lawsuit Archives - Page 2 of 20

Tag Archives: lawsuit

Restraining Order Granted in Paramount Skydance/Warner Bros. Discovery Merger

Posted on July 20, 2026 by Brett

It’s an early win for a dozen State Attorneys General in their lawsuit attempting to stop the merger between Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery. The temporary restraining order pauses the merger for 14 days and in response to a lawsuit filed July 13 by California, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District of California and alleges the deal violates Section 7 of the Clayton Act. That focuses on lessening competition through mergers and is an attempt to prevent monopolies.

U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin wrote that the AG’s:

…present compelling evidence that the combined firm resulting from the transaction will possess substantial market share in the wide-release theatrical distribution market.

On this combined firm market share alone, the Court is persuaded that it can presume the proposed merger is likely to violate antitrust laws.

The order prevents the deal from “closing” or “consummating” or taking any steps that would integrate or consolidate the operations.

Attorney General Bonta said in a statement:

My office and attorneys general nationwide have secured an emergency order blocking the unlawful merger of Warner Bros. and Paramount. This is a critical first win in our case to ensure this megamerger never sees the light of day. History tells the tale of what happens when a few people have great power over markets that are central to Americans’ lives: fewer opportunities for more people, worse products and services for all people. With our lawsuit, we’re fighting for a free and fair market and a thriving film and television industry that serves creatives and audiences alike. We have a full tank of gas, the law on our side, and look forward to continuing to make our case.

The AGs argued the temporary restraining order was needed because Paramount had indicated it could possibly close the deal soon. Paramount’s lead attorney, Jeffrey Kessler, said that they were prepared to commit to not closing the merger for the next 28 days.

The decision is important as it delays the closing of the deal for Paramount. Paramount Skydance wants the deal to close before September 30, 2026 or the cost will increase the longer it drags on. The price increases 25 cents per share per quarter it’s not approved. That would add $627 million to the cost of the overall deal each quarter, or roughly $7 million per day. This lawsuit could drag on for months making it unlikely the deal will close by that date. The company has said delays could force it to renegotiate the deal’s financing, cause uncertainty for its stock price, or end the transaction altogether.

Loading Viewer…

Alan Cumming and Block the Merger UK urge a Stop to the Paramount Skydance/Warner Bros. Discovery Merger

Posted on July 17, 2026 by Brett

With the acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery by Paramount Skydance having been approved by some governments, but more to come, organizing against the deal has ramped up. Alan Cumming and Block the Merger UK has been urging individuals to speak out against the deal ahead of a decision by the UK government.

Block the Merger UK is urging people to contact the Department for Culture, Media and Sport or Ofcom and demand the merger is examined in depth.

Cumming and the organization highlight the consolidation leads to “one country” controlling a “massive slice of what we watch in Britain.” This new company would be “beholden to Donald Trump, autocrats and oligarchs.”

Concerns of job cuts are also raised and there’s still time for UK regulators to hear input from citizens.

A website has been set up with an email template and ways, and who, to contact.

Block the Merger was launched in April spinning out of a coalition of Hollywood stars and staff spoke up against the merger.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Committee for the First Amendment (@1acommittee)

UK Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said last month she is “minded to intervene” in the $110 billion takeover. A formal decision has not been made. If there is intervention, it’d trigger investigations by Ofcom and the Competition and Markets Authority, the antitrust watchdog.

But, things are up in the air as the House of Commons has gone into recess with any update by Nandy. That means things are potentially in limbo until September 1 when Parliament returns from its summer break.

Paramount has a deadline of September 30 to close the deal. If it doesn’t the price increases with a “ticking fee” that increases share cost by 25 cents per share, about $650 million, for every quarter beyond the third.

The deal could still close without UK clearance. The CMA though is investigating the merger and intends to issue an update August 7.

The deal between Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery has come under heavy scrutiny this past week with a dozen attorneys general suing to stop the deal as well as the Writer’s Guild of America suing, and a third lawsuit involving shareholders.

Paramount Shareholders Sue David and Larry Ellison over “Illegal” Deal to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery

Posted on July 16, 2026 by Brett

It hasn’t been a good week for the Ellisons and Paramount Skydance with multiple lawsuits being filed regarding their attempted takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery. This week, a dozen attorneys general sued claiming antitrust violations and the Writers Guild of America stepped in with a lawsuit of their own. Now, shareholders of Paramount are suing saying the father/son duo cut an “illegal” deal with President Donald Trump to secure the government’s approval of the takeover. Trump’s government approved the deal in June though there’s been some concerns raised about the approval process.

