diamond comic distributors Archives

Tag Archives: diamond comic distributors

Breaking: Settlement between Diamond and Trustee Morgan W. Fisher, Sparkle Pop, and 13 Publishers Approved

Posted on October 26, 2026 by Brett 3 comments

Graphic text that reads 'NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL A SETTLEMENT' against a colorful, abstract background.

Things have been rather quiet when it comes to Diamond’s chapter 7 drama but today there’s been a big decision as a settlement has been approved with some publishers. In September, a compromise was been reached between Diamond and its Trustee Morgan W. Fisher, Sparkle Pop, and 13 publishers. The settlement involves the “Palik Consignment Group” which includes Aspen, Black Mask Studios, DSTLRY, Heavy Metal International, Magnetic Press, Massive Publishing, Oni-Lion Forge Publishing, Panini UK, Alien Books, Graphic Mundi, Titan Publishing Group, Vault Comics, and Dark Horse Comics.

The publishers, Diamond, and Sparkle Pop have been a fight regarding consigned goods. The publishers feel the goods are theirs, Diamond claims it has a right to them and wants to sell it to pay back debts, and it’s currently stored by Sparkle Pop (which purchased some of Diamond’s assets). Sparkle Pop has also been caught selling the consigned goods.

In August, Diamond and its Trustee reached a settlement with a different group of publishers, a total of 15. That settlement didn’t include Sparkle Pop and is currently being litigated.

The two deals are very different. While the initial deal involved an audit and publishers paying for the packing and shipping, this deal is a similar concept but structured very differently.

It ends fights over relief between these publishers, Diamond, and Sparkle Pop, effectively closing the long-running battle over consigned goods for these publishers.

The deal includes:

The Palik Consignment Group are granted Chapter 11 administrative expenses;
Money in Court Registry Escrow will be released to the Trustee;
When the settlement agreement with the Ad Hoc Consignment Group (the other publishers) is approved, the Trustee will disburse $308,890 to Sparkle Pop with remaining funds going to the Trustee;
The SP Escrow will be released to Sparkle Pop. That amount is $105,856;
The Distribution Agreements of the Palik Consignment Group are officially rejected;
Adversary Proceedings will be dismissed;
The Trustee will file a notice that the Consigned Inventory is abandoned and belongs to the Palik Consignment Group;
Sparkle Pop will get inventory of the default judgements including Digital Manga, Net Comics, Valiant, and the inventory covered in the Image Comics settlement.

Sparkle Pop will get $787,380 total. They are also part of Tariff Refund Rights Sharing and that as well as the escrow amount will satisfy Sparkle Pop’s claims against the Trustee, Diamond, and the Palik Consignment Group. Sparkle Pop has been fighting to get paid for warehouse storage as well as costs associated with selling consigned goods.

Tariff Refunds were mentioned, I believe for the first time, in this filing. They’ll be split 50/50 between Sparkle Pop and the Trustee minus whatever costs to get the refund.

The mechanism for publishers to get their product back is interesting. There are two options listed:

Pik&Pak Option 1: Sparkle Pop picks 4% of the value of remaining wholesale Consigned Inventory in lieu of payment; the remaining 96% is picked, packed, palletized, and made available without additional charge;
Pik&Pak Option 2: Each member pays 2% of wholesale value directly to Sparkle Pop; all remaining inventory is picked, packed, palletized, and made available. Risk of loss transfers upon loading at dock or tender to carrier.

Each Palik Consignment Group Member has thirty days after notice to remove its inventory from the Warehouse with failure to timely remove it being deemed abandonment. Members can also request that Sparkle Pop destroys the inventory at no additional cost.

This is a major step into wrapping up Diamond’s chapter 7 drama which began in January 2025. While there’s still a long way to go this is one key element that is now settled.

You can read all of the filings below including the approval as well as the original motion.

