Tag Archives: panini uk

More Last Minute Filings in Diamond’s Chapter 11 Case Before Monday’s Hearing including Facts and Economic Interest

Posted on by

Monday is a big day in Diamond’s Chapter 11 case and will feature discussion of multiple motions that have yet to be decided. One of the bigger motions is Diamond’s motion to approve procedures for sale or other disposition of consigned inventory. In short, Diamond wants to sell inventory from publishers to help pay back it’s loan from the bank. There’s dispute as to who owns that property.

Last minute filings are coming in before the hearing begins.

A group of publishers that includes Aspen, Black Mask Studios, DSTLRY, Dynamic Forces/Dynamite, Heavy Metal Entertainment, Magnetic Press, Massive Publishing, Oni-Lion Forge Publishing Group, Panini UK, Punk Bot Comic Books/Alien Books, The Penn State University/Graphic Mundi, Titan Publishing, Vault Comics, and Dark Horse have submitted a document featuring the “Disclosable Economic Interest in Case.”

What each publisher has in value is listed out. The grand total is over $1.241 million worth of inventory with the most from Titan Publishing with $413,898.17 and least is Heavy Metal Entertainment’s $363.37.

Also, a document that features agreed upon “facts and authenticity of exhibits” between JPMorgan Chase Bank and the Consignment Group has also been released.

It has information like agreements between Diamond and the Publishers and more interesting bits.

Here’s some of the highlights:

  1. “the Consignors and not the Debtors were to pay all personal property taxes on the consigned stock that the Consignors delivered to the Debtors; and that the Debtors sent to the Consignors, on several different occasions, correspondence indicating that the Consignors were responsible for paying personal property taxes to the State of Mississippi and/or DeSoto County, Mississippi, because the Consignors owned the stock delivered to the Debtors.”
  2. “JPM stipulates and agrees that it was aware of the fact that the Diamond Comic Distributors, Inc., debtor (“Distributor”) dealt in consigned goods; and that it had actual knowledge of the Distributor’s participation in consignment transactions during the period from its initial advance of funds to the Debtors through the present.”
  3. The loan documents between JPMorgan and Diamond are all authentic.

The first two points might be important in that the first one indicates it was the publishers who paid taxes on the product, not Diamond, strengthening proof of their ownership. The second point is important in that it shows JPMorgan was aware that Diamond sold consigned goods when it made a loan, a point of contention at various stages.

Publishers Respond to Diamond’s Motion to Move its Consignment Hearing to the middle of SDCC

Posted on by

A group of 13 publishers have filed a response to Diamond‘s attempt to move the hearing regarding its consignment plan. While it was originally scheduled for July 21, Diamond wanted to move it to July 24 or 25. Image Comics weirdly supported the move, even though in their support Image brings up San Diego Comic-Con during that week. The new proposed dates would be smack dab in the middle of SDCC.

On June 25, 2025, Diamond Comic Distributors submitted a motion that would allow them to sell, liquidate, dispose of, inventory it currently still has. The 13 publishers have also filed an objection to Diamond’s motion.

The group of publishers have filed a response that they don’t disagree with the move but ask for it to happen some time after San Diego Comic-Con, so after July 27.

They also are asking for that hearing to be an initial, non-evidentiary hearing, instead of deciding if Diamond’s original motion is approved.

13 Publishers Submit a Joint Motion Objecting Diamond’s Consignment Motion

Posted on by

It’s a massive team-up of publishers who have filed a joint motion objecting to Diamond Comic Distributor‘s motion that would allow them to sell, liquidate, dispose of, inventory it currently still has. Many publishers have been vocal about the motion and many have responded to our inquiries with “no comment” because it’s an ongoing legal matter. So far, TwoMorrows Publishing, Magma Comix, and Graphitti Designs, Abstract Studio, NBM, William M. Gaines, Agent, Inc., and Humanoids have each filed objections to the motion.

Aspen Comics, Black Mask Studios, DSTLRY Media, Dynamic Forces, aka Dynamite Entertainment, Heavy Metal International, Magnetic Press, Massive Publishing, Oni-Lion Forge Publishing Group aka Oni Press, Panini UK Ltd., Punk Bot Comic Books, aka Alien Books, The Penn State University aka Graphic Mundi, Titan Publishing Group, and Vault Storyworks, aka Vault Comics formerly known as Creative Mind Energy have formed like Voltron to form a new team called the “consignment group” entering the legal fight.

The 63 page document starts with what we’d expect stating the publishers own the merchandise, aka consigned goods, and not the property of Diamond Comic Distributors. It then dives into Diamond’s claim that the publishers needed to file a UCC-1 financing statement which would have protected them against this situation. The legal argument says that may not needed as this was a “true consignment” established by the various contracts signed and state law.

This filing is similar to Humanoids’ stating that contested matter needs to be handled by Rule 7001(2) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and requires an adversary proceeding and emphasizes again that the publishers own the goods, not Diamond. It also states that it was Diamond’s intention to sell the goods this way and that they should have paid the publishers as per the terms of their agreements.

Like Humanoids’ objection, there’s a focus on Bankruptcy Rule 7001(2) requires that says an adversary proceeding has to happen to determine the “validity, priority, or extent of [an] interest in property.” In short, it hasn’t been determined that the consignment product is property of Diamond and that needs to happen before they can sell anything.

Part of Diamond’s initial motion is that no publishers filed a UCC-1 financing statement which would have protected them. But, did they even need to file it? The publisher’s motion calls them “true consignments,” and don’t meet the definition of UCC Section 9.

(A) the merchant:
(i) deals in goods of that kind under a name other than the name of the
person making the delivery;
(ii) is not an auctioneer; and
(iii) is not generally known by its creditors to be substantially engaged
in selling the goods of others.
(B) with respect to each delivery, the aggregate value of the goods is $1,000 or
more at the time of delivery;
(C) the goods are not consumer goods immediately before delivery; and
(D) the transaction does not create a security interest that secures an obligation.

Back to that non-payment. Goods were shipped after Diamond’s January 14 Chapter 11 filing, and the publishers should be paid for them and administrative expense claims such as attorney fees and late penalties.

The rest of the filing includes purchase order agreements, distribution agreements, details of those agreements like discount percentages, and more.