The shareholder lawsuit is attempting to block the $111 billion merger along with unspecified monetary damages. The lawsuit claims that the Ellisons promised “illegal private benefits” to President Trump in exchange for the government approval.

That side deal would include funneling money to Trump by settling his legal claims against CNN as well as firing CNN anchors Trump does not like.

The lawsuit states:

The Ellisons’ actions not only harm the reputations of the news outlets they currently own, which are hemorrhaging viewers, but they are latent liabilities waiting to be triggered by a future administration.

Paramount has responded through a spokesperson:

This lawsuit recycles allegations that have already been reported and already addressed. As we’ve said consistently: no commitments from either David or Larry Ellison have been made to any government body, State AG, or federal agency regarding the future of CNN or any other news property, other than the goal to deliver truth-based journalism.

The Warner Bros. Discovery transaction stands on its own merits. Combining these two libraries and platforms gives consumers more choice, not less — greater investment in original programming, a stronger competitor to streaming rivals, and a more durable footing for journalism and storytelling alike. We remain confident in the merger’s fundamentals and will continue toward closing.

The lawsuit not only names the Ellisons but also includes Paramount Skydance board members: Gerry Cardinale, Safra Catz, Andrew Brandon-Gordon, Paul Marinelli, John Thornton, Barbara Byrne, Andrew Campion, Justin Hamill and Sherry Lansing.

Paramount Skydance also faces a hurdle in the European Commission and the U.K. The company has attempted to address EU competition concerns such as ending a film distribution venture it has with Universe Pictures. The European Commission has extended its deadline for its decision from July 7 to July 22.

Paramount Skydance wants the deal to close before September 1, 2026 or the cost will increase the longer it drags on. The price increases 25 cents per share per quarter it’s not approved. That would add $627 million to the cost of the overall deal each quarter, or roughly $7 million per day. This lawsuit will likely drag on for months if it moves forward making it unlikely the deal will close by that date. The company has said delays could force it to renegotiate the deal’s financing, cause uncertainty for its stock price, or end the the transaction altogether.

Loading Viewer…

The WGA has filed a lawsuit to Block the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery Merger

Posted on July 15, 2026 by Brett

Things are heating up when it comes to the Paramount Skydance acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery. Yesterday, a dozen attorneys general filed a lawsuit to stop the merger. On the same day, the Writers Guild of America West and Writers Guild of America East also filed a lawsuit to block the proposed merger.

In the complaint, the WGA states the merger would reduce opportunities, lower pay, and worsen working conditions for writers. They also state the merger would reduce output as well as suppress competition for writers’ work.

The WGA complaint focuses on the anticompetitive effects of the merger in three markets for writing services: anticipated top grossing films, episodic television and streaming series, and overall deals.

In June, the White House and the Department of Justice approved the merger. Oregon has been investigating Paramount Skydance’s “Project Warrior” which was focused on winning approval for the deal. They recently withdrew motions regarding their own lawsuit. It’s unknown if they’ll continue to pursue that as they are a part of antitrust lawsuit by the attorneys general.

Paramount Skydance still faces a hurdle in the European Commission and the U.K. The company has attempted to address EU competition concerns such as ending a film distribution venture it has with Universe Pictures. The European Commission has extended its deadline for its decision from July 7 to July 22.

California leads 11 Other States in Suing to Block Paramount’s Acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery

Posted on July 13, 2026 by Brett

As expected, California and 11 other states have filed a lawsuit to stop Paramount Skydance‘s acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery. They state that the $110 billion deal would lessen competition in film distribution and television as well as harm theaters and television distributors.

The lawsuit is being lead by California Attorney General Bonta and includes Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington.

In the lawsuit the attorneys general allege:

Wide Release Theatrical Film Distribution, where Warner Bros. and Paramount are two of the five major film distributors and would combine for around 27% share of the market. After the merger, only three distributors will control 75% of these films and only four distributors (Defendants, Disney, Universal, and Sony) will control 86% of them.
Anticipated Top-Grossing Theatrical Film Distribution, a submarket of theatrical film distribution focused on anticipated blockbuster films with wide audiences and large production budgets. After the merger, Defendants will control more than 30% of these films, and four distributors (Defendants, Disney, Universal, and Sony) will control more than 90% of them.
Licensing Basic Cable Television Channels, or the market for distributing basic cable channels to cable and satellite providers. Warner Bros. is the second largest and Paramount is the third largest in this market, and they would combine for a 27% share.