Loading Viewer…

Discovery Plan in Diamond vs. Comic and Game Publishers Gets Approved

Posted on September 23, 2026 by Brett

We brought the news in early March that there was some movement in the court case between Diamond and numerous publishers. The various parties and Diamond met on February 26 and March 3-4 in an attempt to find a resolution, the nature of the claims and defenses, to arrange disclosures, and propose a discovery plan. On March 4, there was a filing hashing out the plan for discovery.

Discovery is the process where documents related to the case are handed over to the parties involved for them to go through as far as evidence. This can be emails, text messages, Slack messages, and can easily go into the millions of documents.

The issue is who owns the consigned goods that are still being held by Diamond. Zenescope, Action Lab Entertainment, Ablaze, American Mythology, Battle Quest Comics, Paizo, Living the Line, Herman & Geer Communications, and Green Ronin Publishing are all fighting to get their inventory back. Diamond wants to keep the inventory to be able to sell it off to pay creditors. JPMorgan Chase Bank wants Diamond to sell off the inventory so it can get paid back by Diamond. Sparkle Pop is involved because it has sold off some of the inventory when it wasn’t supposed to and currently is holding the physical product in a warehouse it controls.

While this has been ordered, there’s now multiple settlements making their way through the courts between Diamond, publishers, and Sparkle Pop (who is currently housing the consigned goods). One of those agreements is being litigated and the other was just announced. The one being litigated involves the publishers and this discovery timeline.

An updated timeline has been approved by the court:

Discovery Requests. The Parties shall serve all additional document requests, interrogatories, and requests for admissions on or before October 1, 2026.
Agree on ESI Search Terms. The Parties will make reasonable efforts to agree on ESI Search Terms on or before October 15, 2026.
Substantial Document Production Completion Date. The Parties expect to have document production substantially completed by November 15, 2026.
Fact Discovery Cut Off. The Parties have agreed that, except for Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures, all fact discovery in this case shall be initiated so that it will be completed on or before January 15, 2027. The Parties have agreed that they may take fact depositions at any time prior to the expiration of the fact discovery deadline.
Privilege Logs. Privilege logs shall be produced in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure so as to be completed within five (5) business days of the related document production. Privileged communications occurring after June 15, 2025, need not be included on a privilege log.
Expert Initial Disclosures. The identity of expert witness and subject matter of expected testimony, per Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and 26(a)(2)(C)(i), shall be disclosed on February 1, 2027. Any rebuttal experts, and subject matter of expected testimony, shall be disclosed on February 8, 2027.
Expert Reports and Expert Discovery Cut Off. Expert reports and all other information required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B), along with any documents or information considered by the expert, shall be exchanged on March 1, 2027. Rebuttal expert reports and all other information required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B), along with any documents or information considered by the expert, shall be exchanged on March 15, 2027. All expert discovery shall be completed by April 15, 2027.

Based on all of those dates, we won’t see a court case before 2027.

Loading Viewer…

Diamond Chapter 11

Breaking: Diamond and Trustee Morgan W. Fisher, Sparkle Pop, and 13 more Publishers Reach a Settlement

Posted on September 22, 2026 by Brett

Another big motion in Diamond’s chapter 7 drama has been filed today as a compromise has been reached between Diamond and its Trustee Morgan W. Fisher, Sparkle Pop, and 13 more publishers. This new settlement impacts the “Palik Consignment Group” which includes Aspen, Black Mask Studios, DSTLRY, Heavy Metal International, Magnetic Press, Massive Publishing, Oni-Lion Forge Publishing, Panini UK, Alien Books, Graphic Mundi, Titan Publishing Group, Vault Comics, and Dark Horse Comics.

In August, Diamond and its Trustee reached a settlement with a different group of publishers, a total of 15. That settlement didn’t include Sparkle Pop and is currently being litigated further.

The two deals are very different. While the initial deal involved an audit and publishers paying for the packing and shipping, this deal is a similar concept but structured very differently.

It would end fights over relief between these publishers, Diamond, and Sparkle Pop, effectively closing the long-running battle over consigned goods.

