March Innovation Hub supporters say the project would create jobs; critics say it would bring unwanted warehouses.

Originally Published: May 13, 2025 at 9:46 AM PDT

Amazon pushed back Monday, saying U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders “continues to mislead the American public” about its safety practices.

Originally Published: December 16, 2024 at 11:00 AM PST

The Onion’s rejected purchase of Infowars in an auction bid supported by families of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting dealt them a new setback Wednesday and clouded the future of Alex Jones’ conspiracy theory platform, which is now poised to remain in his control for at least the near future.

What’s next for Infowars and Sandy Hook families’ long-sought efforts to hold Jones accountable over calling one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history a hoax was unclear, after a federal judge in Houston late Tuesday rejected The Onion’s winning bid for the site.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez in Houston said he did not want another auction but offered no roadmap over how to proceed. One possibility includes ultimately allowing Sandy Hook families — who comprise most of Jones’ creditors — to return to state courts in Connecticut and Texas to collect on the nearly $1.5 billion in defamation and emotional distress lawsuit judgments that Jones was ordered to pay them.

“Our hope is that when this process ends, and it will end, and it will end sooner rather than later, is that all assets that Alex Jones has available are paid to the families, and that includes Infowars, and that as a result of that process Alex Jones is deprived of the ownership and control of the platform that he’s used to hurt so many people,” Christopher Mattei, an attorney for the Sandy Hook families, said in a phone interview Wednesday.

The families, meanwhile, were preparing the mark the 12th anniversary of the Dec. 14 shooting.

The sale of Infowars is part of Jones’ personal bankruptcy case, which he filed in late 2022 after he was ordered to pay the $1.5 billion. Jones was sued for repeatedly saying on his show that the 2012 massacre of 20 first graders and six educators was staged by crisis actors to spur more gun control.

Lopez said there was a lack of transparency in the bidding process and too much confusion about The Onion’s bid. He also said the amount of money offered in the only two bids was too low and there needed to be more effort to try to raise as much money possible from the selling of Infowars’ assets.

The Onion’s parent company, Global Tetrahedron, submitted a $1.75 million cash offer with plans to kick Jones out and relaunch Infowars in January as a parody. The bid also included a deal with many of the Sandy Hook families for them to forgo $750,000 of their auction proceeds and give it to other creditors. Lopez called it a complex arrangement that led to different interpretations of the bid’s actual value as well as last-minute changes to a proposed sale order.

The other bidder was First United American Companies, which runs a website in Jones’ name that sells nutritional supplements and planned to let Jones stay on the Infowars platforms. It offered $3.5 million in cash and later, with Jones, alleged fraud and collusion in the bidding process. Lopez rejected the allegations, saying that while mistakes were made there was no wrongdoing.

Christopher Murray, the trustee who oversaw the auction, said he picked The Onion and its deal with the Sandy Hook families because it would have provided more money to Jones’ other creditors.

The next steps remained unclear Wednesday. The judge directed Murray to come up with a new plan to move forward. Murray and representatives of The Onion did not immediately return messages seeking comment.

The judge said there was a possibility there could be a trial in 2025 to settle Jones’ bankruptcy. He said Murray could try to sell the equity in Infowars’ parent company. He also said Murray could abandon the efforts, which could allow the Sandy Hook families to return to the state courts where they won their lawsuits against Jones and begin collection proceedings against him.

The judge said he wanted to hear back from Murray and others involved in the bankruptcy within 30 days on a plan to move forward.

Mattei, who represented the Sandy Hook families in the Connecticut lawsuit, said everyone is waiting to see what plan the trustee comes up with.

Jones, meanwhile, continued to allege fraud and collusion on his show Wednesday and threatened legal action over what he called an attempted “rigged auction.” On the social media platform X, he called the judge’s ruling a “Major Victory For Freedom Of The Press & Due Process.”

“I don’t want to have to go after these people, lawsuit-wise, but we have to because if you don’t then you’re aiding and abetting and they do it to other people. They made some big mistakes,” he said.