Paramount Skydance wants the deal to close before September 30, 2026 or the cost will increase the longer it drags on. The price increases 25 cents per share per quarter it’s not approved. That would add $627 million to the cost of the overall deal each quarter, or roughly $7 million per day. This lawsuit will likely drag on for months if it moves forward making it unlikely the deal will close by that date. The company has said delays could force it to renegotiate the deal’s financing, cause uncertainty for its stock price, or end the the transaction altogether.

Alliance vs. Diamond Discovery Dates are Set

Posted on March 5, 2026 by Brett

There’s a lot of side quests when it comes to Diamond’s Chapter 11/Chapter 7 drama. There’s numerous lawsuits that have spun out of it, dozens depending on how you want to count them. One of the more dramatic ones is Alliance Entertainment‘s lawsuit against Diamond and its associates.

In April 2025, Alliance Entertainment submitted a complaint against Diamond accusing Diamond of “fraud” and “deception” as far as their relationship with Wizards of the Coast, the company behind Magic: The Gathering. Wizards did not continue its distribution agreement past December 2024 and didn’t inform Alliance. Diamond and its representatives actually attempted to obfuscate it and keep it from Alliance during the deal.

That lawsuit has been slow, but ongoing, and now we have the next steps as it looks like there might be an agreement when it comes to discovery.

Discovery is the process where documents need to be handed over to lawyers allowing them to gather evidence. Emails, documents, internal chats, those are all examples of discovery and it can involve millions of documents depending on the lawsuit.

The following is what’s proposed and differs slightly from the original proposed dates.

The Parties shall make their initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) on or before March 10, 2026.

(a) Discovery Requests. The Parties shall serve all document requests, interrogatories, and requests for admissions on or before March 16, 2026.
(b) Substantial Document Production Completion Date. Document production shall be substantially completed by August 31, 2026.
(c) Fact Discovery Cut Off. Except for Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures, all fact discovery
in this case will be completed on or before October 31, 2026. Fact depositions may be taken at any time prior to the expiration of the fact discovery deadline.
(d) Privilege Logs. Privilege logs shall be produced in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure so as to be completed within fourteen (14) business days of the related document production. Privileged communications occurring after April 29, 2025, need not be included on a privilege log.
(e) Experts. The Parties do not presently intend to call any expert witnesses. To the extent that changes, the Parties will meet and confer to discuss deadlines pertaining to expert discovery.

Also mentioned:

3. The Parties will submit a confidentiality order and ESI Protocol to the Court for approval on or before April 3, 2026.
4. Motions to join other parties, and to amend or supplement the pleadings, shall be filed on or before June 1, 2026.
5. Dispositive motions by any party are to be filed by November 30, 2026. Answer briefs in opposition thereto are to be filed by December 30, 2026. Reply briefs are to be filed by January 13, 2027.
6. A hearing on dispositive motions shall be set for February 17, 2027 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9-D, Baltimore – Judge Rice.
7. Parties must file pre-trial statements in conformity with Local Bankruptcy Rule 7016-1(b) within thirty (30) days of the Court’s ruling on dispositive motions.
8. Trial time estimate four (4) days.

This is a pretty big step for this case to proceed and looks like we’ll get an actual trial some time in 2027.

Check out the full documents below:

Loading Viewer…

Alliance vs. Diamond

Publishers Motion to Dismiss Diamond’s Adversary Complaints

Posted on March 4, 2026 by Brett

One of the major outstanding issues with Diamond‘s bankruptcy is the status of consignment inventory. Diamond currently has stock that was provided to it by publishers on a consignment basis. That stock is currently physically held by Sparkle Pop which purchased some of Diamond’s assets, including taking over the warehouse where these are stored, though they don’t have a right to sell it (which they did and there was drama around that).

Diamond wants to sell the consigned goods to help pay back its creditors. Publishers obviously want their stock back. A judge put a stay on the decision which has been playing out for months. Diamond then went a submitted adversary proceedings against publishers, over 30 of them. In short, instead of this decision being handled at a macro level, the judge said Diamond could sue each publisher individually to figure out the product status.

Now, Diamond is in chapter 7 and due to key dates having passed, the Consignment Group, which is made up of multiple publishers, has submitted motions in each of those adversary proceedings to dismiss the complaints. Oddly a filing had the Trustee of the chapter 7 process selling the consigned goods to Sparkle Pop so it’s unclear how this motion and that clashes.

Filings by Massive Publishing, Oni Press, Panini, Alien Books, Titan Comics, Vault Storyworks, Dynamic Forces, Aspen, Black Mask Studio, Dark Horse, DSTLRY, Heavy Metal, and Magnetic Press were all revealed today were submitted to the court to “Dismiss Adversary Proceeding Complaint(s).”

