Tag Archives: bankruptcy

Boom Entertainment Renews their Request for their Consignment Stock with some New Revelations

Posted on by Leave a comment

In February, the motion to extend time to “assume or reject executory contracts related to consigned goods” was denied by the court in regards to Diamond‘s chapter 11/chapter 7 process. This concerned the ongoing question regarding contracts between (old) Diamond and publishers handling consigned goods. Who “owns” those goods is a contentious issue with publishers wanting their product back while Diamond, and now their Trustee, want to be able to sell the consigned goods to pay back creditors.

The denial of the motion by the Trustee has caused a chain of rejections. Because the contracts were not assumed or rejected by the deadline, publishers have pounced citing law that saws the contracts default to rejected. You can read about that here and here. Because the contracts are rejected, there’s laid out steps in the contracts as to what happens to consigned goods, primarily the publishers can get them back for the cost of shipping.

Boom Entertainment has filed a motion today to renew their call that they get their consigned goods back.

Like the other filings, Boom Entertainment’s goes over the agreement as far as Diamond and their role when it comes to consigned goods. But, there’s some previously raised issues as well as new ones.

Here’s the highlights:

1) Diamond has not adequately secure the stock as evidenced by the fact that Sparkle Pop, LLC (“Sparkle Pop”) sold it after the Debtor sold its other assets to Sparkle Pop (which expressly excluded the Stock) and then did not remit the proceeds,
2) …the Debtor’s failure to comply with virtually any of its obligations under the Distribution Agreements while nevertheless holding the Stock hostage in the Mississippi warehouse controlled by a third party is causing significant loss and waste, because much of the stock loses value over time.
3) Notably, the Debtor filed the Consignment Litigation only with regard to stock provided by Boom, the Consignors, and another group of consignors constituting approximately thirteen (13) other publishers. For the vast majority of other publishers that own stock sitting at the Debtor’s warehouse, the Debtor failed to commence adversary proceedings and apparently does not seek any finding that Secured Lender’s lien attached to that stock. It is unknown what the Trustee proposes to do with the stock that is not subject to the Consignment Litigation.

Here’s where Boom’s motion gets interesting and stands out from others:

1) Boom’s distribution agreement was terminated prior to the Petition Date
2) Boom has growing concerns that its Stock is being stored unsecurely. Section 3 (c) of the Distribution Agreements require that, “Buyer will warehouse Products on consignment in a clean, dry, secure, and fire protected facility.” Section 8(c) further provides, “[Diamond] shall maintain all insurance with respect thereto in amounts sufficient to fully cover all of [Consignor’s] Products stored there.” (this is a concern raised by others – Brett)
3) However, according to statements made by the Trustee at the hearing held before this Court on February 26, 2026, the Debtors’ insurance coverage on the Stock has lapsed, in breach of the requirements under the Distribution Agreements.
4) The Debtor’s estate is also not current on stock fees and warehouse storage fees owed to Sparkle Pop. The Consignors believe that Sparkle Pop has not been paid since approximately November 2025, and thus Boom is stuck in limbo with their Stock held hostage at a warehouse that the estate no longer owns, rents, or is current with respect to ongoing rent obligations.
5) Given that the Transition Services Agreement between Sparkle Pop and the Debtor is also now rejected, it is apparent that the estate is not storing the Stock and has no means to store it any longer.

The filing brings up again that Drawn & Quarterly purchased graphic novels by Fantagraphics which was fulfilled by Sparkle Pop in violation of a court order. They also state that Living the Line has at least 800 copies of a single title are not accounted for in any inventory report provided by Sparkle Pop.

This is concerning as the consignors in this case have been given no access to, or oversight of, their Stock for several month. The continued fulfillment of orders, without the ability to verify proper control, safeguarding, and accounting of stock is extremely prejudicial to Boom’s interests and the preservation of its value.

What’s really new is that Boom states they terminated their Distribution Agreement with Diamond in December 2024, prior to their chapter 11 filing (petition date). Boom was purchased by Penguin Random House in July 2024 and PRH is a distributor themselves.

Boom has also been exposed to potential claims related to their Stock still held in the Olive Branch Warehouse. Boom ran a Kickstarter3 campaign that in addition to the new content it was developing, the purchase tiers included add-ons that purchasers could buy in order to further support the Kickstarter efforts. These add-ons consisted of a number of pieces of Boom’s existing content held by Diamond.

