Category Archives: Lawsuits

Disney, Warner Bros., Universal and Midjourney Discovery Dispute Kicked to Late May

In February, a plan was hashed out between Disney, Warner Bros.,Universal, and Midjourney over discovery when it comes to their possible trial. In March a dispute was brought up by the various parties over discovery and the numerous parties need the judge to hash things out.

While a conference was take place on March 12, it now looks like that has been moved until March 22. From a filing released today:

The parties have requested an informal discovery conference with Magistrate Judge A. Joel Richlin. Counsel for each party has submitted their respective positions and the issue will be adjudicated in accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s procedure.

Date/Time: May 22, 2026 at 09:00 AM

In June 2025, studios started to sue Midjourney. In multiple lawsuits, they claimed the AI platform was a “bottomless pit of plagiarism.” In November, Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. consolidated their two cases into one. Their cases were similar and made similar claims against the tech company.

This case impacts the comics community as both Marvel (via Disney) and DC Comics (via Warner Bros.) are part of the plaintiffs and specifically mentioned in filings.

We haven’t see what the dispute is but will update this article with more details or a full report when a decision is made.

Below is the original dispute document as well as the latest filing:

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

Consumers are Suing to Block the Paramount/Warner Bros. Discovery Merger

Warner Bros.

The stockholders have voted, the federal government will provide little resistance, and rumors are European regulators won’t ask for any changes to the deal. But, there’s still some resistance to the $110 billion merger between Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery.

A group of Paramount+ subscribers have filed a federal antitrust lawsuit in an attempt to stop the deal. They claim that the deal will harm competition, raise prices, and reduce quality.

The move also attempts to rollback Skydance’s takeover Paramount stating that and the Warner Bros. Discovery is an attempt at consolidation and eliminating rivals.

From the lawsuit:

Paramount’s ability and incentive to raise prices, reduce output, narrow slates, reduce quality and worsen consumer-facing terms, including through control of distribution, exclusivity, windowing and licensing.

If Paramount’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery is consummated, the combined firm would have increased ability and incentive to reduce theatrical film output and narrow release slates, substantially lessening competition by leaving moviegoers with fewer theatrical titles, less genre and budget variety, and fewer meaningful alternatives at local theaters.

Skydance’s nontrivial acquisition of Paramount Global and the proposed nontrivial acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery reflect the same strategy of refusing to compete by building better products, investing, innovating, or winning customers through rivalry on the merits, but instead pursuing scale through consolidation that eliminates independent rivals and weakens the competitive constraints that protect consumers.

The lawsuit focuses on Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act. That bars mergers that reduces competition and the number of “top companies” in a marketplace. With this deal, Paramount would control about 24% of the theatrical distribution market.

The post-merger top four studios would be Paramount/Warner Bros. at approximately 23.6%, Disney at approximately 21.4%, Universal at approximately 20.2%, and Sony/Columbia at approximately 11.1%, for a combined top-four share of approximately 76.3%. The proposed transaction, therefore, would not merely combine two studios; it would increase top-four concentration by approximately 10.2 percentage points and eliminate Paramount as an independent studio competitor.

That percentage of the market has caused the trade organization Cinema United to oppose the merger as well. Over 4,000 individuals have no signed a letter opposing the merger.

The lawsuit also focuses on the consolidation of the news media. In the takeover of Paramount by Skydance, they gained control of CBS News. The Ellisons are also an investor in the US controlled TikTok, a major source of news. The lawsuit focuses on the consolidation of news and that the new company would control CNN if it acquires Warner Bros. Discovery. It too would “weaken competitive constraints that protect editorial rivalry, investigative resources, and viewpoint diversity.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta is reviewing the merger and its expected there will be legal action from state attorneys general opposing the merger.

Court Approves the Employment of Multiple People in Diamond’s Chapter 7 Process

Diamond Trustee Morgan F. Fisher has been trying to put together a team to help navigate Diamond’s chapter 7 process as well as for litigation that has spun out of it.

Today, the court granted multiple applications to employ and retain individuals to help with the process.