It’s a solemn and heartbreaking week for relatives of victims of the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. The 12th anniversary is Saturday, and some of the victims’ relatives were traveling to Washington, D.C., to attend the annual National Vigil for All Victims of Gun Violence on Wednesday evening. The families usually mark the anniversary out of the public eye.

Many of the families said their lawsuits against Jones bought back the unbearable pain of losing their loved ones, as well as the trauma of being harassed and threatened by believers of Jones’ hoax conspiracy. Relatives said they have been confronted in public by hoax believers and received death and rape threats.

Robbie Parker, whose 6-year-old daughter Emilie was killed, testified at the Connecticut lawsuit trial in 2022 that the decade of abuse his family suffered made them move across the country to Washington state, and even there he was accosted in person.

The families have not received any money from Jones since winning the trials.

Jones has been appealing the $1.5 billion in judgments, and has since conceded that the shooting did happen. Last week, a Connecticut appeals court upheld most of the judgment in that state but reduced it by $150 million.

___

Associated Press writer Juan A. Lozano in Houston contributed to this report.

A Delaware judge rejected Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk’s multibillion-dollar pay package for a second time, writing in her opinion this week that the company’s approval process for the package was “deeply flawed.”

Tesla shareholders approved the compensation plan in 2018, which was once valued at $56 billion but fluctuates dramatically with Tesla’s stock price. Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick first rejected the plan earlier this year on the grounds that Musk had unfair influence over shareholders and that negotiations over his pay plan were not legitimate.

McCormick rejected the plan again this week, citing similar reasons, although attorneys for Musk have argued that the outsized compensation plan is justified because it’s directly tied to Tesla’s valuation, which currently sits at more than $1 trillion.

A dominant player in the electric vehicle market, Tesla has faced setbacks this year amid increased competition and safety concerns surrounding its Full Self-Driving mode. The company slashed more than 10% of its global workforce in April, citing a need to cut costs.

Musk was tapped last month to lead President-elect Donald Trump’s new Department of Government Efficiency, a role that could bolster his influence and Tesla’s standing.

How did we get here?

Tesla shareholder Richard Tornetta filed a lawsuit against Musk and the company in 2018 after the majority of shareholders approved a 10-year performance-based pay package for Musk.

Tornetta alleged that Musk misled investors who approved the plan and exercised inappropriate influence over negotiations. Musk denied the allegations at trial, saying he did not control the terms of the pay package or attend meetings where it was discussed.

McCormick sided with Tornetta in January and blocked the plan. After the ruling, Tesla shareholders voted again to approve the pay package, with more than 70% in favor, but it was not enough to change McCormick’s mind.

Why did the judge rule twice?

After McCormick’s first ruling, Musk’s attorneys argued that the shareholders’ overwhelming support of his compensation plan should override the court’s decision. Tesla shareholders voted twice to approve the plan, but McCormick maintained that they were not acting independently.

“There were undoubtedly a range of healthy amounts that the board could have decided to pay Musk,” McCormick wrote in her second opinion. Instead, the board “capitulated to Musk’s terms and then failed to prove that those terms were entirely fair,” she said.

McCormick said that it was not standard for a judge to change a ruling based on the vote of shareholders. There was “no procedural ground” to reverse the decision, she wrote.

How does Musk’s pay compare?

If approved, Musk’s compensation plan would be the largest in U.S. history for a public company executive, according to CNBC. The pay plan includes a series of 12 milestones and would award Musk additional Tesla shares as the company grows.

In order for Musk to reach each milestone, Tesla’s market capitalization must increase in $50-billion increments. For Musk to fully vest in the award, the company’s market cap must reach $650 billion, the company said.

Musk’s attorneys argue that the pay plan is a reflection of what the executive is worth, but McCormick disagrees. In her second ruling, the judge also awarded the plaintiffs $345 million in legal fees, although plaintiff attorneys had asked for a whopping $5.6 billion.

Who’s right?

Corporate governance expert Charles Elson said the Delaware court’s ruling was sound and in line with the law because Musk had violated conflict of interest regulations. Tesla also created improper new evidence after McCormick’s first decision by calling for a second shareholder vote, he said.