Now, with Boom’s Stock still being held hostage in 2026, they have not been able to ship these add-ons purchased by Kickstarter supporters, leading to a number of disgruntled customers and exposing Boom to legal claims for failing to deliver the products sold through Kickstarter.

It’s yet another recent filing making a pretty strong case to have the consignment stock returned and question Diamond and Sparkle Pop’s inventory management practices.

Diamond Chapter 7 Trustee Claims No Undisclosed Agreements with Creditors after Goodman Games raises questions

Posted on by Leave a comment
Double Secret Chapter 7 Arrangements

The Diamond Chapter 11/Chapter 7 process has been one filled with drama and it feels like you never know where it might go next. In late February, tabletop game publisher Goodman Games raised a question if there was an arrangements between the Trustee and secured creditors (most likely JPMorgan Chase Bank).

The Trustee, Morgan W. Fisher, manages the Chapter 7 process going through remaining assets, liquidating, and attempting to get the most value to pay back creditors.

In their filing Goodman Games wrote:

Goodman Games understands that there may be an arrangement between the Trustee and one or more secured creditors concerning the payment of the Trustee’s fees and expenses, whether in the form of a carve-out from collateral, a sharing of recoveries, or another similar agreement.

To the extent such arrangement exists, Goodman Games respectfully submits that it should be fully disclosed so that the Court and all creditors are aware of the nature and terms of the agreement.

Goodman Games has requested this information from the Applicant. As of the filing of this Response, the Application does not describe any such arrangement.

Goodman Games therefore respectfully requests that, to the extent any such agreement or understanding exists concerning the funding or payment of the Trustee’s professionals’ fees, the Trustee and/or Applicant provide appropriate disclosure so that the Court and parties in interest are fully informed in connection with consideration of the Application.

The bankruptcy court took the request seriously enough asking for a memorandum addressing the matter of “undisclosed arrangements with creditors for the payment of the Trustees fees and expenses.”

That memorandum has now been submitted by Fisher and states:

There are no (and were no) undisclosed arrangements with any creditors. This fact was made clear to counsel for Goodman Games prior to her filing of the Response. Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of that colloquy. In no uncertain terms, proposed counsel for the Trustee stated that “The agreement to share recoveries was approved during the chapter 11 case…” and that no agreement or use of cash collateral was “needed for payment of professional fees of our firm.” Ex.

The memorandum goes on to state that what is likely being referred to and questioned is the “Shared DIP Collateral” in the Final DIP Order. The DIP is “debtor in possession” and involves loan agreements and paying things back.

The memorandum further states:

That agreement between the chapter 11 debtors-in-possession and the DIP Lender granted the DIP Lender a first-priority, blanket lien on all assets of the Debtors, including all property of the estate and “expressly including… all … Avoidance Actions, commercial tort claims, other estate causes of action …” [Docket No. 163 at ¶ 13(b)]; provided, however, that the Lenders agreed to “share with the Debtors’ estates 50% of the net proceeds recovered from the Shared DIP Collateral until the DIP Obligations have been paid in full …” Id. “Shared DIP Collateral” is, in turn, defined in the Final DIP Order as just “the Avoidance Actions and commercial tort claims,” Id. at ¶ 11(a), and not other estate causes of action.

This, and only this, is the agreement for shared recoveries Mr. Dillworth was alluding to in his email and why he implored counsel for Goodman Games to “[r]e-read what I stated below with respect to our fees,” i.e., that no agreement or use of cash collateral was “needed for payment of professional fees of our firm.” Ex. A. Simply put, there was no undisclosed arrangement with creditors for the payment of the Trustees fees and expenses. If such an agreement had been reached with the DIP Lender (or any other party in interest) on that front, then it would have been brought to the Court for approval in compliance with the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules.

Where things get intriguing is Goodman Games raised the concern during what seemed like a simple filing for the Trustee to employ Stearns, Weaver, Miller, Weissler, Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A. as bankruptcy counsel to the Trustee. That decision was delayed by the court while the concern of dealings was addressed. On March 15, Fisher submitted a new motion to defer the ruling to employ that counsel.

Since the filing of the Stearns Weaver Application, circumstances have arisen that have caused Stearns Weaver to seek to withdraw as proposed bankruptcy counsel to the Trustee.

They are being engaged in finding a replacement. It is unknown what the “circumstances” are that caused the withdrawal.