That included:

  • David J. Shuster, Esquire and Kramon & Graham, P.A. as Special Litigation Counsel that will focus on a lawsuit involving Alliance Entertainment (Doc 1283
  • Richard Marc Goldberg and Shapiro Sher Guinot & Sandler as Lead General Bankruptcy Counsel (doc 1282
  • Robert Patrick and Sc&H Group, Inc. as Financial Advisor And Litigation Support Consultant

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

Court Approves Diamond’s Trustee Morgan W. Fisher’s Motion to Borrow from JPMorgan Chase Bank

The court has approved Diamond Trustee Morgan W. Fisher‘s motion to borrow money from JPMorgan Chase Bank. Fisher’s plan involves litigation in hopes that by winning, Diamond would gain enough money to help pay down its loans and obligations. The court modified Fisher’s request slightly, and as can be seen in the document, Fisher’s plan would mostly pay back the bank JPMorgan Chase and consultants hired during Diamond’s chapter 7 process while leaving creditors with little after.

Fishers plan includes:

  • Litigation involving Alliance Entertainment
  • Litigation involving Consigned Goods
  • Avoidance Litigation

You can get a deeper dive into all of that here.

The decision is a blow to publishers as it increases the amount the Trustee and Diamond owes to JPMorgan Chase Bank and signals litigation will continue, dragging out this process further.

You can read the full motion below.

Loading Viewer…

The Ad Hoc Committee Officially Gets its Time Extension while Creditor Expeditors International of Washington are Given Instruction in Today’s Diamond Chapter 7 Update

Two updates have come in today (so far) for Diamond’s Chapter 7 process…

The first, and easiest, is the Ad Hoc Committee of Consignors‘ request to extend the time they could respond to recent motions by Diamond’s Trustee has been approved. The Ad Hoc Committee was able to respond on or before April 24 at 12:00pm ET…

And they did!

You can read their full response here.

The second update is an intriguing one and concerns money owed. Creditor Expeditors International of Washington is seeking $266,855.15 in payment. The court has instructed them to get the right filing in to make that happen looking for a “memorandum that explains the legal and factual justification for such a request.”

Court Instruction – Expeditors apparently seeks both (i) allowance of a Chapter 11 administrative expense claim in the amount of $266,855.15, and (ii) IMMEDIATE PAYMENT OF THAT CLAIM BY THE CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE. If Expeditors actually seeks immediate payment, it must file by May 15, 2026 a supplemental memorandum that explains the legal and factual justification for such a request under the circumstances of this case; otherwise, the immediate payment request will be denied. (related document(s)[1229] Application for Administrative Expenses filed by Creditor Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.). Responses due by 5/15/2026. (McKenna, Shannon)

Creditor Expeditors International of Washington is a logistics company. In February 2026, their motion for administrative expense was denied by the court. You can see that document below. They had originally filed for the amount but the Trustee was not yet appointed for the case to be served with the request. This is more an administrative bump, so we’ll see if there’s an official, updated request and of course, it’s more money that’s being asked of Diamond.

Loading Viewer…

Diamond Trustee Morgan Fisher and the Ad Hoc Committee Release their Exhibit and Witness Lists Ahead of April 27 Hearing

The Ad Hoc Committee of Consignors and Diamond Trustee Morgan Fisher have released their exhibit and witness lists ahead of the hearing scheduled for April 27. The hearing will focus on recent motion by the Trustee for loans from JPMorgan Chase Bank to continue litigation related to Diamond’s bankruptcy.

Fisher’s filing is pretty focused featuring just the order to authorize the borrowing of money from JPMorgan Chase and the use of cash collateral as well as an asset purchase agreement between Diamond and Alliance Entertainment from April 2025. The witness list includes three individuals Morgan Fisher, David Shuster, and Robert L. Patrick.

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

The Ad Hoc Committee of Consignors exhibit list teases a focus on Diamond’s finances and they may call Morgan Fisher, the Trustee handling Diamond’s chapter 7 case. Included is Sparkle Pop’s offer to purchase the consigned stock from Diamond for $1 million and a transcript of Robert Gorin (which we’ll be diving into further).

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

The Ad Hoc Committee of Consignors Objects to Diamond’s Trustee’s Motion to Borrowing from JPMorgan Chase Bank

As expected, the Ad Hoc Committee of Consignors has submitted a motion objecting to Diamond’s Trustee Morgan W. Fisher‘s motion asking to borrow a limited amount of money from JPMorgan Chase Bank and to use cash collateral.

In their motion, the Ad Hoc Committee states their reasons line up with the objections submitted by Alliance Entertainment earlier int he week.

The Ad Hoc Committee goes further stating that Fisher had the opportunity in December 2025 to reject the contracts Diamond could no longer afford and resolve outstanding litigation. Instead, Fisher has chosen to “double down” and “seek costly financing to employ a team of professionals to pursue litigation claims.”

