Category Archives: Lawsuits

Sparkle Pop Steps into the Consigned Goods Craziness of Diamond’s Bankruptcy Asking for Relief

Sparkle Pop has filed a motion “for relief from the automatic stay to exercise its rights under applicable state law with respect to the goods remaining in a distribution facility owned and operated by Sparkle Pop.” One of the ongoing fights in Diamond‘s bankruptcy concerns consigned goods provided by publishers and still “held” by Diamond. Publishers of course want their inventory back while Diamond claims it has a right to it so it can sell the product and pay back creditors. The inventory is currently being stored in a facility run by Sparkle Pop, one of the winners of the bidding for Diamond’s assets during the bankruptcy.

In the filing, Sparkle Pop states there are “8,250,936 units of these goods being stored at the Mississippi Facility.”

Sparkle Pop also states it is owed $641,430 as of April 2026 and has not received its rent payments from (old) Diamond since November 2025. Rent is $125,000 a month. Sparkle Pop previously filed an administrative claim for $580,000 in March.

Sparkle Pop also takes a bit of a jab at Diamond, and its Trustee Morgan W. Fisher, claiming insurance on the goods being stored is not being maintained. While the facility is insured, the goods are not. This is part of the argument by publishers that the previous agreement between them and (old) Diamond is now void and in some way support their argument and claim. The agreement between (old) Diamond and publishers states insurance will be maintained. The publisher’s argument is that when that insurance lapsed it was a violation of their agreement and thus negates their contract triggering a process laid out in the contract where they would get back the consigned goods.

Sparkle Pop goes on to state that the goods are taking up so much space, it denies Sparkle Pop’s use of the facility for its own goods and ability to conduct and operate its own business.

Sparkle Pop is, in effect, being denied the value of the assets that it purchased through the Asset Purchase Agreement.

The distributor is renting additional storage space at its “sole (and significant)” cost to store its own goods which also means additional insurance for the new location. Even if (old) Diamond’s consigned inventory is moved, it’ll be further cost to Sparkle Pop to move their inventory to the facility and space currently being taken up by (old) Diamond. There’s also the increase expenses of just managing and having to work around (old) Diamond’s inventory.

In short, Sparkle Pop is now arguing it is suffering damages from (old) Diamond’s consigned goods being stored in their facility.

Sparkle Pop is looking to be for all of its fees and costs related to the consigned goods or it could exercise its “rights and remedies under Mississippi law to, among other things, assert a warehouseman’s lien on the consigned goods and/or take the necessary steps, under applicable law (or with the consent of the parties), to arrange for these goods to be removed from the Mississippi Facility.”

A “warehouseman’s lien” allows the warehouse to retain possession of the goods on its premises until the outstanding charges or depts are paid by the owner of the goods. It’s a security to make sure the debts are paid. If the debts are unpaid, they could then sell the goods to recover the unpaid amounts.

What’s not mentioned is the accusation that Sparkle Pop is still selling the consigned goods in violation of a court order. The Ad Hoc Committee of Consigners in a filing has evidence and accused the distributor of continuing to do so.

The extensive filing, which you can see below, includes a listing of the consigned stocked currently being held. At 125 pages, it’s a lot to go through, but you can see what comics, publishers, and creators are impacted by this mess. It’s not everything, there’s publishers missing that are currently fighting in court, but it highlights 14 publishers.

Diving into Diamond Trustee Morgan W. Fisher’s Debtor Financing Motion

Yesterday, we kicked off going over a flurry of filings concerning Diamond‘s chapter 7 case. The first we went over was a surface level look at trustee Morgan W. Fisher‘s motion for new financing from JPMorgan Chase Bank. JPMorgan Chase Bank was the bank originally providing the “debtor in possession” financing during Diamond’s chapter 11, in short providing a loan that allowed them to operate through the process.

Fisher is asking the court to enter a new DIP credit agreement. There’s some interesting nuggets from the motion. Here’s some highlights:

WHEREAS, all obligations of the Debtors under the DIP Loan Documents became automatically due and payable in full on the Maturity Date of December 29, 2025. The Debtors’ failure to pay such obligations in full resulted in Events of Defaults under the DIP Loan Documents.