You can read the memorandum and exhibit A, and other filings below:

UPS Wants their $330,757.76 from Diamond

Posted on by Leave a comment

Diamond is now in chapter 7 and everyone is getting their outstanding balances in so that they might get paid what’s owed them. After an initial filing introducing its lawyers, the United Parcel Service (UPS) has submitted a filing in an attempt to get the $332,236.30 it says it’s owed. That total includes $330,757.76 in shipping services and additional $1,478.54 in fees.

The filing isn’t just interesting for the amount, but the exhibit filed listing out the names and addresses of numerous comic shops. It also represents another bit into the apple and less that publishers might see for their claims.

The Ad Hoc Committee of Consigners Renews their Request to the Court to Release their Stock. Sparkle Pop Accused of Still Selling Stock in Violation of Court Order.

Posted on by 2 comments

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). We reported that a group of publishers filed a motion to dismiss their cases and thus take control of their goods. But, there’s still a few more publishers that are outstanding and since that motion hasn’t been decided, things are still in motion.

Now, the Ad Hoc Committee of Consigners have filed a motion renewing their request for the release of the stock. Like the Consignment Group, a different group of publisher, the Ad Hoc Committee emphasizes that (old) Diamond has “rejected” their contracts that guided the relationship between Diamond and publishers while (old) Diamond was distributing.

That “rejection” of the contract triggers a bunch of next steps as to how to handle product that Diamond possesses but was provided by publishers.

The motion goes further into highlighting:

  • Sparkle Pop sold stock that was on consignment when it wasn’t supposed to. That stock sale has not been paid out to publishers, violating the contract.
  • Diamond by allowing the stock to be sold was a failure to safely secure the stock, another violation of the contract.

Those two points alone make the contract terminated.

Now that the contract is rejected/terminated/void, the “consignors,” aka the publishers, can remove their product at their own expense. In other words, the publishers can get their product back but will need to pay to do that, like shipping.

The motion raises other concerns that show Diamond is in breach of their agreements.

  • The motion states that Diamond’s insurance coverage has lapsed, a breach of their requirements.
  • Diamond has not paid their stock fees to Sparkle Pop, which bought some of Diamond’s assets and currently is holding the physical stock in a warehouse and since that breaches an agreement between Diamond a Sparkle Pop, Diamond is not officially storing the stock and has no means to store it.

But, in what might be the biggest bombshell of the filing, Sparkle Pop is being accused of continuing to fulfill orders containing consigned stock in violation of an order from the court.

From the filing:

One of the Consignor’s, Drawn & Quarterly Books, Inc. (“Drawn & Quarterly”) has a store in Canada. Drawn & Quarterly placed an order in 2025 with Diamond that included the Stock from another Consignor, Fantagraphics Books, Inc (“Fantagraphics”). Recently, on February 26, 2026, Drawn and Quarterly received an email, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B informing them that their order for Fantagraphics’ product had just been shipped.

This is concerning as the Consignors have been given no access to, or oversight of, their Stock since the commencement of this bankruptcy case. The continued fulfillment of orders, without the Consignor’s ability to verify proper control, safeguarding, and accounting of their Stock is extremely prejudicial to their interests and the preservation of its value.

Another Consignor, Living the Line, reports that at least 800 copies of a single title are not accounted for in any prior inventory report provided by Sparkle Pop. Thus, it is imperative that the Consignors regain possession and control of their goods because no party is accountable for missing items that are causing ongoing losses to the Consignors.

The image shows Drawn & Quarterly ordering One More Year for their shop. That graphic novel was published by Fantagraphics in 2027.

The above image shows Drawn & Quarterly ordering One More Year for their shop. That graphic novel was published by Fantagraphics in 2017.

But that opens up the question… what is up with the stock!? The consignors are getting no details regarding it, and haven’t for over a year. That impacts tax obligations and without an accurate account of the inventory, there’s no way to manage their financial obligations. Consignors “do not have an accurate inventory of and continues to depreciate in value.”

The Ad Hoc Committee has asked the court to grant the motion, order the distribution agreements officially terminated, give the consignors 90 days from the effective date of the order to remove the stock, and grant any other relief.

You can read the official court documents below including the evidence concerning Sparkle Pop.

Publishers Motion to Dismiss Diamond’s Adversary Complaints

Posted on by Leave a comment
Diamond Comic Distributors

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:

  1. 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.