They point out that the financing does nothing beyond adding additional administrative burden on Diamond in the hope of recovering consigned stock that would only benefit JPMorgan Chase Bank.

The Ad Hoc Committee goes further with a pretty blunt point:

With no employees, lapsed insurance policy with no insurance on the stock, a growing rent obligation to its purchaser of non-consignment stock, and no way to distribute the consigned stock, the Debtor has proposed no viable mechanism by which it could distribute stock at a cost that permits it to cover the cost of the proposed financing and additional rent and insurance charges in so doing. In other words, the Debtor has no hope of distributing any stock; it cannot afford to store and insure the stock; and yet it wants to borrow more money from its lender so that the lender can get paid 100% of whatever the Debtor recoups from a liquidation that would decimate the value of the property.

They go on further focusing on the consigned goods which are still in question highlighting in the distribution deal, Diamond is entitled to 10% of the MSRP of the sale of consigned stock but are now trying to get 100% of the proceeds to pay their lender.

But going back to the Trustee’s plan…

Fisher laid out three avenues to gain revenue if the loan from JPMorgan is approved, with litigation being a few of them. Though it’s the plan, Fisher doesn’t go into the likelihood that any of the litigation succeeds. There could be more debt incurred through this plan with no gain from it at all. There’s also no timeline which means no projected further cost to Diamond as well as if there is success, the cost of distributing the consigned goods.

As is, Sparkle Pop offered $1 million to purchase the consigned stock but four months have passed and the cost to rent the warehouse by Diamond is currently $576,000 with $144,000 per month. The amount they’d have to pay in storage outweighs the possible benefit of selling it. With warehouse rent owed on the stock, the lack of insurance, and more, the Ad Hoc Committee emphasizes that Diamond is in violation of its agreements to hold onto the stock. They also state they have an administrative claim if Diamond is able to sell the stock.

With all of that, the Ad Hoc Committee argues that borrowing money from JPMorgan to fund litigation isn’t in Diamond’s best interest and is only in the interest of JPMorgan who Diamond owes about $7 million.

You can read the full motion below.

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

The Ad Hoc Committee Asks for More Time to Respond

Clock King

Diamond’s Trustee Morgan W. Fisher has filed a lot of motions lately, and the Ad Hoc Committee of Consignors needs a bit more time to respond.

The Ad Hoc Committee is looking for more time to respond to:

  • Application for Authority to Employ Shapiro Sher Guinot & Sandler as of March 3, 2026 as Lead General Bankruptcy Counsel
  • Trustee’s Application to Employ and Retain Kramon & Graham, P.A. as Special Litigation Counsel
  • Trustee’s Application to Employ SC&H Group, Inc. as Financial Advisor and Litigation Support Consultant
  • Trustee’s Motion for Entry of an Order (by Consent with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.) Approving the Stipulation and Order Authorizing Limited Borrowing and Use of Cash Collateral
  • Trustee’s Motion for Entry of an Administrative Order Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105, 328 and 331 Establishing Procedures for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Chapter 7 Professionals

You can read more about all of those motions here and here.

They’re looking to extend the deadline to respond on or before April 24 at 12:00 pm ET.

Loading Viewer…

Alliance Entertainment Objects to Diamond’s Trustee Motion for Limited Borrowing from JPMorgan Chase Bank

In early April, Diamond trustee Morgan W. Fisher filed a motion with the court for new financing from JPMorgan Chase Bank. That bank originally financed Diamond’s chapter 11 case with “debtor in possession” financing. JPMorgan also refused to provide more to Diamond which was a reason the case was changed to chapter 7.

Fisher asked the court for a new DIP credit agreement where the Trustee Borrowings are capped at $766,000.00 in new advances, plus such further uses of cash collateral.

In the filing, Fisher laid out three avenues for revenue in Diamond’s chapter 7 case, including a payment waterfall regarding litigation against Alliance Entertainment.

The Trustee believes that the Debtors have viable defenses to the Alliance claims and that the estates have viable, significant claims against Alliance. The Trustee believes that the potential recovery for the Debtors’ bankruptcy estates in the Alliance Litigation could be significant.

That litigation involves counterclaims seeking $30 million on damages from Alliance as well as the release of $8 million deposit that’s currently in escrow.