WHEREAS, on March 10, 2026, the DIP Lender filed its proof of claim No. 27 asserting its rights, claims, liens and interests under the DIP Loan Documents and the Final DIP Order (the “JPMorgan Proof of Claim”). In the JPMorgan Proof of Claim, the DIP Lender asserts the current outstanding amount owing from the Debtors to the DIP Lender under the DIP Loan Documents is not less than $6,579,473.92 in the aggregate, with interest, costs and attorneys’ fees continuing to accrue, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Final DIP Order and the DIP Loan Documents.

Technical Amendments of Final DIP Order and DIP Credit Agreement and Reinstatement of DIP Credit Agreement. The DIP Credit Agreement is reinstated, effective upon the Bankruptcy Court’s approval of this Stipulation. The Maturity Date under the DIP Credit Agreement is extended through and including June 30, 2027. The Maximum DIP Facility Amount is increased to and including $8,200,000. All references in the Final DIP Order, the DIP Credit Agreement and the DIP Loan Documents to the Debtors/Borrowers shall be deemed amended to include the Trustee as the authorized Borrower under the DIP Credit Agreement. Following return of the Letter of Credit (as defined in the Final DIP Order), the DIP Lender is authorized to draw and apply the funds securing the Letter of Credit to the outstanding indebtedness under the DIP Credit Agreement without further order of the Court.

The Trustee Borrowings are capped at $766,000.00 in new advances, plus such further uses of cash collateral as are authorized under the Stipulation, not to exceed the Maximum DIP Amount of $8,200,000 (“Trustee Borrowing Cap”).

While the need for more money for the chapter 7 process is news enough. The full filing goes deep into the reality of where things stand as well as where Fisher thinks there’s money to be gained in the chapter 7 process.

The Trustee currently has cash on hand of approximately $340,000.00 in his controlled trustee accounts. Additional funds in the approximate amount of $150,000.00 are held in JPMorgan bank accounts that may be subject to competing third party claims and disputes.

Part of the change from a chapter 11 filing to chapter 7 filing for Diamond was concerns that funds were drying up for Diamond to continue to function and JPMorgan not interested in extending a loan. As mentioned above, Diamond still owes JPMorgan $6,579,473.92 from their original DIP agreement. We get a sense of some of where things stand currently for Fisher when it comes to cash on hand. $340,000 is not a lot, especially when one newly hired consultant in the case will cost a minimum of $700,000 for ongoing litigation (more on that later) and the mentioned amount owed by Diamond to JPMorgan alone. We wonder if there’s accounts not “controlled” by the trustee beyond what’s held by JPMorgan. The wording gives me pause and seems very specific.

So, where is the money to pay off these creditors going to come from? Strap in, because there’s a lot laid out here.

Alliance Litigation Payment Waterfall

Fisher has a lot of confidence in litigation involving Alliance Entertainment. Kramon & Graham, P.A. is being proposed as the “Special Litigation Counsel” and focused on the litigation regarding 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.

Kramon & Graham, P.A. will be paid a flat fee of $700,000 and then 25% of the gross recovery exceeding $2.8 million up and above the $700,000. So, if Kramon & Graham got $3 million in the case, they’d get an additional $50,000.

How much are we talking here? How about over $30 million.

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.

That’d be $6.1 million for Kramon & Graham, P.A.? We’ll go through the Alliance documentation again and report exactly what the counterclaim damages are (the $8 million is easy to figure out) but the back and forth between Diamond and Alliance Entertainment has gone on for close to a year now and pretty crazy with accusations. Today, new rulings as far as confidentiality and a protective order were dropped. We’ll also be following up on that.

But, if they got that $30 million, who would it go to? Fisher lays that out in his motion which you can see below.