The deal includes:

The Palik Consignment Group are granted Chapter 11 administrative expenses;
Money in Court Registry Escrow will be released to the Trustee;
When the settlement agreement with the Ad Hoc Consignment Group (the other publishers) is approved, the Trustee will disburse $308,890 to Sparkle Pop with remaining funds going to the Trustee;
The SP Escrow will be released to Sparkle Pop. That amount is $105,856;
The Distribution Agreements of the Palik Consignment Group are officially rejected;
Adversary Proceedings will be dismissed;
The Trustee will file a notice that the Consigned Inventory is abandoned and belongs to the Palik Consignment Group;
Sparkle Pop will get inventory of the default judgements including Digital Manga, Net Comics, Valiant, and the inventory covered in the Image Comics settlement.

Tariff Refunds were mentioned, I believe for the first time, in this filing. They’ll be split 50/50 between Sparkle Pop and the Trustee minus whatever costs to get the refund.

The mechanism for publishers to get their product back is interesting. There are two options listed:

Pik&Pak Option 1: Sparkle Pop picks 4% of the value of remaining wholesale Consigned Inventory in lieu of payment; the remaining 96% is picked, packed, palletized, and made available without additional charge;
Pik&Pak Option 2: Each member pays 2% of wholesale value directly to Sparkle Pop; all remaining inventory is picked, packed, palletized, and made available. Risk of loss transfers upon loading at dock or tender to carrier.

Each Palik Consignment Group Member shall have thirty days after notice to remove its inventory from the Warehouse with failure to timely remove it being deemed abandonment. Members can also request that Sparkle Pop destroys the inventory at no additional cost.

This is a major step into wrapping up Diamond’s chapter 7 drama which began in January 2025. While there’s still a long way to go this is potentially a key compromise to wrapping things up.

You can read all of the filings below:

Loading Viewer…

Hearing set for October regarding Audit of Consigned Goods

Posted on September 14, 2026 by Brett

October 6 is going to be a busy day when it comes to Diamond’s bankruptcy. A hearing was already set regarding the compromise between 15 publishers, Diamond, and its trustee Morgan W. Fisher regarding consigned goods. Now, two more issues are being added to the discussion.

A notice has been posted expanding the scope of that original hearing (we’ve taken the notice from American Mythology but the same notice was sent to multiple publishers):

In person hearing Courtroom 9−D Baltimore, Judge Rice.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a hearing will be held on 10/6/26 at 10:00 AM to consider and act upon the following:
32 − Third Party Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Filed by American Mythology Productions LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1−6 # 2 Proposed Order) (Hopkin, Catherine)
33 − Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Third−Party Plaintiffs Motions to Compel Discovery Filed by Jodie E. Bekman (related document(s)32 Motion to Compel filed by 3rd Party Plaintiff American Mythology Productions
LLC, Counter−Claimant American Mythology Productions LLC, Defendant American Mythology Productions LLC).(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 # 2 Exhibit 2 # 3 Exhibit 3) (Bekman, Jodie)

The first issue, “Third Party Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery,” is regarding a filing in early August where publishers requested the court to force Sparkle Pop to allow for an audit of the consigned goods in the company’s possession. The plaintiff’s claim they haven’t gotten an updated count as to what is in the warehouse and there needs to be a physical count of what remains.

The second topic, “Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Third−Party Plaintiffs Motions to Compel Discovery” is Sparkle Pop’s response to that. They’re against the request for a long list of reasons including the cost to them, safety issues, and more.

Sparkle Pop submits Memorandum of Law Dropping Details of the Consigned Goods Negotiations

Posted on September 8, 2026 by Brett

A hearing has been set for October 6 focused on the potential compromise between (old) Diamond and its trustee Morgan W. Fisher and 15 publishers regarding the fate of consigned goods in possession of (old) Diamond and the warehouse of Sparkle Pop. While (old) Diamond, Fisher, and the publishers are in favor of the deal, lending bank JPMorgan Chase submitted a filing with a “reservation of rights” while Sparkle Pop submitted a filing objecting to the compromise. Now, Sparkle Pop has submitted a “memorandum of law” going into details about the negotiation over the consigned goods.

