Slog
News & ArtsThursday, January 7, 2010
Media The Ruling from San Francisco: Bay Guardian Can Seize Village Voice Media Assets Around the Country (Including, Potentially, Seattle Weekly Assets)
Posted by Eli Sanders on Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 8:42 PM
The crazy back story—the war between two proud alt-weeklies in San Francisco, the predatory pricing verdict against one of them, the recent vehicle seizures by the other—is all right here.
The news tonight is that a San Francisco court has now told the legally victorious Bay Guardian that, in order to collect the more than $20 million it's owed by the SF Weekly, it can try to seize assets from the SF Weekly's parent company, New Times Media. Which includes Village Voice Media. Which owns, among other chain alt-weeklies, the Seattle Weekly.
Commissioner Bruce Slavit of San Francisco Superior Court granted the Bay Guardian's request Wednesday to place a lien on the Weekly's holding company, New Times Media, and the firm's interests in the Village Voice newspaper chain.Jay Adkisson, the Guardian's lawyer, said Thursday that the lien would enable the newspaper to seek another court order allowing it to sell off any of the New Times papers—including SF Weekly—or simply take money from them to pay the judgment.
On Monday, the Bay Guardian's executive editor, Tim Redmond, told me the Seattle Weekly could definitely be a target of asset seizures—or, perhaps, a sell off—if the court ruled his way.
The Bay Guardian will seize “whatever is valuable that would help us collect the money that we’re owed," Redmond told me. "If the courts tell us we can go after papers outside of California, we will go wherever we can, wherever we have the legal authority to go, to pursue this debt, absolutely.”
Still no comment from anyone at the Seattle Weekly or Village Voice Media. More tomorrow.
2
I'm betting a hard earned fiver that the Seattle Weekly is ignored in all of this. The Bay Guardian are probably looking directly at VVM/NT HQ or The Village Voice NYC (maybe)
4
While I'm sure the staff at the Stranger stand to benefit there in Seattle, we've only got one major alt weekly here in Denver (Westword), and it's a VVM property.
Ditto for the New Times in Phoenix (where I used to live). One side effect of this court case is that it could potentially lift a lot of the pressure on one of the biggest law enforcement assholes in the country, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County (metro Phoenix). The New Times there has consistently had some of the best reporting exposing this guy (and their reporters have paid for it with plenty of harassment from the MCSO).
Sure, in a worst case scenario (Village Voice properties fold or are sold off), other replacements may pop up to fill the void. Or maybe not, given the state of the industry. I suppose the verdict may be just, I suppose this may be all due to bad management on New Times Media's part, but it's kind of a shame if the burden for this falls on cities that don't have other alternatives ready to step up.
Ditto for the New Times in Phoenix (where I used to live). One side effect of this court case is that it could potentially lift a lot of the pressure on one of the biggest law enforcement assholes in the country, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County (metro Phoenix). The New Times there has consistently had some of the best reporting exposing this guy (and their reporters have paid for it with plenty of harassment from the MCSO).
Sure, in a worst case scenario (Village Voice properties fold or are sold off), other replacements may pop up to fill the void. Or maybe not, given the state of the industry. I suppose the verdict may be just, I suppose this may be all due to bad management on New Times Media's part, but it's kind of a shame if the burden for this falls on cities that don't have other alternatives ready to step up.
5
remember who what where when how and why?
why?
why did the court allow a judgment against entity "SF Weekly" to justify a lien against the parent company New Times and also get liens on and go against the assets of yet other companies such as Seattle Weekly?
And once you know, could you please forward this information to the lawyers handling that banktrupcy of the Jesuit order? Cuz they really ought to go after the parent company (the FUCKING CRIMINAL VATICAN) and all the other little companies it owns (EVERY FUCKING CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE WORLD).
Whew.
why?
why did the court allow a judgment against entity "SF Weekly" to justify a lien against the parent company New Times and also get liens on and go against the assets of yet other companies such as Seattle Weekly?
And once you know, could you please forward this information to the lawyers handling that banktrupcy of the Jesuit order? Cuz they really ought to go after the parent company (the FUCKING CRIMINAL VATICAN) and all the other little companies it owns (EVERY FUCKING CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE WORLD).
Whew.
6
Sorry about your parent organization, but they were caught 'red-handed' with predatory price reductions with the sole intent of running the Guardian out of town. While the Guardian is far from my favorite paper, I detest scumbag corporations that have 'becoming a monopoly' as their primary business objective. Good for the Guardian.
7
@5 Unless the companies have some magical total division legally of assets, that's how it rolls. If you sue and beat Microsoft's "XBox Division" for whatever and get $250,000,000, it's not like you won't get your $150,000,000 if the lose all the appeals, since Microsoft has billions in the bank. It sucks (especially the example above of what this means in Phoenix with Arpaio!) but the parent company appears to have really screwed up here.
8
Although on the Phoenix/Arpaio matter for those that follow it, the fantastic news site Talking Points Memo has been giving Sheriff Joe some national attention and love, and seems to be all over it lately too:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.co…
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/20…
TPM has a fair bit of influence and is a peer of (but better than, if you ask me) of Politico.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.co…
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/20…
TPM has a fair bit of influence and is a peer of (but better than, if you ask me) of Politico.