3.1 Alliance Litigation Payment Waterfall. If the Alliance Litigation is concluded and/or Settled in whole or in part, then, the distribution of any Alliance Proceeds remaining after payment of any unpaid portion of the K&G Flat Fee, any amount due to K&G for the K&G Contingency Fee, and any unreimbursed and authorized K&G Expenses shall be made as soon as practicable, and allocated as follows:
(i) First, to repayment of all Trustee Borrowings then outstanding.
(ii) Second, to payment of the Alliance Statutory Trustee Fee;
(iii) Third, to payment of any portion of the Trustee’s Professional Fees in excess of the Trustee’s Professionals Retainer, specifically approved and authorized by JPMorgan in writing following consultation among and between the Trustee and JPMorgan, and pertaining to services and expenses actually performed and incurred in the Alliance Litigation, and
(iv) Fourth, to JPMorgan to be applied to the amounts outstanding under the Final DIP Order, the DIP Credit Agreement and this Stipulation until JPMorgan has been paid in full;
(v) Fifth, to the Bankruptcy Estate. Any remaining portion of unpaid Trustee’s Professional Fees in excess of the Trustee’s Professional Retainer and not specifically approved and authorized by JPMorgan shall be paid from this portion of the Alliance Proceeds.

Consignment Litigation Payment Waterfall

The fight over consigned goods has been going on almost as long as the entire chapter 11/chapter 7 case. At the heart of that is the want by Diamond to sell of goods it has in its possession that were provided by publishers. Of course, publishers want their goods back, stating the contracts are no longer valid. All of that is before the court and court of appeals. The amount of goods isn’t quite clear as not all publishers are involved in disputes but we’re talking $10s of millions potentially for Diamond if they sold the inventory (I believe the inventory was over $100 million). But, the longer this dispute continues, the less that the inventory is possibly worth.

The estates also hold significant claims arising from consignment-related disputes. The Consignment Litigation implicates important rights in inventory, proceeds, and other assets that may yield value for the estates. The Trustee has and will continue to pursue the Consignment Litigation.

Below is how that money would be split out if Diamond prevails in court.

3.2 Consignment Litigation Payment Waterfall. If the Consignment Litigation is concluded and/or Settled in whole or in part, then, the distribution of any Consignment Proceeds shall be made as soon as practicable, and allocated as follows:
(i) First, to repayment of all Trustee Borrowings then outstanding.
(ii) Second, to payment of the Consignment Statutory Trustee Fee;
(iii) Third, to payment of any portion of the Trustee’s Professional Fees in excess of the Trustee’s Professionals Retainer, specifically approved and authorized by JPMorgan in writing following consultation among and between the Trustee, JPMorgan and Shapiro Sher, and pertaining to services and expenses actually performed and incurred in the Consignment Litigation, and;
(iv) Fourth,
(a) Seventy-five percent (75%) of the remaining Consignment Proceeds to JPMorgan (to be applied to the amounts outstanding under the Final DIP Order, the DIP Credit Agreement and this Stipulation until JPMorgan has been paid in
full;
(b) Twenty-five percent (25%) of the remaining Consignment Proceeds to the Bankruptcy Estate. Any remaining portion of unpaid Trustee’s Professional Fees in excess of the Trustee’s Professional Retainer and not specifically approved and authorized by JPMorgan shall be paid from this portion of the Consignment Proceeds.

Avoidance Litigation Payment Waterfall

This one is fascinating. Avoidance Litigation Payment is basically going over money previously paid out to make sure it passes the smell test.

The Debtors’ SOFAs indicate 90-day transfers in the aggregate amount of approximately $67 million, and approximately $12 million in 1-year insider transfers. While the Trustee must perform a proper preference analysis to make final determinations as to Avoidance Actions that are worth pursuing (it does not appear that any pre-conversion estate professional performed any comprehensive preference analysis), the Trustee anticipates the possibility of significant preference recoveries

Sounds like something might not have been kosher this past year? Due diligence is great but “anticipates the possibility of significant preference recoveries” sounds like something is up. There might be even more drama coming down the pipeline!

And here’s that payment plan if this is successful.