The motion goes right into it stating that Diamond has not submitted facts to back up their complaint and discovery has not revealed evidence, and that the court can dismiss it over this.

The Complaint(s) in this case is devoid of any meritorious allegations that might possibly support Plaintiff’s claims; thus, this Complaint must be dismissed.

The filing then goes on about the agreement between Diamond and the publishers saying it’s “executory in nature” and Diamond’s obligations were to ship goods, properly store the goods, and pay the publishers when the goods ae sold.

On December 19, 2025, Diamond’s Chapter 11 was switched to Chapter 7 and with that, they had until February 17, 2026 to assume or reject an executory contract. The deadline to assume or reject their contracts has been an issue throughout the Chapter 11/Chapter 7 case with the deadline to do so pushed out over and over. The latest request to extend the deadline was denied in early February.

February 17 has come and gone and since the deadline wasn’t extended again and the agreements weren’t assumed, then they can be deemed rejected.

Because the agreement has been rejected, they are now terminated the Consignment Group argues and the agreement is now in breach and the next steps due to that breach need to be determined.

The Consignment Group feels the agreement has answers to that and as per a Supreme Court case, the publishers would then retain the rights it has received under the agreement. The motion lists out the various ways the agreement can be terminated (something we have mentioned before) and then goes on to state since the Consignors are owed money still and no proof of claim has been filed, the agreement has been terminated by its own terms.

The agreement lays out what happens next:

Effect of Termination
d. Except as provided herein, the termination of this Agreement shall not relieve or release any party from any of its obligations existing prior to such termination. Upon termination of this Agreement, title to all material containing the
Trademarks, or Seller’s copyrights, service marks, or similar rights shall be deemed to have automatically vested in Seller. Unless otherwise agreed to by Seller, Buyer shall immediately deliver such material to Seller, at Seller’s cost. Buyer, at Seller’s option, may destroy such material at Seller’s cost, and upon such destruction furnish Seller a certificate of destruction satisfactory to Seller and signed by an officer of Buyer.

In short, the Buyer (aka Diamond) needs to return the goods to the Seller (aka publishers) with the Sellers paying for shipping. The Buyer can also destroy the material if the Seller wants, with the Seller paying for that.

The Consignment Group’s motion then concludes that due to all of that, the consigned goods are now clearly owned by the publishers and the Adversary Complaints should be dismissed.

This is a pretty big motion that might be the first real step to settle the outstanding question as to who owns the consigned goods. With the lapse of the date concerning the acceptance or rejection of existing agreements, the publisher’s case gets stronger.

We’ll be watching this closely and report when the court makes a decision regarding this key issue.

Loading Viewer…

Diamond Chapter 11

Alliance vs. Diamond Gets Discovery Dates

Posted on February 26, 2026 by Brett

There’s a lot of side quests when it comes to Diamond’s Chapter 11/Chapter 7 drama. There’s numerous lawsuits that have spun out of it, dozens depending on how you want to count them. One of the more dramatic ones is Alliance Entertainment‘s lawsuit against Diamond and its associates.

That lawsuit has been slow, but ongoing, and now we have the next steps as it looks like there might be an agreement when it comes to discovery.

The following is what’s proposed:

(a) Discovery Requests. The Parties shall serve all document requests, interrogatories, and requests for admissions on or before March 16, 2026.
(b) Substantial Document Production Completion Date. Document production shall be substantially completed by June 8, 2026.
(c) Fact Discovery Cut Off. The Parties have agreed that, except for Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures, all fact discovery in this case will be completed on or before July 20, 2026. The Parties have agreed that they may take fact depositions at any time prior to the expiration of the fact discovery deadline.
(d) Privilege Logs. Privilege logs shall be produced in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure so as to be completed within fourteen (14) business days of the related document production. Privileged communications occurring after April 29, 2025, need not be included on a privilege log.
(e) Experts. The Parties do not presently intend to call any expert witnesses. To the extent that changes, the Parties will meet and confer to discuss deadlines pertaining to expert discovery.

Also mentioned:

Protective Orders and ESI Protocol. The Parties will submit a confidentiality order and ESI Protocol to the Court for approval on or before April 3, 2026.
Case Dispositive Motions. Any dispositive motions must be filed thirty (30) days after the completion of fact discovery. Answering briefs in opposition thereto are due thirty (30) days later, with reply briefs to be filed fourteen (14) days after the filing of any answering briefs.
Joinder of Other Parties and Amendment of Pleadings. All motions to join other parties, and to amend or supplement the pleadings, shall be filed on or before April 24, 2026.
Pretrial Order. If this adversary proceeding cannot be resolved on dispositive motions, the Parties have agreed to file a Joint Pretrial Report within thirty (30) days of the Court’s ruling on dispositive motions.
Length of Trial. The Parties estimate that the time required to try this adversary proceeding will be four (4) days.