In the Alliance Litigation, the Debtors asserted, (and the Trustee intends to pursue), counterclaims seeking approximately $30 million on damages from Alliance, which include the release to the estates of an $8 million deposit in escrow. Given the complexity, scope, and potential value of the Alliance litigation, the Trustee proposes to retain, subject to Court approval, Kramon & Graham, P.A. (“K&G”), specifically attorneys Jean Lewis and David Shuster, as special litigation counsel to prosecute the estates’ claims in the Alliance Litigation.

Alliance Entertainment has submitted an objection to Fisher’s motion.

Alliance states Fisher’s motion is “devoid of any case law supporting the proposed financings under the circumstances of this case. The Motion relies entirely on conclusory statements. The Trustee does not even suggest he considered any other source of financing.” They further state that the motion skips steps of section 364 of the Bankruptcy Code in the lending request.

It also highlights that Fisher’s motion for the lending relies primarily on litigation claims. It’s not “presented as bridge financing to preserve a going concern, but as a vehicle to fund speculative litigation while expanding the secured lender’s priming position and superpriority status.” Basically, the funding is all about the litigation which might not succeed. There isn’t a “demonstrable benefit” to Diamond and is just “speculative.”

Alliance closes that the proposed financing benefits JPMorgan at the expense of the estates. The litigation proceeds are subject to JPMorgan’s liens, there’s JPMorgan’s superiority claims, and that any wins from the cases prioritizes JPMorgan. Diamond still owes the bank nearly $7 million. In other words, it’s a loan to pay back JPMorgan and not much else.

You can read Alliance Entertainment’s full motion below.

Loading Viewer…

Files Released by California Attorney General Rob Bonta shows Collusion by Amazon to Raise Prices

Amazon logo

Emails released in a court filing by California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta show Amazon allegedly colluding with other companies to raise prices. Pet treats, khaki pants, and more are teased as part of the nineteen page document. There’s a direct impact on the geek space as Amazon not only purchased comiXology, a platform for digital comics, but also is a major retailer for comic graphic novels, manga, trade paperbacks, video games, and tabletop games. It’s unknown how wide Amazon’s pricing pressure reached but it could have major reverberations for brick and mortar retailers as well as other online retailers.

As an example of what was going on in the case of GlobalOne, Chewy, and the retail price for pet treats:

Amazon, vendor GlobalOne, and Chewy fixed prices on over ten Canine Naturals pet treat products. This is also an example of Breaking the Price Match, but here, Amazon breaks the price match so that Chewy will match the increased price.

The plan was memorialized in an email from GlobalOne. For its part, Amazon would “artificially take [Canine Naturals] retails up . . . to get Chewy to follow.” Then GlobalOne would “reach out to Chewy” to let them know that Amazon was increasing the list pricing and “would ask that [Chewy] follow. If they agree we’d then execute everything.” In other words, if Chewy agreed, Amazon would increase its retail list pricing for the Canine Naturals pet treats and Chewy would match the price increase. In response, Amazon insisted on even higher prices and asked if GlobalOne had a “chance to connect with Chewy on timing of executing this.” GlobalOne then asked “[w]hen [] Amazon [would] raise their retail and for how long? I’m working [to] pick a date in early January so we can make sure your competitor [Chewy] follows suite [sic].”14 Amazon confirmed it would “update the price . . . on 1/5 and hold the price for 24 hours.” As promised, on January 5, Amazon emailed GlobalOne with a list of thirteen Canine Naturals pet treat products with the agreed-upon increased list prices, confirming that “[a]ll list prices are updated . . . I’ve submitted a ticket . . . to override this match [to Chewy] for [24] hours. As you noted, Chewy should be aware of this update and follow suit accordingly.”

Numerous publishers have retail stores set up directly in Amazon and it’s unknown how those stores with Amazon and their rules regarding manufacturer’s suggested retail price and retail store sending rules might intersect.

In their announcement of the unredacted filing, Attorney General Bonta said:

The evidence we’ve uncovered is clear as day: Amazon is working to make your life more unaffordable. The company is price fixing, colluding with vendors and other retailers to raise costs for Americans beyond what the market requires — beyond what is fair. Amid a crisis of affordability, Amazon is illegally working to rake in profits by making sure consumers have nowhere else to turn to for lower prices. We’ll see them in court.

In their release, they lay out different scenarios where Amazon manipulated prices colluding with distributors and other retailers.

A hearing on a preliminary injunction motion to stop Amazon’s actions during the case is set for July 23. This case is scheduled to go to trial in January 2027. We’ll have further coverage, especially if it impacts the pop culture space.

Loading Viewer…

« Older Entries