“The judge found that the board was not independent of Musk and there was no negotiation between him and the board that produced this package, which makes it suspect,” Elson said. “The standard rules have to apply.”

What will Musk do now?

Musk criticized McCormick’s ruling on X, the social media platform he owns, writing that “shareholders should control company votes, not judges.”

Tesla also posted on X that the court’s decision was wrong and the company plans to appeal. The appeal would be filed with the Delaware Supreme Court.

“This ruling, if not overturned, means that judges and plaintiffs’ lawyers run Delaware companies rather than their rightful owners,” the company wrote.

Attorneys for Tornetta and the other shareholders who oppose Musk’s pay plan said they would defend the court’s ruling if the decision is appealed.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Elon Musk’s efforts to get his massive $56 billion 2018 Tesla pay package reinstated was rejected by a Delaware judge on Monday. 

The decision, issued by Delaware Chancery Court Judge Kathaleen St. J. McCormick, comes after a majority of Tesla shareholders in August reauthorized the compensation package during the electric vehicle maker’s annual meeting. 

After it was initially approved in 2018, the pay package sparked a lawsuit from some Tesla shareholders who accused Musk and Tesla’s board of directors of breaching their duties and unjustly enriching the billionaire. In January 2024, McCormick had ruled that Musk and his company failed to prove that the huge payout was legally warranted, prompting Musk to take the issue back to his shareholders in August.

In her Dec. 2 decision, McCormick said that Musk had asked the court “to flip its decision and enter judgment in their favor.”

She added, “The motion to revise is denied,” citing what the judge described as “at least four fatal flaws” in arguments from Musk’s attorneys.

“The large and talented group of defense firms got creative with the ratification argument, but their unprecedented theories go against multiple strains of settled law,” McCormick noted. 

Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Shares of Tesla fell slightly in after-hours trading, dipping $4.74, or 1.3%, to $352.35. The stock has gained 47% in the last month, buoyed by investor optimism that President-elect Donald Trump’s victory at the polls will help boost Tesla’s prospects, given Musk’s support for his campaign.

The stock options Tesla granted to Musk were initially worth $2.6 billion but had soared to $56 billion when McCormick blocked the package in January, according to Bloomberg News.

“No basis in the common law”

Musk’s attorneys had argued that the second vote made clear that Tesla shareholders, with full knowledge of the flaws in the 2018 process that McCormick had earlier pointed out, were adamant that Musk is entitled to the pay package. They asked the judge to vacate her order directing Tesla to rescind the pay package.

Among the issues in their latest arguments, McCormick wrote, was a lack of procedural grounds for “flipping the outcome of an adverse post-trial decision based on evidence they created after trial.” 

She also objected to Musk’s attempt to recertify the pay package through another shareholder vote, which she wrote his attorneys had argued served as “common law ratification.”

“What the defendants call ‘common law ratification’ has no basis in the common law — a stockholder vote standing alone cannot ratify a conflicted-controller transaction,” she noted. “[E]ven if a stockholder vote could have a ratifying effect, it could not do so here due to multiple, material misstatements in the proxy statement.”

McCormick also rejected an equally unprecedented and massive fee request by plaintiff attorneys, who argue they were entitled to legal fees in the form of Tesla stock valued at more than $5 billion. The judge said the attorneys were entitled to a fee award of $345 million.

Despite the setback, Musk remains the world’s wealthiest person, with a net worth of $343 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

The Associated Press

contributed to this report.

In the ancient reality known as Pax Romana, the power would send an envoy bearing an olive branch as a gesture of peace, a sign that war is no longer wanted.

In the modern reality known as “The Real Housewives of Orange County,” an olive branch – a literal olive branch – was sent this week by Alexis Bellino to Shannon Storms Beador, who rejected that symbol of peace.

Of course, this all happens with all the housewives, except Alexis, gathered round a table for formal tea. It’s Shannon’s 60th birthday and she’s feeling all right at last.

As Virgil recapped the Trojan War – which coincidentally had an episode where Aeneas delivered an olive branch to Evander – let us briefly recap the War between Shannon and Alexis, in which Shannon’s ex-boyfriend John Janssen is now Alexis’s boyfriend Johnny J. Which, if we’re not mistaken in this retelling, would make John the Helen of Troy of this season.