3.3 Avoidance Litigation Payment Waterfall. If any Avoidance Litigation is concluded and/or Settled in whole or in part, then, the distribution of any Avoidance Proceeds shall be made as soon as practicable, and allocated as follows:
(i) First, to repayment of all Trustee Borrowings then outstanding.
(ii) Second, to payment of the Avoidance Statutory Trustee Fee;
(iii) Third, to payment of any portion of the Trustee’s Professional Fees in excess of the Trustee’s Professionals Retainer, specifically approved and authorized by JPMorgan in writing following consultation among and between the Trustee, JPMorgan and Shapiro Sher, and pertaining to services and expenses actually performed and incurred in the Avoidance Litigation, and;
(iv) Fourth,
(a) Seventy-five percent (75%) of the remaining Avoidance Proceeds to JPMorgan (to be applied to the amounts outstanding under the Final DIP Order, the DIP Credit Agreement and this Stipulation until JPMorgan has been paid in full;
(b) Twenty-five percent (25%) of the remaining Avoidance Proceeds to the Bankruptcy Estate. Any remaining portion of unpaid Trustee’s Professional Fees in excess of the Trustee’s Professional Retainer and not specifically approved and authorized by JPMorgan shall be paid from this portion of the Avoidance Proceeds.

That’s Fisher’s plan laid out, a three pronged approach to get as much money as possible to pay back creditors… how much to the actual publishers is a whole other thing.

None of this is guaranteed and interested parties have time to object to any of this as well as the recent proposals to add additional staff.

Diamond Trustee Morgan W. Fisher proposes adding Kramon & Graham, P.A. and SC&H Group, Inc., and Shapiro Sher Guinot & Sandler to the Chapter 7 Process

There were a flurry of filings yesterday in Diamond‘s chapter 7 process with three having to do with new additions to, what feels like, the expanding team managing it all. Trustee Morgan W. Fisher submitted applications to hire:

  • Shapiro Sher Guinot & Sandler as Lead General Bankruptcy Counsel
  • Kramon & Graham, P.A. as Special Litigation Counsel
  • SC&H Group, Inc. as Financial Advisor and Litigation Support Consultant

Shapiro Sher Guinot & Sandler would join the Law Offices of Zvi Guttman, P.A. who had previously been approved to join the case and will replace Stearns Weaver Miller whose employment application is being withdrawn.

Shapiro Sher Guinot & Sandler would take over as lead general counsel with Guttman’s role declining though will still assist in the case in a limited capacity. There is a mention how there will be no duplication of services and both will “exercise billing judgment so that the estates are not double charged.”

According to the filing, Shapiro Sher Guinot & Sandler has extensive experience in “all aspects of bankruptcy cases, bankruptcy and commercial litigation, and corporate and commercial law.” They were contacted on March 1, 2026 and already began “extensive negotiations” with JPMorgan Chase Bank starting March 3.

Rates are:

Partners: $400.00 to $800.00 per hour
Associates: $350.00 to $405.00 per hour
Paralegals: $260.00 to $300.00 per hour

Kramon & Graham, P.A. is being proposed as the “Special Litigation Counsel” and focused on the litigation regarding 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.

Kramon & Graham, P.A. will be paid a flat fee of $700,000 and then 25% of the gross recovery exceeding $2.8 million up and above the $700,000.

Finally, SC&H Group, Inc is looking to be brought on as “Financial Advisor and Litigation Support Consultant.” They will focus on the fiduciary duties under the Bankruptcy Code.

Robert L. Patrick, a Managing Director of SC&H, who will have primary responsibility for the services provided to the Trustee has extensive experience in bankruptcy financial advisory and litigation support planning and strategies (including, without limitation, avoidance action analysis, valuation work, insolvency analysis and general damages analysis) for individuals and entities both inside and outside of bankruptcy.

Their proposed hourly rates are:

Managing Director/Principal $525 – $700
Senior Manager/Manager $375 – $500
Senior/Staff $300 – $350

None of these additions are guaranteed, along with new financing proposed yesterday as well, interested parties can object and it all needs court approval. You can read all of the submitted motions below.

