Yup.
There was a recent article on him in Kiplingers, a financial magazine. Basically, they analyze a business's financial situation, give advice, and make an article of it. As of that article, he is supposedly owes $15,000 is hosting fees, and over $60,000 in personal debt, fines, and assorted other stuff.
Kiplingers basically told him he needs to get rid of his criminal organization site allegations by forcing people to have an account that is traceable to a real person, so they can bust them in case of crime. Then, he needs to require a way (probably via credit card number) to prove that all visitors are 18 or older, or make a strict anti-pornography policy on the site. Finally, any planned "raids" need to be immediately reported to the proper authorities. They say that this will either allow him to get ads that can support the site again, or make it a far "safer" purchase for some possibly buyout by a media company (Rupert Murdoch, looking at you).
Here is proof that none of the analysts had ever heard of 4chan and what it stands for before they wrote their article: Basically, they think he should take anonymous, porno, underage kids, and any kind of raids/attacks out of 4chan.
Wait a sec, what would be left after you take all that away?