Here’s how things break down with the Sparkle Pop’s key points as well as revelations of the behind the scenes negotiations.

Inspection of Sparkle Pop’s Distribution Facility

Part of Sparkle Pop’s objection is the call for inspections of Sparkle Pop’s distribution facility which it calls “highly intrusive.” Publishers have filed a motion to get Sparkle Pop to open up the facility to inspect what remains and get a better account of what remains. There’s a belief that Sparkle Pop has sold more consigned goods than is known and that money would be owed for that.

Sparkle Pop believes the inspection is a fishing expedition to get more information to be used in what it calls “baseless and hypothetical claims” that would be brought against Sparkle Pop.

There has been hints at negotiations between the publishers, (old) Diamond, Fisher, and apparently Sparkle Pop. But, Sparkle Pop in their objection stated they were a part of the settlement agreement. Directly from their objection filing with the key part in bold:

If this Court were to approve the proposed settlement (negotiated without Sparkle Pop’s involvement and which wholly discounts Sparkle Pop’s interests), Sparkle Pop would not only have to relinquish its interests in the registry and escrow…

But, in this latest filing, Sparkle Pop says they were part of the negotiations:

The parties engaged in meet-and-confer discussions by email over the course of a week, during which Sparkle Pop made multiple unilateral concessions and provided supporting data. After the last round of Sparkle Pop’s concessions, however, when Sparkle Pop believed that the parties were negotiating in good faith towards a resolution, counsel for the Third-Party Plaintiffs abruptly terminated discussions without further explanation and brought this Motion.

But, this can be true as well, Sparkle Pop provided data and info but wasn’t part of direct negotiations. They also could have been involved at one point and it was determined they were being an obstacle to getting things settled as well. All of this is sure to come out at some point.

What has come out is that Sparkle Pop wanted publishers to pay for the inspection. In this latest filing, Sparkle Pop states they first proposed a fee of $1,000 per hour to “defray costs Sparkle Pop expected to incur” during the inspection as well as wanting the plaintiffs (publishers) to pay the rent and processing fees that Sparkle Pop claims it is owed. Sparkle Pop then reduced the proposed fee to $639.94 per hour and dropped the rent request entirely.

Sparkle pop then proposed:

The inspection would be carried out by Debtor’s former warehouse manager, Shawn Hamrick, with the assistance of persons designation by the Third-Party Plaintiffs, as preapproved by Sparkle Pop;
The Third-Party Plaintiffs to pay Sparkle Pop $639.94 per hour, to defray the significant costs Sparkle Pop would incur in connection with the inspection.
The inventory count for the inspection shall be a basic cycle count (i.e., a general inventory count by carton),
The inspection shall be completed no later than 10 business days from commencement of the inspection, shall be no more than one, 8-hour shift per day, and shall be conducted only after business hours or 5:00 p.m. Central Time.
Sparkle Pop shall not be required to stage the Consigned Inventory for the inspection,
No materials shall be removed from the Warehouse during the inspection, which would be strictly limited to Third-Party Plaintiff s consigned inventory, identified by location numbers.

Sparkle Pop claims they expect to incur a cost of $770.32 per hour for the inspection and include that logic in an exhibit you can read below.

According the Sparkle Pop, the publishers agreed to points 3 through 6 with “certain qualifications.” There was an objection to the first two points over what they saw as “unilateral control” over the inspector and there was no compromise candidate proposed. The second point was just rejected.

Sparkle Pop says the inspection is far more complicated than providing documents and that relevance needs to be proved because of that.

Who Owns the Stock?

Sparkle Pop continues to focus on the fact that who actually “owns” the consigned goods is still up for dispute. There’s over 30 lawsuits submitted by (old) Diamond against publishers in an attempt to resolve that question and that has yet to be decided upon and might not due to the compromise over the goods. In it, (old) Diamond gives ups its claims, which brings us to…

If There’s a Settlement, Do We Need the Inspection?