Anyhoo, Shannon is smiling again, and able to laugh about being single at 60.

“I’m 60 and alone,” she says as she waits for the others to arrive at the teahouse. “I’m a spinster!”

Heather Dubrow and Tamra Judge briefly threaten to hijack the soiree with their own drama – Heather by demanding that Emily Simpson talk about their recent fashion show issues, Tamra by apologizing to Jenn Pedranti for the previous week’s temper tantrum thrown at Jenn’s boyfriend Ryan Boyajian.

But those storm clouds pass swiftly, and after all the others are seated, Shannon makes her big entrance, wearing a tiny hat like usual, and a black dress which she quickly tears open to reveal a sequined dress in the red, white and blue of the Union Jack. Because why just tell the others you’re inviting them on a trip to England when you do it with pizzaz?

Everyone screams, because of course they do, and the birthday tea continues.

Emily brought a framed photograph of Shannon looking seductive in black silk pajamas, a shot taken when Shannon accompanied Emily to a boudoir photo shoot for her husband Shane’s gift. A quick discussion around the table concludes that Shannon looks like a madam, which everyone gets except Gina.

“Shannon looks like a madam,” Gina Kirschenheiter says, or asks, the camera later. “That’s prostitution, we’re talking about, right?”

A producer off camera confirms that yes, madam, used in that context, refers to prostitution.

“I think she would be a phenomenal madam,” Gina replies. “I think she would have the most fun henhouse.”

(Be right back, just going to register a copyright on a spinoff titled “The Funnest Little Henhouse in Orange County.”)

OK, where were we? Oh yes, everyone’s going to England, and blimey, they are excited.

“We’re going to have a little tea and maybe some spotted dick,” Tamra says, because of course Tamra is going to make the name for British steamed pudding sound as dirty as she can.

“I love Princess Kate,” Gina says in her best Long Island and worst Cockney accent. “And I love Harry Potter and Hermione. And I love … nope, that’s what I love about London.”

After Heather gives Shannon a pair of Hermes sandals a large bouquet of flowers arrives. There’s a kind of hush all over the tea table as Shannon slowly opens the note and reads.

“Happy 60th birthday, Shannon,” the card from Alexis begins. “I genuinely hope this olive branch can bring us a fresh start as you begin a new decade. May God bless you with happiness and good health on your milestone.”

New decade, milestone – could that sound any more passive-aggressive?

It doesn’t matter, though, because Shannon reveals that she has already pre-written a text to Alexis telling her she is most certainly not invited to go to Europe with the others.

“Hello Alexis, it’s Shannon Beador,” the text begins, raising the question of whether Shannon is concerned Alexis has so many Shannons in her life she won’t know who this one is. “I am hosting a trip to Europe with my friends” – can’t you just picture Alexis getting excited at the thought the olive branch worked? –  “and I just wanted to make it clear that you are not invited.”

Ouch.

Jenn and Katie Ginella, who get along best with Alexis, perhaps decide to pop round to Alexis’s place and break the news more gently. Then, inexplicably, they suggest Alexis just check her texts, and sure enough, there it is.

“Why?” Alexis shouts. “I’m extending an olive branch” – literally, an olive branch! – “and I’m still getting (dumped) on.

“You know what?” she continues. “I’ve tried it all, girls, but now I’m finally over it.”

And with that, she points to the door and more or less orders her friends out of her house.

“I’ve never been kicked out of anywhere,” Jenn says later. “Wait, I did get evicted.”

Elsewhere this episode:

— John Janssen speaks! For the first time this season, Johnny J appears on camera, sitting next to Alexis. He does not look happy to be there as he explains why he filed the lawsuit, even though Shannon had offered to pay him back the money he alleged was a loan.

“My hands were tied,” he says.

— The episode opened with the dinner party at Katie’s house from the previous week still wrapping up. It’s too complicated to go into it all over again – you can read all about that here – but we do hear Ryan refer to his close friend Matt having some trouble with the law,.