Diamond Trustee Morgan W. Fisher asks Court to approve Debtor Financing

There were a flurry of filings today concerning Diamond‘s chapter 7 process and we’ll get to them all, but the most interesting (so far) is a motion to approve financing from JPMorgan Chase Bank.

JPMorgan Chase Bank was the bank that had originally done “debtor in possession” financing during Diamond’s chapter 11, in short providing a loan that allowed them to operate through the process. Most of that is paid off, we’ll get to that below, but there’s a need to pay for the current chapter 7.

Fisher is asking the court to enter a new DIP credit agreement. There’s some interesting nuggets from the motion. Here’s some highlights:

WHEREAS, all obligations of the Debtors under the DIP Loan Documents became automatically due and payable in full on the Maturity Date of December 29, 2025. The Debtors’ failure to pay such obligations in full resulted in Events of Defaults under the DIP Loan Documents.

WHEREAS, on March 10, 2026, the DIP Lender filed its proof of claim No. 27 asserting its rights, claims, liens and interests under the DIP Loan Documents and the Final DIP Order (the “JPMorgan Proof of Claim”). In the JPMorgan Proof of Claim, the DIP Lender asserts the current outstanding amount owing from the Debtors to the DIP Lender under the DIP Loan Documents is not less than $6,579,473.92 in the aggregate, with interest, costs and attorneys’ fees continuing to accrue, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Final DIP Order and the DIP Loan Documents.

Technical Amendments of Final DIP Order and DIP Credit Agreement and Reinstatement of DIP Credit Agreement. The DIP Credit Agreement is reinstated, effective upon the Bankruptcy Court’s approval of this Stipulation. The Maturity Date under the DIP Credit Agreement is extended through and including June 30, 2027. The Maximum DIP Facility Amount is increased to and including $8,200,000. All references in the Final DIP Order, the DIP Credit Agreement and the DIP Loan Documents to the Debtors/Borrowers shall be deemed amended to include the Trustee as the authorized Borrower under the DIP Credit Agreement. Following return of the Letter of Credit (as defined in the Final DIP Order), the DIP Lender is authorized to draw and apply the funds securing the Letter of Credit to the outstanding indebtedness under the DIP Credit Agreement without further order of the Court.

But most interesting is laying out the various litigation going on and how any proceeds will be paid out:

3.1 Alliance Litigation Payment Waterfall. If the Alliance Litigation is concluded and/or Settled in whole or in part, then, the distribution of any Alliance Proceeds remaining after payment of any unpaid portion of the K&G Flat Fee, any amount due to K&G for the K&G Contingency Fee, and any unreimbursed and authorized K&G Expenses shall be made as soon as practicable, and allocated as follows:
(i) First, to repayment of all Trustee Borrowings then outstanding.
(ii) Second, to payment of the Alliance Statutory Trustee Fee;
(iii) Third, to payment of any portion of the Trustee’s Professional Fees in excess of the Trustee’s Professionals Retainer, specifically approved and authorized by JPMorgan in writing following consultation among and between the Trustee and JPMorgan, and pertaining to services and expenses actually performed and incurred in the Alliance Litigation, and
(iv) Fourth, to JPMorgan to be applied to the amounts outstanding under the Final DIP Order, the DIP Credit Agreement and this Stipulation until JPMorgan has been paid in full;
(v) Fifth, to the Bankruptcy Estate. Any remaining portion of unpaid Trustee’s
Professional Fees in excess of the Trustee’s Professional Retainer and not specifically approved and authorized by JPMorgan shall be paid from this portion of the Alliance Proceeds.