This is a pretty big step for this case to proceed and looks like we’ll get more about the middle of the year when it comes to a resolution and decision, if not before.

Check out the full documents below:

Loading Viewer…

Alliance vs. Diamond

Cadence Comic Art Lawsuit Settlement Revealed

Posted on February 10, 2026 by Brett

In August 2025, Becky Cloonan, David Marquez, Wesley Craig, Paolo Villanelli, Leila Leiz, Alessandro Cappuccio, Danai Christina Kilaidoni, Elena Casagrande, Valerio Schiti, Mahmud Anjum Asrar, Joelle Jones, Yildiray Cinar, Rafael Albuquerque, Tyler Crook, Jenny Frison, Pia Guerra, and Jill Thompson filed a lawsuit against Cadence Comic Art and Paolo Belfiore over what the claim of “egregious misconduct.” In early December, attorneys asked for an adjournment until mid-January 2026 as the parties were meeting in an attempt to settle the lawsuit without the need for a trial and in January an agreement was reached. As long as the agreement was followed, no trial would follow.

Now, in a new court filing, we know the details of that settlement:

Defendants agree to provide the sum of Five Hundred Fifty Thousand U.S. Dollars ($550,000.00).
Payment of the Settlement Consideration shall be in equal monthly payments of Three Hundred and Fifty U.S. Dollars ($350.00) due on the first of each calendar month, in perpetuity, until the entire Settlement Consideration is paid in full. Larger payments may be made, and any amount shall be credited accordingly.
As long as the payments are made, there’ll be no interest but if a payment is failed to be made, the Settlement Consideration shall accrue an interest rate of 9% per annum, calculated retroactively from January 1, 2024 until the outstanding amount is paid in full.
There’ll be no further expenses for the Defendents as long as they make timely payments.
There are no admissions of any kind by the Plaintiffs or Defendents.
There’s a Non-Disparagement clause.

You can check out all of the official documents with more details of the settlement below:

Loading Viewer…

Drama over the future of Angoulême with a Lawsuit launched on the first day of Grand Off

Posted on January 29, 2026 by Brett

Today is the first day of Grand Off, the festival launched to replace this year’s Angoulême. After threats of boycotts, a pulling of funding, and general distrust of the organizers, the 2026 edition of the Angoulême Comics Festival was cancelled in early December 2025. In its place is a different festival, Grand Off, and a proposed launch of a comic festival in 2027. But with all of that, more drama with a lawsuit.

The Angoulême International Comics Festival (FIBD), along 9e Art+ festival manager Franck Bondoux have announced they are suing the Development of Comics in Angoulême (ADBDA). The ADBDA was tasked with replacing Angoulême in 2027. FIBD and Bondoux accuse ADBDA of “unfair competition and parasitic behavior.”

In January 2026, ADBDA sent out a request to find an organizer for a new festival. It would push to the side FIBD and 9e Art+ and move on from recent scandal. Bondoux in statements is saying this new festival is building off of the work he has done building up the reputation of Angoulême.

The lawsuit requests that the proposed convention be cancelled and “prohibit any act that would aim to organize a comic book festival in Angoulême in the first quarter of each year.”

FIBD wrote on Facebook:

The specifications drawn up by the ADBDA thus constitute a clear and deliberate appropriation of the Festival, while claiming to change its name. This crude subterfuge, a simple semantic artifice, cannot mask the reality: it is clearly an attempt to reproduce the FIBD as it has been built, structured, and developed for more than fifty years, and particularly during the most recent editions.

Even more seriously, the ADBDA claims in the same document full ownership of this future event, thus confirming an attempt at dispossession, a pure and simple spoliation of the FIBD Association, its history, its work, its volunteers, and its rights.

Deliberately marginalized and then excluded by the public authorities from this entire process, excluded from any consultation, deprived of its founding event, the FIBD Association, the target of extremely violent remarks from certain elected officials whose sole aim was to delegitimize it, is now forced, reluctantly but resolutely, to take legal action and seek the protection of the courts.

Faced with this unjustifiable appropriation, legal action is now the only possible way to uphold the law and reaffirm the fundamental principles that govern associative and cultural life. Consequently, the FIBD Association, in conjunction with 9ème art+, has initially decided to take lega

« Older Entries Recent Entries »