9
Thanks Joe, we will be driving to Arizona this Spring, the Four Corners area. If we do hustle up alongside the Sherrif, he be sure to hear me out with the wranglin spoken-words i'm a offerin. You betcha.
That thar TPM aint so bad ya hear? This ole veedio of thars is one hootenany!!
http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=4…
I wanna see Ron Paul and Ben Stein have it out with that old baglady Judy Judge on CourtTV? even CourtSlog for themsmatters
That thar TPM aint so bad ya hear? This ole veedio of thars is one hootenany!!
http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=4…
I wanna see Ron Paul and Ben Stein have it out with that old baglady Judy Judge on CourtTV? even CourtSlog for themsmatters
10
well shoot me in the durn foot, does that TPM worldweblink workin fer yous? not me, ecghk, Gurgle it if ya want, anti-seemites and them accusers interest noone nohows anyways nomore
11
Anyone else have a problem with this?
What if this was happening to your favorite newspaper whatever that may be? Predatory pricing? Whatever. Who determines the minimum value that you can charge for an ad with virtually ZERO marginal cost? Some papers give out free ads. When you start a business do they tell you to charge a minimum price or you will be sued for millions of dollars? A business can charge whatever it wants just like the airlines do: $2000 or $20 for a ticket. Whatever the fuck they want. It's called free market and you CAN have regulation but last I looked newspapers do not have it. Do we need to start regulating what newspapers charge for ads? What next? Then they can't even appeal this case unless they come up with the 20 million and set it aside in escrow. Personally I could give a shit about either newspaper but this all sounds like total bullshit to me.
What if this was happening to your favorite newspaper whatever that may be? Predatory pricing? Whatever. Who determines the minimum value that you can charge for an ad with virtually ZERO marginal cost? Some papers give out free ads. When you start a business do they tell you to charge a minimum price or you will be sued for millions of dollars? A business can charge whatever it wants just like the airlines do: $2000 or $20 for a ticket. Whatever the fuck they want. It's called free market and you CAN have regulation but last I looked newspapers do not have it. Do we need to start regulating what newspapers charge for ads? What next? Then they can't even appeal this case unless they come up with the 20 million and set it aside in escrow. Personally I could give a shit about either newspaper but this all sounds like total bullshit to me.
12
I guess that you really like the Seattle Weekly angle on this, but beyond pure wishful [why?] thinking, do you really have any evidence that they'd be among the assets sought by the Guardian?
13
@11: predatory pricing isn't just lowering your price, no matter how low. It's doing so at a severe detriment to the bottom line of the company for a temporary time in an effort to drive a competitor out of business. This isn't a price war, Its a tortious act by a huge company with an unfair advantage. This kind of law when properly applied should protect small business from the likes of Wal-Mart and their ilk.
That said, this kind of judgment is very rare; I'm sort of shocked that a company would have the huevos to try such a thing.... it hasn't really been proven to even work in most industries: As long as there are writers and printing presses, there will be competition (if only in a different name)... plus in this case it obviously failed.
Sadly, this does seem plausible... especially in the current climate which is hanging out newsprint to dry.
That said, this kind of judgment is very rare; I'm sort of shocked that a company would have the huevos to try such a thing.... it hasn't really been proven to even work in most industries: As long as there are writers and printing presses, there will be competition (if only in a different name)... plus in this case it obviously failed.
Sadly, this does seem plausible... especially in the current climate which is hanging out newsprint to dry.
15
@13 - The Guardian is able to seize the assets because the idiots representing the Weekly did not post a bond - and from what I have read, that is rare.
As to the the size of the award, although I don't know how the it was determined, I think it was 10% of the total value of the parent organization, which provided the funds to support the on-going, below-cost pricing at the Weekly.
Another $5-6 million is interest accrued because the Weekly has not paid anything.
As to the the size of the award, although I don't know how the it was determined, I think it was 10% of the total value of the parent organization, which provided the funds to support the on-going, below-cost pricing at the Weekly.
Another $5-6 million is interest accrued because the Weekly has not paid anything.
18
@8 Yes, Arpaio has been getting national press lately, but most of the groundwork and heavy lifting was done by local media in Phoenix; as the New Times points out, they've been covering Arpaio's asshattery for 15 years now.
20
My question is whether the Guardian folks are going to use their $20 Million worth of torpedoes to entirely annihilate one ship (SF Weekly) or to punch a hole in every hull in the armada (New Times/VVM). If they decide to seize the entire settlement in delivery trucks and servers, VVM could have a hard time staying in business.
22
@ 19, If The Stranger IS practicing "predatory" pricing, how on earth are they staying in business? The whole issue is that The Weekly was operating at a loss (with backing by their mother company).
The Stranger is a powerful machine in Seattle, but they still pale in comparison to the VVM empire. I just don't see them being able to stay afloat as long as they have if they were actually working at a loss.
The Stranger is a powerful machine in Seattle, but they still pale in comparison to the VVM empire. I just don't see them being able to stay afloat as long as they have if they were actually working at a loss.
24
interesting....
thanks for sharing this information with the community..
regards,
ohio bankruptcy records
thanks for sharing this information with the community..
regards,
ohio bankruptcy records
25
interesting....
thanks for sharing this information with the community..
regards,
ohio bankruptcy records
thanks for sharing this information with the community..
regards,
ohio bankruptcy records
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (25) RSS