3.2 Consignment Litigation Payment Waterfall. If the Consignment Litigation is concluded and/or Settled in whole or in part, then, the distribution of any Consignment Proceeds shall be made as soon as practicable, and allocated as follows:
(i) First, to repayment of all Trustee Borrowings then outstanding.
(ii) Second, to payment of the Consignment Statutory Trustee Fee;
(iii) Third, to payment of any portion of the Trustee’s Professional Fees in excess of the Trustee’s Professionals Retainer, specifically approved and authorized by JPMorgan in writing following consultation among and between the Trustee, JPMorgan and Shapiro Sher, and pertaining to services and expenses actually performed and incurred in the Consignment Litigation, and;
(iv) Fourth,
(a) Seventy-five percent (75%) of the remaining Consignment Proceeds to JPMorgan (to be applied to the amounts outstanding under the Final DIP Order, the DIP Credit Agreement and this Stipulation until JPMorgan has been paid in
full;
(b) Twenty-five percent (25%) of the remaining Consignment Proceeds to the Bankruptcy Estate. Any remaining portion of unpaid Trustee’s Professional Fees in excess of the Trustee’s Professional Retainer and not specifically approved and authorized by JPMorgan shall be paid from this portion of the Consignment Proceeds.

3.3 Avoidance Litigation Payment Waterfall. If any Avoidance Litigation is concluded and/or Settled in whole or in part, then, the distribution of any Avoidance Proceeds shall be made as soon as practicable, and allocated as follows:
(i) First, to repayment of all Trustee Borrowings then outstanding.
(ii) Second, to payment of the Avoidance Statutory Trustee Fee;
(iii) Third, to payment of any portion of the Trustee’s Professional Fees in excess of the Trustee’s Professionals Retainer, specifically approved and authorized by JPMorgan in writing following consultation among and between the Trustee, JPMorgan and Shapiro Sher, and pertaining to services and expenses actually performed and incurred in the Avoidance Litigation, and;
(iv) Fourth,
(a) Seventy-five percent (75%) of the remaining Avoidance Proceeds to JPMorgan (to be applied to the amounts outstanding under the Final DIP Order, the DIP Credit Agreement and this Stipulation until JPMorgan has been paid in full;
(b) Twenty-five percent (25%) of the remaining Avoidance Proceeds to the Bankruptcy Estate. Any remaining portion of unpaid Trustee’s Professional Fees in excess of the Trustee’s Professional Retainer and not specifically approved and authorized by JPMorgan shall be paid from this portion of the Avoidance Proceeds.

Also of note is the mention of hiring Kramon & Graham, P.A focusing on litigation involving Alliance Entertainment, guaranteeing them a minimum of $700,000 from the bankruptcy estate as well as a contingency fee of 25% of any gross recovery exceeding $2.8 million minus the guaranteed $700,000. We’ll have more on them and all of the other motions to bring on new teams to the process in another post.

That’s a lot of money going to the individuals managing the process as well as the banks loaning money, potentially not leaving a whole lot for the publishers owed, and amount that still seems to be up in the air. But, none of this is guaranteed and we’ll see if any objections are filed to this and other motions filed today.

Stay tuned, we’ll have a lot more analysis tomorrow from this filing and more.

California’s attempt to get Taxes from Diamond is Denied Due to Deficiency

In March, California entered the chat looking to get the taxes it is due from Diamond Comic Distributors.

From April 1 to May 16, Diamond owes $259,724.53.

The filing did have an issue, and while notified, California did not correct that deficiency causing the motion to be stricken by the court.

Notice having been given of a deficient filing [1190] Application for Administrative Expenses filed by a party in interest in the instant case, and said deficiency not having been corrected within the time prescribed in the notice; it is
hereby
ORDERED, that the above−referenced filing is stricken from the official record of the instant case.

Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceedings by Diamond against Publishers Denied

The motion by multiple publishers to dismiss the adversary proceedings against them by Diamond has been denied by the court.

Diamond moved to filing individual court cases against publishers regarding the status of consigned goods when a stay was put on a general decision concerning the inventory. Publishers had provided Diamond with goods to sell on consignment and after the initial chapter 11 filing, there were questions as to who “owns” the inventory. Publishers obviously want their product back but Diamond wants to sell it to pay back its creditors. There’s a whole lot more to it as far as the arguments, Sparkle Pop selling some of the inventory when it had no right, and more, but that’s the basics.

