the act cost him his marriage and subsequently all of his livelihood. But… equality!

    1. Good. Someone drawing conclusions about the E. Andrews award.
      Here’s a huge difference between Hogan and Andrews. Most American’s can tell you who Hulk Hogan is and what he does. However, most can’t tell you a damn thing about Erin Andrews. Hogan actually built a career and a brand that suffered damage by hack media tabloidism, Andrews will gets a stay of execution form obscurity and irrelevance as a result of her award.

  10. Eh… on one hand he fucked his friend’s wife so fuchsia Hogan. On the other hand, fuck liberal media. I’ll back the lesser evil and root for hogan.

      1. Yea, its messed up, but Bubba the love sponge was cool with Hulk banging his wife

    1. Why would an alpha be embarrassed of baldness? If he was alpha he wouldn’t be crying in court.

      1. It has nothing to do with that. He wrestles without his bandana and has never been ashamed out it. This was a sign of his character. He stayed in character. Bandanas are more of a symbol. It is not like a hat.

  11. Gawker can raise some capital by selling their Jezebel writers to whorehouses in Dubai.

      1. This is an insult to camels. They are useful animals. These women could be used to service the foreign workers who will never have seen women of that size.

        1. I used that in opening message for online game. Some woman had posted a pic riding a camel in the dessert . So I asked her if she got traded for 2 goats and a camel. Resulted in message exchange but no date. Guess she found some other guy to dump on her face on new years eve in dubai.

    1. The purpose of a whorehouse is to raise money by pimping women out for sex to men. Having seen a lot of Jezebel writer’s photos, that would be a losing deal for the folks in Dubai.

  12. Two points to make here – 1) Hogan sued for $100 million, and the jury awarded him more. 2) Punitive damages are being deliberated by the jury now. If they awarded $15 million over the initial asking price, the punitive damages (shakes magic 8-ball) must be somewhere north of $75 million.

  13. I’m certain that Nick Denton’s evil face and wicked demeanor had a lot to do with the verdict. No normal human being could get a load of Nick Denton and not want to smash his face in any way they could.

  14. I don’t feel sorry for Gawker at all. Years ago they did a hit piece on Michelle Malkin, and doctored a photo against her to “make their point.” They were called out on it and refused to retract their lie. Guess this is their reward.

  15. it seems odd that Gawker would have allowed this case to go to trial, and not instead try to settle it with the plaintiff, Hulk Hogan.

    Maybe not. They were adamant about pushing this thing through and were convinced that they were going to win.
    When a judge ordered them to take down the tape 2 years ago they wouldn’t budge either, and even wrote an article about it.
    So this was a really stupid move on their behalf, and it appears that their lawyers are just as stupid.

  16. At first all that Hogan demanded was for the video and “news” article to be removed. Bet you the trolls over at Gawker are really really wishing they would have just done that as of today.
    Other then procedural irregularities that I only know a little about, the free speech argument is stupid at best. I highly doubt they will be successful on appeal. An appellate court isn’t going to simply overturn a jury verdict after a multi-week trial for a procedural issue unless it really produced an undue hardship for Gawker at trial.

  17. I’ve heard Marc Randazza (one of the foremost 1st Amendment attorneys in the country for those who may not know him) mention in a conversation with Mike that the court they’re appealing to is pretty media-friendly, so he expects the verdict to be reduced, but not liquidated entirely.
    But what I’m not sure of, and maybe Quintus knows, it sounds like they’re going to appeal directly to a federal court as opposed to a Florida one. Is that true?

  18. Didn’t know anything about Gawker, then I saw “Jezebel”. That’s all I needed to know.

    1. they also own deadspin.com, which used to be a funny sports site but they started injecting their faggotry into that as well. I hope all their sites go down permanently and all those fruits are laid off

  19. I don’t see why Denton should have to file personal bankruptcy, he has a personal net worth of over 300 million.

    1. Be careful what you wish for you could be painting a target on ROK and many other sites.

  20. Gawker is basically a big SJW sewer. The hateful trash they have written is insane.

    1. …hateful… identifying someone you disagree with as hateful is adopting SJW tactics. Ironic.

      1. kind of … If I was that company; I would close down and give them whats left of cash on hand.. .the rest I would make them come and get me.. .Within a month; I would have a new company created. I would like hogan to get nothing.. not because the other side is wrong but the idea that you should give a guy 115 million dollars because you played a video in public is revolting. In fact, gimme 100k and I will post my junk over the entire planet.

        1. They had more than 1 hour of sex tape. Gawker only posted to the net 9 seconds. Very dark and grainy blurry low resolution. So that’s $140mm / 9 seconds = $15.5mm per second. Its going to get appealed.

  21. The only thing that would make this sweeter were if it were delivered by Jim Ross from a court side press table – that Hogan’s legal team just leg dropped Gawker through.

  22. Gawker’s first move would be to cut Jezebel’s subsidized morning doughnut run. That alone would save millions in cash per month. Of course, the shrieking from the editorial team of fatasses would be heard from the moon.. but the mid-morning sugar crash would soon silence that.

  23. “my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….

    two days ago new Mc.Laren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Here!oi934➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsNews/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:::::!oi934……

  24. I don’t care about the rights and wrongs of this case, I only care about seeing SJW vermin getting a good kicking. Very satisfying.

  25. One day the people of gawker will be physically pummeled, maybe even eliminated….that will be more satisfying than court cases.

  26. Glad to see my first childhood hero get back on his feet and score a payback win against a SJW institution like Gawker after SJWs led WWE to erase all association with the man who put them on the map over an illegally recorded audiotape from 10 years ago.

  27. Hoping the Hulk wants to destroy them as his highest priority. Wring their heads off, disembowel them, leave them for dead.

Comments are closed.