It feels like there’s some circular logic in this point. The publishers will need to pack and ship the goods as part of the settlement, but wouldn’t they need to know what’s there to ship? Sparkle Pop doesn’t seem to think so stating that the settlement is out there and that the consignors own the goods (which also seems to be odd to state since Sparkle Pop asked who owns it?), claims in cases go to the consignors, and Diamond abandons claims on the consigned goods.

Though Sparkle Pop objected to the settlement, they state they’re not against Diamond abandoning its claims:

Although Sparkle Pop has filed an objection to the motion to approve this settlement, it has not objected (and does not object) to the Trustee’s abandonment of the Estate’s claims to the Stock.

Sparkle Pop has issues with all of those cases between (old) Diamond and the publishers settled and then the publishers using the ongoing cases to try to get an inspection.

Because there is no remaining dispute as to the ownership of the Stock, the underlying adversary proceedings are effectively defunct, and if the proposed settlement between the consignors and the Trustee is approved, they will be entirely rendered moot. Under these circumstances, it is improper for the Third-Party Plaintiffs to simultaneously petition this Court to approve a settlement that resolves the adversary proceedings in their favor, while also invoking these same proceedings as the ostensible basis for seeking a highly intrusive physical inspection of Sparkle Pop’s premises.

Have they just asked for an updated inventory?

While publishers hint that they’ve asked for an update on inventory, Sparkle Pop says they haven’t. A “less intrusive” method than an inspection would be for them to ask the court to force Sparkle Pop to update the inventory list.

You can read all of the filings below:

Loading Viewer…

Hearing is set for October over Diamond’s Consignment Goods Compromise

Posted on September 4, 2026 by Brett

It’s been an interesting month when it comes to (old) Diamond Comic Distributor‘s chapter 7 case. After a year of fighting, Diamond and its trustee Morgan W. Fisher came to a compromise with 15 publishers regarding consigned goods.

Diamond was the major distributor for the comic and tabletop game industry and some of the items it sold were on consignment. Diamond declared chapter 11 and a fight began over those goods with Diamond claiming ownership and wanting to sell them to help pay back its debts. Publishers of course wanted their goods back. It’s been a back and forth in the court over who has a right to the goods. Add in Sparkle Pop, the company that bought some of Diamond’s assets, was storing the goods in the warehouse they took over from Diamond and the new distributor sold some of the stock without permission from Diamond or the publishers.

In early August it was announced that Diamond, Fisher, and 15 publishers came to an agreement that would allow the publishers to get back their goods while Diamond would keep most of the money of the consigned goods sold during the dispute (it’s a bit more complicated but that’s the general compromise).

Lending bank JPMorgan Chase submitting a filing with a “reservation of rights” while Sparkle Pop submitted a filing objecting to the compromise.

Now, the court will take up the motion, response, and objection in a hearing set for October 6.

Notice of Hearing (related document(s)[1309] Application to Compromise Controversy filed by Trustee Morgan W. Fisher, [1328] Response filed by Creditor JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., [1331] Objection filed by Interested Party Sparkle Pop LLC). Hearing scheduled for 10/6/2026 at 10:00 AM. In person hearing Courtroom 9-D Baltimore, Judge Rice. (Scott, Cherita)

Motion Limiting Notifications in the Diamond Chapter 7 Case Approved

Posted on September 1, 2026 by Brett

In early August, Diamond trustee Morgan W. Fisher filed a motion to limit future notices regarding the case. The motion was interesting as it laid out a lot of information in the case that reminds us of the scope of the situation.

Diamond’s credit matrix initially consisted of almost 1,300 parties and when subscription comic book customers was added it was over 1,500.
75 claims were filed for the Chapter 7 with the highest amount being Dynamic forces with $29,514,087.40 to $182 from Irish Holdings.
Omni Agent Solutions logged 742 claims in the main case and 71 claims concerning Diamond Select Toys
There were 759 unique claimants, 28 were governmental agencies.

Fisher motion raised the difficulty and cost in notifying everyone every update about the case and there’s numerous other ways to get notifications like a Notice of Appearance and Request for Notices.

