The financial crisis threatening one of San Diego's most famous breweries has apparently stabilized, at least temporarily, but the boardroom war consuming Ballast Point Brewing Company is now headed into a potentially consequential new phase. A San Diego Superior Court judge has scheduled an October 9 case management conference in the bitter dispute among members of the ownership group controlling Ballast Point, where attorneys are fighting over whether an independent provisional manager should be installed to examine the company's financial records and potentially help navigate what one faction describes as a paralyzed corporate board.
The development comes approximately one month after SanDiegoVille first detailed two lawsuits accusing William "Bill" Trzos, a member of Ballast Point parent Kings & Convicts Holding Co., of obtaining approximately $3 million in allegedly unauthorized loans and exposing affiliated companies to garnished accounts, intercepted revenue and what the complaints characterized as an "imminent threat of operational collapse."
That immediate threat now appears to have receded. According to new reporting by The San Diego Union-Tribune, a Connecticut court has issued a temporary restraining order and injunction against one of the lenders, stopping collection efforts related to the disputed financing. Charles Whitman, an attorney representing Kings & Convicts and affiliated plaintiffs, told the Union-Tribune that the intervention has left Ballast Point in a more stable financial position "for the time being."
The development represents an important change from the alarming circumstances described in the lawsuits earlier this year. The plaintiffs previously alleged that Trzos obtained financing from multiple lenders between mid-2025 and February 2026 without authorization from the company's governing board. They accused him of fraud, forgery and embezzlement and alleged the resulting obligations jeopardized the companies' ability to continue operating. Those allegations remain disputed and have not been proven at trial. No court has found that Trzos committed fraud or embezzlement.
Trzos and his attorney, Michael Buley, have offered a dramatically different account. They maintain that Trzos owns a 55% interest in Kings & Convicts Holdings and characterize the litigation as an attempt by minority owners to damage his reputation and pressure him into selling his controlling interest on unfavorable terms. Trzos does not dispute obtaining the loans.
His attorneys instead contend that he personally guaranteed the financing and has already paid approximately $2 million of the obligations while negotiating the remaining balance with a lender. Buley has argued that personally guaranteeing the debt is inconsistent with allegations that Trzos intended to defraud the companies.
But the opposing side says it still hasn't seen the receipts. Whitman told the Union-Tribune that he has not seen evidence demonstrating that Trzos actually repaid any portion of the approximately $3 million. And perhaps the most fundamental question surrounding the entire controversy remains unanswered publicly: Why did Trzos borrow the money?
When the allegations initially emerged, Buley acknowledged that he did not yet know the purpose of the financing and said he was examining the issue as part of the litigation. Publicly available information still does not provide a clear accounting of where the borrowed money went. That could soon change.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs had planned to depose Trzos on July 29, but the deposition did not occur. Buley told the Union-Tribune that he needed additional time to review the allegations and prepare his client. The deposition is now reportedly scheduled for September, and Buley says Trzos will appear. The legal battle will then return to San Diego Superior Court on October 9.
At the center of that hearing will be another contentious issue: who should actually be controlling the companies while the litigation proceeds? Trzos and his attorneys have described the existing board as "rogue" and "improperly constituted," arguing that the company is effectively deadlocked and asking Judge Matthew Braner to appoint a neutral provisional manager or director capable of examining Ballast Point's books and financial condition.
The opposing ownership faction says that is unnecessary. Attorneys representing Kings & Convicts and the affiliated plaintiffs maintain that the board is properly constituted and argue that Trzos himself created the corporate crisis through the allegedly unauthorized financing. The plaintiffs have characterized Trzos' request for outside management as an effort to redirect attention from his own alleged conduct.
Trzos, meanwhile, claims he has been denied access to company financial records and argues an independent examination would demonstrate that the allegations against him lack merit. Both sides have previously indicated they are willing to discuss mediation, potentially creating another path toward resolving a fight that has exposed remarkable dysfunction inside one of the most recognizable names in San Diego's craft beer industry.
The dispute erupted less than a year after a new investment arrangement was publicly promoted as the beginning of another revival for Ballast Point. In August 2025, Cypress Ascendant, the investment firm headed by Trzos, and San Diego hospitality company RMD Group were announced as new investors in the brewery. The partnership was promoted as bringing additional capital, hospitality expertise and opportunities for expansion to a company that had already experienced one of the most dramatic rises and falls in American craft beer. Instead, months later, companies within the ownership structure were suing one another.
The battle comes as Ballast Point bears little resemblance to the brewing empire that Constellation Brands purchased for approximately $1 billion in 2015. Founded in San Diego in 1996, Ballast Point became one of the defining breweries of the modern craft beer movement, propelled nationally by beers including its acclaimed Sculpin IPA. Constellation sold the brewery to the much smaller Kings & Convicts operation several years after the blockbuster acquisition, and Ballast Point's physical footprint has steadily contracted since.
Its former Miramar production brewery was sold to Athletic Brewing Company. The Miramar tasting room subsequently closed. The original Home Brew Mart was separated from Ballast Point, and numerous other locations disappeared. Then, in June, Ballast Point closed its San Francisco taproom after approximately three years in business. Today, Ballast Point operates only a handful of hospitality locations in California, including Little Italy in San Diego, Long Beach and Anaheim, while packaged Ballast Point beer continues to be sold through retail distribution.
The latest court developments are therefore encouraging in one narrow respect: the creditor pressure that plaintiffs previously warned could produce an operational collapse has apparently been interrupted. But an injunction does not answer the larger questions surrounding the brewery's future.
Approximately $3 million in disputed financing remains at the center of litigation. One faction says Trzos borrowed the money without authorization. Trzos maintains his majority ownership gave him authority and says much of the debt has already been repaid. His opponents say they have not seen proof of those repayments. The parties cannot even agree on whether the board governing the company is legitimate. And months after the disputed financing became the subject of litigation, there still has been no public explanation for why the money was borrowed.
Ballast Point has survived extraordinary upheaval before. It went from San Diego homebrew shop to national craft-beer powerhouse, from a $1 billion corporate acquisition back into private ownership, and from an expansive brewing operation to a dramatically smaller collection of restaurants, intellectual property and distributed beer brands. For now, it appears to have survived its latest immediate threat as well.
Whether Ballast Point's current owners can survive one another may be the considerably harder question. The next answers could begin arriving in September, when Trzos is expected to sit for his deposition, followed by the October 9 hearing before Judge Braner.
Originally published August 17, 2026. SanDiegoVille previously reported extensively on the litigation in July. The latest court developments were first reported by Rob Nikolewski of The San Diego Union-Tribune. Court complaints contain allegations and do not constitute findings of wrongdoing.