The court has stated the trustee has stated a claim for the goods, which multiple publishers argued wasn’t the case. What’s interesting is the publishers argued that Diamond and its trustee not responding to the acceptance/rejection of contracts is in itself a rejection, the court states that lack of action is more a breach of contract. When one door closes another opens?

If the Agreement is treated as a rejected executory contract notwithstanding the pending appeal, rejection merely constitutes a breach of contract by the Debtor under 11 U.S.C. § 365(g)(1). As explained in the Trustee’s opposition, that breach would not automatically terminate the rights asserted by the Trustee under the Bankruptcy Code and the Uniform Commercial Code. Mission Product Holdings v. Tempnology, 587 U.S. 370 (2019). Thus, the complaint states a claim.

Below is an example of the denial by the court.

Court Denies Motions by Publisher to Regain Consigned Goods in Diamond’s Chapter 7 case… Sort Of

There’s been a lot of different threads and drama when it comes to Diamond‘s chapter 11/chapter 7 case but one issue and fight that has gone on since nearly the beginning is over consigned goods the former distributor currently holds. Publishers had provided Diamond with goods to sell on consignment and after the initial chapter 11 filing, there were questions as to who “owns” the inventory. Publishers obviously want their product back but Diamond wants to sell it to pay back its creditors. There’s a whole lot more to it as far as the arguments, Sparkle Pop selling some of the inventory when it had no right, and more, but that’s the basics.

Diamond is now in chapter 7 and they and its trustee were given a deadline to accept or reject its contracts with publishers. Diamond’s trustee asked for an extension of that deadline and was denied by the court. That denial is currently in appeal.

Because Diamond and its trustee didn’t file, that set off a flurry of filings by publishers that the lack of response should count as a “rejection” and if the contracts are rejected that sets off a process by which the publishers can get their goods back. In multiple filings, they argued with the court, they want their goods back for multiple reasons beyond the lack of acceptance/rejection of the contracts. Of course Diamond’s trustee and more filed they disagreed with that.

The court has now ruled on two of the three motions filed (and we expect the same ruling for the third) denying the motion to get the consigned goods back, but it’s not quite a denial.

The denial comes with this bit:

WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewal of the motion upon resolution of the Trustee’s appeal of this Court’s Order Denying Emergency Motion to Extend Time to Assume or Reject Executory Contracts Related to Consigned Goods [Docket No. 1171]. For the avoidance of doubt, the Court expresses no opinion by entry of this Order on whether 11 U.S.C. § 365(g) permits the relief sought in the motion prior to resolution of the pending adversary proceedings regarding application of the Uniform Commercial Code.

In other words, it’s denied right now, but once the appeal about the time extension is decided, it can be filed again. In short, the appeal is going on and since that’s kind of a big deal and would impact this, it’s a bit early to decide things. This also allows publishers to refile with an updated argument/reasoning once that appeal comes back.

You can read both filings below:

The Consignment Group files their Support for the Ad Hoc Committee’s Motion to release Consigned Stock in Diamond’s Chapter 7 Case

The Consignment Group, which consists of Aspen, Black Mask, DSTLRY, Dynamic Force/Dynamite, Heavy Metal, Magnetic Press, Massive Publishing, Oni-Lion Forge, Panini, Alien Books, Graphic Mundi, Titan, Vault Comics, and Dark Horse, have submitted a response/joinder to the court in support of the Ad Hoc Committee‘s motion for the court to release consigned stock currently held by Diamond.

One of the biggest fights during Diamond’s chapter 11/chapter 7 process has concerned consigned goods provided by publishers and currently held by Diamond and stored by Sparkle Pop. In short, Diamond believes they “own” the product and can sell the goods to help pay off its debts. Of course, the publishers wants their goods back.