Diamond’s Chapter 7 Gets Testy with Questions of Secret Payment Arrangements

Posted on by Leave a comment

Diamond’s Chapter 7 Trustee Morgan W. Fisher‘s application to employ Stearns, Weaver, Miller, Weissler, Alhadeff, & Sitterson, P.A. as bankruptcy counsel (don’t they already have some?) should have been rather simple. But, things feel like they’re getting testy in a response to that proposed order by Goodman Games.

Goodman Games is a tabletop game publisher best known for Dungeon Crawl Classics and was founded in 2001.

In their filing on February 26, Goodman Games states it has no problem with the Trustee retaining “qualified bankruptcy counsel per se” but it’s what comes next that’s intriguing:

Goodman Games understands that there may be an arrangement between the Trustee and one or more secured creditors concerning the payment of the Trustee’s fees and expenses, whether in the form of a carve-out from collateral, a sharing of recoveries, or another similar agreement.

To the extent such arrangement exists, Goodman Games respectfully submits that it should be fully disclosed so that the Court and all creditors are aware of the nature and terms of the agreement.

Goodman Games has requested this information from the Applicant. As of the filing of this Response, the Application does not describe any such arrangement.

Goodman Games therefore respectfully requests that, to the extent any such agreement or understanding exists concerning the funding or payment of the Trustee’s professionals’ fees, the Trustee and/or Applicant provide appropriate disclosure so that the Court and parties in interest are fully informed in connection with consideration of the Application.

Woah… that’s a pretty big response. It teases that there’s some backroom discussions and dealings going on with a process that’s supposed to be very transparent.

The bankruptcy court is taking it seriously. They’ve requested a memorandum addressing the matter of “undisclosed arrangements with creditors for the payment of the Trustees fees and expenses.”

No action will be taken on the Application (and the related pending motions for admission pro hac vice) unless and until the Trustee files a supplemental memorandum addressing the matter of undisclosed arrangements with creditors for the payment of the Trustees fees and expenses referred to in the Response filed by Goodman Games [Docket No. 1172]. If such a memorandum is not filed by March 15, 2026, the Application may be denied without further notice or order of court.

In a process that has been full of drama, a new chapter is being written. AS Kurt Vonnegut would say, “so it goes.”

Check out the two court documents below:

Order to Extend Time to Decide on Consigned Goods Contract Denied in Diamond’s Chapter 7 Case

Posted on by Leave a comment

One of the major issues that has yet to still be resolved regarding Diamond’s Chapter 7 process is the status of consigned goods being held by (old) Diamond and stored by Sparkle Pop. At issue is that some inventory was provided by publishers to (old) Diamond when it was in business that was provided on consignment. When Diamond went into Chapter 11, they claimed the goods were theirs due to the lack of some paperwork filed by publishers and the goods were used to obtain a loan. The publishers of course say the goods are theirs and want it back. A fight has been ongoing with a lot of maneuvering in the court.

As we reported earlier today , the Trustee who is overseeing the Chapter 7 case has asked for an extension of a deadline to figure out how to deal with it all and the Ad Hoc Committee of Consignors as well as members of the Consignment Group objected to that.

The court overseeing the case has now ruled, denying the motion to extend the time period.

Upon consideration of the Emergency Motion to Extend Time to Assume or Reject Executory Contracts Related to Consigned Goods [Docket No. 1156] (the “Motion”) filed by the Morgan W. Fisher, the Chapter 7 Trustee, and the Court having held a hearing on February 26, 2026, and considered the objections thereto [Docket Nos. 1163 & 1164], and for the reasons stated on the record at the conclusion of the hearing the Court having determined that the Motion was untimely filed under 11 U.S.C. §§ 348(c) & 365(d), it is, by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland;
ORDERED, that the Motion is hereby, DENIED.

Fight Over Consigned Goods Continues with Objections and a Settlement with Sparkle Pop

Posted on by Leave a comment

One of the major issues that has yet to still be resolved regarding Diamond’s Chapter 7 process is the status of consigned goods being held by (old) Diamond and stored by Sparkle Pop.

At issue is that some inventory was provided by publishers to (old) Diamond when it was in business that was provided on consignment. When Diamond went into Chapter 11, they claimed the goods were theirs due to the lack of some paperwork filed by publishers and the goods were used to obtain a loan. The publishers of course say the goods are theirs and want it back. A fight has been ongoing with a lot of maneuvering in the court.