Going forward, notices would go out to:

Counsel for the Debtor;
The Trustee and his counsel;
Secured Creditors;
The Debtor’s 20 largest unsecured creditors, based on filed claims;
The Office of the United States Trustee;
The Internal Revenue Service, and the Comptroller of the State of Maryland;
Persons who have appeared or filed a notice of appearance and request for service in the case (including persons served via CM/ECF);
Parties who are directly affected by a particular motion, paper or pleading.

The 20 largest creditors are:

Hasbro, Inc.: $1,185,638.23
Dynamic Forces, Inc.: $29,514,087.40
Alliance Entertainment, LLC: $10,008,534.05
Bandai Limited: $9,245,465.10
Penguin Random House LLC: $8,941,467.05
Passage Trading: $6,297,244.00
Oni-Lion Forge Publishing Group: $5,646,907.40
Udon Entertainment Inc.: $4,327,716.06
Valiant Entertainment LLC: $4,070,588.30
Disney Consumer Products, Inc.: $3,638,592.00
Creative Grand Industrial HK Limited: $2,960,931.87
Zenescope Entertainment, Inc.: $2,360,907.16
Fantagraphics Books Inc.: $2,279,330.68
MegaHouse Corporation: $2,150,730.00
Magnetic Press LLC: $1,957,576.53
TMP International, LLC: $1,774,558.48
Aftershock Comics, LLC: $1,767,573.53
ARA, Inc.: $1,229,027.36
Funko, LLC: $1,206,854.62
Action Figure Authority Inc.: $1,200,000.00

Today, Fisher’s motion has been approved and the Trustee will file a Consolidated Master Service List updated from time to time to add persons other than those receiving service by CM/ECF and the ability to pay/reimburse the costs for notices served is approved going forward. Fisher won’t have to ask permission each time.

Of course, no need to worry about being notified as Graphic Policy is here to bring you all of the latest news!

Loading Viewer…

Breaking: Sparkle Pop Objects to the settlement between (old) Diamond, its Trustee Morgan W. Fisher, and Publishers

Posted on August 31, 2026 by Brett

After two extensions, Sparkle Pop has submitted their response to the proposed settlement between (old) Diamond and its trustee Morgan W. Fisher and 15 publishers. In that settlement, the publishers would pay for packing and shipping of consigned goods held by (old) Diamond and currently stored in a Sparkle Pop warehouse as well as a receive a small monetary amount. In exchange, (old) Diamond would receive a windfall of money that is currently part of the dispute.

(Old) Diamond had declared Chapter 11 and eventually Chapter 7 and in its possession are consigned goods from numerous publishers valued in the millions. There has been a fight for over a year where a little over 30 publishers had been fighting to get those consigned goods back. Diamond had been claiming it has a right to them and was going to sell them to pay off their debt. Sparkle Pop had purchased some of the assets of Diamond in the bankruptcy and that included taking over the warehouse where that product was being stored. That’s the short version…

Sparkle Pop says the agreement fails as it doesn’t resolve consignment disputes, and instead it increases disputes and litigation between publishers and Sparkle Pop while removing (old) Diamond and its Trustee as well as loan lender JPMorgan Chase from that litigation.

Sparkle Pop goes further stating the agreement imposes requirements upon the company without its consent or remuneration for processing fees and storage fees that the company has incurred since December 2025.

From their objection, the proposed settlement requires, among other things:

Sparkle Pop to completely relinquish its rights to most of the funds in the court registry and to remit nearly all of the funds that it is holding in escrow despite being owed (a) its processing fees for selling goods (an amount over $400,000.00) and (b) its rent and storage fees (an amount over $1 million);
Sparkle Pop to be forced to allow the Consignment Group Members to pick, pack and pallet the consigned goods being held in its Mississippi warehouse (which they logistically cannot do) without any input from Sparkle Pop or payment to Sparkle Pop on a forced timeline to be invented by the Consignment Group Members; and
Sparkle Pop to continue to be subject to the third-party claims in the adversary proceedings and future unknown but meritless and unsubstantiated claims by the Consignment Group Members against it.

