Bruce Brugmann’s Bay Guardian has been granted court permission to intercept the income of the rival SF Weekly in an attempt to collect on a $21 million judgment. The move may force a creditor of the SF Weekly’s parent company to place the Arizona-based 16-paper chain in default. Brugmann (right) is exploring the possibility of placing the chain into involuntary bankruptcy.

The San Francisco Superior Case number is CGC-04-435584.

The following is from the Guardian’s report on the case:

    In a court hearing on Monday, an attorney for the Village Voice chain, Randall Farrimond, pleaded for the court not to enter the order assigning part of the SF Weekly’s income to the Bay Guardian. “If this motion is granted, the bank will declare a default,” Farrimond told the court, and concluded, “If the Bay Guardian thinks there are more assets than those pledged to Bank of Montreal, they are mistaken.” …

    Several court hearings scheduled for January have the potential to substantially advance the Bay Guardian’s collection efforts, which have gained momentum in recent weeks. In November, the Bay Guardian successfully auctioned off vehicles belonging to the SF Weekly.

The SF Weekly typically posts its version of developments in this court case but has not yet reported on Monday’s hearing.

Bay Area Media News


  1. The Guardian is completely irrelevant. Maybe it's relevant to the over 60 (former 1960s radical crowd). But the SF Weekly seems to do more investigative reporting and better entertainment coverage.

  2. The analysis that the Guardian won't be able to attach VVM's assets outside of California is correct, but they can still go after the revenue of the OC Weekly and LA Weekly. Losing those income streams will probably force VVM to shut down. Together they gross about $33 million a year. And if VVM's two major partners, Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin, attempted to shield their assets, that would result in a new tort for the Guardian, even if it occurred in another state. In fact, that could result in criminal liability.

  3. Mr Bruce B. Brugmann seems to be a more successful litigator than publisher, as this is the third lawsuit I am aware of that Bruce has successfully pursued against his competition. While I admire his endurance and support his Quixotian quest against PG&E, unfortunately I usually find the Bay Guardian to be less than compelling reading, and his adamant stance against unionizing the Guardian staff continues to rankle.

  4. Bruce and SFBG are nothing but poor imitations of Warren Hinckle and Ramparts. Bruce's belief in press freedom and responsible reporting are as valid as his concern for working people: Union's are OK as long as they are not in your shop.

  5. If the Guardian really believed its ideals, it would find a way to keep the SF Weekly alive. They serve entirely difference audiences. The Guardian has a lock on the grey-heads, plus 50 crowd and the SFW attracts 20 and 30somethings. There ought to be a compromise.

  6. wishful thinking on bruce's part … an appeals court outside of the SF orb of influence will look at the fact in this case and stop this rip-off!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>