So what now? Does he place a lien on the SF Weekly?
@1: I have the same question. Stay tuned..
In defense of the Bay Gaurdian facilitating an anti-competitive marketplace, they were founded as a mouthpiece to bring public power to the Bay Area. They unfortunately haven't succeeded in their cause over the last 30 years, but they never said they're Capitalists.
Vince and Eli: Yeah, that's the first step (if they haven't already done that). Step 2 is to start seizing assets. That's when the real fun begins.
LOL. He connected the Seattle Weekly w/ "quality journalism."

Even so, we have no intention of leaving San Francisco. We choose instead to stay, and to continue competing.

Translate: we'll let the Bay Guardian take what's left of our bank account, after we pay our lawyer fees, and have a yard sale with our crappy used furniture. SF Voice comming soon.
Perhaps I should clarify my response @4. It's my understanding that the "corporate veil" was successfully pierced, which means they can not only lien/seize assets of SF Weekly, but all property of VVM and all of its subsidiaries/related companies.
5280, If I have it right none of the Village Voice parent companies were named as defendants and so the Bay Guardian would need some kind of a theory like conversion (the parent company getting greedy and draining assets out of a sinking ship) or the like to go after the parent company. The Bay Guardian has been trying to pressure the Village Voice by predicting that this judgment will take down the whole parent company (painful to pay but not likely) and seeking pesky asset seizures like delivery trucks and tenant rent payments. Both sides are spinning this in the media and it will be hard to predict how the dust settles. I'll admit that there is a good chance my glib first prediction will be way off.
First of all, I don't have the benefit of having any of the paperwork in front of me, so I can only go on what Eli has posted in the past. I could easily be wrong. But under a "piercing the corporate veil" theory, all those other corporations (and sometimes individuals, too) don't have to be named as defendants; you merely need to show that they're all the alter ego of each other. I believe that's already been done in this case, but again, don't quote me.
Yes, this judgment found VVMH liable for the activities of SF Weekly. Not surprising, since it is a wholly-owned subsidiary. VVMH's two pronged defense of "there was no wrongdoing" and "the parent company isn't responsible for the wrongdoing" seems to have backfired. I'm not knowledgeable about the case, but I know enough about process to know that SF Weekly's noncompliance with previous court orders, and then VVMH's arms-length "nobody is accountable" attitude couldn't have helped their case.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.