In their response/joinder, the Consignment Group argues:

  1. The publishers have a distribution agreement with Diamond for the goods on a consignment basis, but the publishers own the inventory,
  2. If the distribution agreement is terminated, the goods need to be returns,
  3. Diamond currently has a lack of “adequate storage,” has let insurance lapse, and the goods are still being sold unauthorized,
  4. The stock is losing value and publishers aren’t able to distribute the product through other ways which is causing issues with consumers as well as contractual claims,
  5. The distribution agreement has been terminated/rejected and because of that, the goods should be immediately returned,
  6. Some consigned goods were provided after Diamond’s chapter 11 process began, so the trustee doesn’t have claim to that.

They’re asking the judge to grant the Ad Hoc Committee’s relief and release the consigned inventory, as well as any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

You can read the full filing below.

Diamond’s Chapter 7 Trustee Objects to the Release of Consignor’s Stock

Diamond’s Chapter 7 Trustee Morgan W. Fisher has filed a motion objecting to the motions by multiple publishers to release consigned stock still held by Diamond.

Fisher lays out five reasons that the millions of dollars worth of consigned inventory shouldn’t be turned over:

  1. the estate’s priority interest in the consigned inventory was fixed by federal law on the Petition Date and no post-petition event can divest it;
  2. neither rejection under § 365 nor the Agreement’s termination provisions revest title in the Consignors;
  3. granting the Motion would circumvent this Court’s own ruling
  4. requiring adversary proceedings to resolve title;
  5. the legal predicate for the Motion — deemed rejection as of February 17, 2026 — is currently on appeal; and
  6. practical obstacles, including a potential warehouseman’s lien and commingled inventory, make the relief unworkable.

This argument has been one that has been waged through most of Diamond’s chapter 11/chapter 7 process. Diamond has stock provided by publishers to sell through consignment. Diamond claims specific processes weren’t followed by publishers to protect that stock during the chapter 11 process and Diamond should be able to sell it to pay back its creditors. Publishers of course want their stock back and recently argue that Diamond and its trustee missed a deadline to assume or reject contracts with publishers and thus they default as rejected and part of that rejection is publishers getting their stock back.

There’s currently about three dozen adversary proceedings between Diamond and publishers to determine the ownership of the stock. If the publishers’ requests are granted, these proceedings would likely end.

Also, the trustee has appealed a decision to not extend the date to accept or reject existing contracts between Diamond and publishers which is part of the publishers’ recent motions.

You can read the motion below which goes into greater detail in Fisher’s arguments about the issue. You can check out all of our coverage including more in-depth details on the above here.

Midjourney Files a Motion to Compel against Disney and Warner Bros. in AI Fight

While the comic world is mainly focused on the court drama that is Diamond’s chapter 11/chapter 7, we’ve also made sure to keep track of other major cases making their way through the courts. One that may have just as big an impact on the world of comics is the lawsuit by Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. Discovery against Midjourney.

In June of 2025, Disney and Universal launched a lawsuit against Midjourney over what they called its “bottomless pit of plagiarism” that generates “endless unauthorized copies.” Warner Bros. Discovery launched their lawsuit in September for similar reasons, and those two separate lawsuits were combined in November.

Marvel and DC Comics are both named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit with characters from each being used as examples of Midjourney’s theft.

The parties have been figuring out discovery in the case, the part where they each hand over relevant documents to each other so they can go over evidence. Documents can be relevant emails, text messages, memos, etc. Discovery has been a bumpy process with a place hashed out in February and then a dispute happening March that went before the judge.

Now, Midjourney has filed to compel the complainants to produce further documents in response Midjourney’s Requests for Production (the process of getting the documents during discovery).

In other words, Midjourney believes Disney, Universal, and/or Warner Bros. Discovery are holding back documents or there’s more documents than what they’ve received. Midjourney is asking a judge to step in to make them hand over more documents to Midjourney. This is a pretty big action, much like going to a teacher to settle a dispute you should be able to have handled yourselves.

In the world of discovery, this is potentially a big deal and shows this court case might be having some drama and animosity behind the scenes.

Below is the main motion and we’ll update with more supporting documents when we can.

« Older Entries