Sparkle Pop says all of this makes things more complicated for the court as it would have to oversee more legal disputes as well as the aspects of the process of the publishers getting their goods back including, , (a) all aspects of the process including cost, (b) access to Sparkle Pop’s warehouse, (c) the timing, (d) what inventory is removed, and (e) enforcement.

Sparkle Pop goes on to play the victim stating:

Ever since Sparkle Pop purchased the Debtors’ assets, it has been unfairly placed in the middle of the dispute between the consignors and the Debtors (now the Trustee). Without a judicial determination of ownership, Sparkle Pop could not have and still cannot release the consigned goods to one party without exposing itself to legal claims from the other parties.

It goes on to further argue:

Sparkle Pop would not only have to relinquish its interests in the registry and escrow (without receiving its processing fees of $433,270), it would also being compelled to turn over the consigned goods to the Consignment Group Members on their sole terms and conditions (without receiving its pik & pak fees and rent/storage fees of $1,000,000) and still remain subject to potential future litigation from the Consignment Group Members over unsubstantiated and meritless claims.

Publishers have requested the court to force Sparkle Pop to provide update inventory counts of product which publishers have not received for some time. It is believed more product has been sold by Sparkle Pop, against court orders and without distribution agreements, than what is currently known and there is evidence of this provided by publishers to the court. In an exhibit submitted by Sparkle Pop, they state there are 8,250,936 units of goods stored in their warehouse.

Sparkle Pop also says it was not part of this settlement agreement and they would be out money for rent and processing fees regarding the consigned goods.

Below are the filings from Sparkle Pop with more details about their costs and what is stored in the warehouse. We’ll have a deeper analysis in the coming days.

Loading Viewer…

Sparkle Pop is Given Even More Time to Do Their Homework and Respond to Diamond’s Settlement with Publishers

Posted on August 27, 2026 by Brett

In August, Diamond and its Trustee Morgan W. Fisher settled with fifteen publishers regarding goods still held by Diamond during its chapter 7/chapter 11 process. The deal allowed the publisher to pay for packing and shipping to get their product back and some money would be paid out to them.

An impacted party regarding this is Sparkle Pop which purchased some of Diamond’s assets and now manages the warehouse the consigned goods are located.

Earlier this week, Sparkle Pop was given until August 28, 2026 to respond to the settlement. Now, they get another extension and will have until August 31, 2026 to respond.

Loading Viewer…

Diamond and Trustee Morgan Fisher Dismissed from Sparkle Pop vs. Alliance Entertainment

Posted on August 26, 2026 by Brett

In June 2025, Sparkle Pop sued Alliance Entertainment for what it believed to be Alliance’s violation of a non-disclosure and non-solicitation agreement stemming from Alliance’s attempt to purchase the assets of Diamond Comic Distributors during the chapter 11 process.

On July 2025, (old) Diamond jumped into the case joining in as plaintiffs in the adversary proceeding.

There was then an order by the court asking why Diamond and its trustee Morgan W. Fisher shouldn’t be dismissed as intervenors on the case.

Fisher and (old) Diamond filed a response on June 18 but then that response was withdrawn on August 6.

The Trustee has determined that, at this juncture, there is no continued benefit to the Estates from his participation in this Adversary Proceeding and that dismissal of the Debtors and Trustee from this Adversary Proceeding is appropriate.

As such:

ORDERED, that Diamond Select Toys & Collectibles, LLC; Comic Exporters, Inc.; Comic Holdings, Inc.; Diamond Comic Distributors, Inc.; and Morgan Fisher, Chapter 7 Trustee are hereby DISMISSED from this adversary proceeding.

What was a two-on-one case is back to just being Sparkle Pop vs. Alliance Entertainment. While there’s another lawsuit between (old) Diamond, Fisher versus Alliance Entertainment, the stepping back from this case is an intriguing one.

Loading Viewer…

« Older Entries