The Trustee who is overseeing the Chapter 7 case has asked for an extension of a deadline to figure out how to deal with it all.

The Ad Hoc Committee of Consignors as well as members of the Consignment Group have objected for a further deadline extension with a filing featuring some pretty harsh words.

The Ad Hoc Committee of Consignors claims that the delays is an intension to “use remaining estate assets on litigation and attorney’s fees rather than paying creditors.” Instead of using the time to “build consensus and explore settlement opportunities,” the Trustee has used the first sixty days to hire a litigation team in Florida.

Objections to Diamond’s claims have been submitted since at least May 15, 2025 and have dragged out since.

The filing by The Ad Hoc Committee of Consignors is an interesting read laying out their case an argument and you can get a sense of the frustration. The Consignment Group reveals some dirt as to how much is owed to some of the publishers while pointing out that Diamond’s November Operating Report shows $1,308,292.00 cash on hand.

ConsignorPetition Disclosable Economic Interest in Case
Aspen Mlt, Inc$1,890.50 (Scheduled Amount)
Black Mask Studios$2,000.15 (Scheduled Amount)
Creative Mind Energy$12,878.62 (Scheduled Amount)
Dark Horse Comics, Inc$86,927.11 (Proof of Claim No. 692)
DSTLRY Media$65,013.15 (Scheduled Amount)
Dynamic Forces, Inc$244,201.44 (Proof of Claim No. 680)
Graphic Mundi – PSU Press$15,523.33 (Scheduled Amount)
Heavy Metal Entertainment$363.37 (Scheduled Amount)
Magnetic Press LLC$51,067.53 (Proof of Claim No. 684)
Massive Publishing LLC$40,700.69 (Proof of Claim No. 703)
Oni-LF Publishing Group, LLC$179,942.40 (Proof of Claim No. 682)
Panini UK Ltd$4,993.05 (Scheduled Amount)
Punk Bot Comic Books, LLC$122,006.87 (Proof of Claim No. 509)
Titan Publishing Group Ltd$413,898.17 (Proof of Claim No. 49)
Total$1,241,450.29

In a more surprising turn of events, the Chapter 7 Trustee and Sparkle Pop have reached a settlement to:

finally resolve the above captioned bankruptcy estates’ interests in the Consigned Goods, the Distribution Agreements, and the Consignment Litigation (as those terms are defined in the Motion) a component of which is the potential sale and assignment of the estates’ interest therein.

The settlement involves:

  1. Sparkle Pop will pay the Trustee $1,000,000, 75% of the first $1,500,000 in Net Proceeds of the Consigned Inventory. Sparkle Pop gets 30% of the gross proceeds as an expense association with selling the Consigned Inventory.
  2. If the date this gets settled is before March 1, Sparkle Pop is allowed to get administrative expense claim against the Bankruptcy Estates in the amount of $435,000 and if the effective date is after March 1, that goes up to $585,000.
  3. The Trustee is selling and assigning all of the Bankruptcy Estates’ rights in the Consigned Inventory to Sparkle Pop.
  4. No more than 10 days after the date of approval, the following actions will be taken:
    • a. Withdraw, with prejudice, the Motion (I) to Enforce the Automatic Stay, (II) To Enforce the Sale Order, and (III) Granting Related Relief [D.I. 784]; and
    • b. Substitute as plaintiff, or proceed to dismiss, without prejudice, the Consignment Adversary Proceedings.
  5. Sparkle Pop will provide a list of Consignment Agreements designated for assumption and assignment along with Sparkle Pop’s proposed cure cost for each.

We’re sure the publishers will be responding to this proposal. You can read the documents below:

Bankruptcy Counsel and Accountant Updates for Diamond’s Chapter 7 Process

Posted on by

There’s been some updates to Diamond‘s chapter 7 process and the winding down of its chapter 11. Two are proposed additions to the team handling the chapter 7 process.

Larry Strauss and Larry Strauss ESQ, CPA & Associates, Inc. have been approved and ordered as accountants to the Trustee.

Stearns, Weaver, Miller, Weissler, Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A. have been proposed as the bankruptcy counsel for the case to support the Trustee.

The hourly rates would be:

Partners: $650.00 to $975.00 per hour
Associates: $350.00 to $625.00 per hour
Paralegals: $200.00 to $325.00 per hour

You can see related documents for both below:

« Older Entries