Tag Archives: sparkle pop llc

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

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

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.

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 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.

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 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…

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

Hearing set for October regarding Audit of Consigned Goods

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

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:

  1. 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;
  2. 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.
  3. The inventory count for the inspection shall be a basic cycle count (i.e., a general inventory count by carton),
  4. 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.
  5. Sparkle Pop shall not be required to stage the Consigned Inventory for the inspection,
  6. 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…

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

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

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)

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

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…

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

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

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

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…

Publishers to Sparkle Pop… What Consigned Goods are You Storing!? The Diamond Chapter 7 Drama Continues

What's in the Warehouse!? image

While some think the drama concerning Diamond Comic Distributor‘s bankruptcy is wrapping up or over, there’s still a long way to go before this epic story ends. In early August, (old) Diamond Comic Distributors and its trustee Morgan W. Fisher announced a resolution and compromise with 15 publishers regarding consigned goods being held by Diamond and stored in a warehouse by Sparkle Pop.

(Old) Diamond had declared Chapter 11 and eventually Chapter 7 and in its possession was 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.

As part of the settlement, the 15 publishers can get their goods back and have to pay for the picking and packing of the inventory.

But… what the hell does Sparkle Pop still have in their possession!?

That seems to be at the heart of multiple motions today asking the court to help figure out what inventory remains in the warehouse.

In the motion, the publishers state that:

  1. Initially, Sparkle Pop reported sales only of inventory received after May 15, 2025.
  2. Even after Sparkle Pop reported sales of inventory received both before and after May 15, 2025, Sparkle Pop has not updated its court reporting with regard to inventory sales after October 2025.
  3. With regard to sales reported to this Court through October 2025, Sparkle Pop apparently applied a flat return rate as to each consignor. See, e.g., Sparkle Pop Report, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, illustrating the application of a flat return rate, and summary from Sparkle Pop, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Sparkle Pop has never provided any detail as to what products were actually returned. See, Affidavit of Sparkle Pop Agent attached as Exhibit 3. Furthermore, some of the inventory sold was not returnable, and consignors have reported that they did not receive returned product (supporting the consignors’ allegation that Sparkle has reported returns that never, in fact, occurred).
  4. Sparkle Pop also may be continuing to sell inventory from the Warehouse. As recently as early 2026, one of the consignors received a report showing that inventory of another consignor being processed and removed from the Warehouse, despite Sparkle’s consensual agreement that any sales are prohibited by the automatic stay. See E-Mail from Drawn and Quarterly Books, Inc. attached as Exhibit 4.

The publishers have asked for the court to compel an inspection of the warehouse to audit the product that remains located there. They also want to use that inspection to corroborate the reports provided by Sparkle Pop. But, also raised is a “claim for conversion,” basically, is there further action publishers need to take because of actions by Sparkle Pop.

In July, the publishers submitted a subpoena to “Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Bankruptcy Case” and in late July Sparkle Pop objected to that and the inspection. This created an unresolved dispute.

Sparkle Pop has made demands for the inspection to go through, which the publishers object to:

  • Sparkle Pop’s sole right to designate the party permitted to conduct the inspection of the Warehouse and its requirement that any assistants be approved in advance;
  • a requirement that the Trustee and Sparkle Pop enter into an agreement concerning payment of back rent owed at the Warehouse; and
  • a requirement that the Ad Hoc Committee of Consignors solely bear Sparkle Pop’s claimed cost of the inspection, which Sparkle Pop currently quotes at $639.94 per hour – which fee includes an unexplained “thirty percent markup” and exorbitant compensation for what should be a single employee who accompanies the inspector. Originally the fee requested was $1,000 per hour and inexplicably included charges for Sparkle Pop’s tax and insurance payments for the Warehouse.

The publishers thinks those demands are unreasonable and unwilling to pay for the inspection, though they are being flexible in that if there’s a particular party Sparkle Pop doesn’t want in the warehouse, that can be accommodated. They refuse to give Sparkle Pop unilateral control over the process. They also point out that the payment for back rent owed is between Sparkle Pop and (old) Diamond, not the publishers.

The publishers are asking for the court to compel an inspection within 30 days of the service of the motion, that the individual committing the inspection be agreed upon, and Sparkle Pop will bear its own costs in related to the inspection.

The publishers that are part of this motion include 12 of the 15 (so far) that settled/compromised:

Ablaze
Action Lab
American Mythology
Avatar Press

Battle Quest Comics
BOOM! Studios
Fantagraphics
Green Ronin Publishing

Hermes Press
Living the Line

Paizo
Zenescope

You can read the filings below which also includes a look behind the curtain as far as inventory and discussion for this publisher. The overall motion is the same for each publisher while the inventory changes for each.

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

Sparkle Pop is Given More Time to Respond to Diamond’s Settlement with Publishers

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.

Sparkle Pop will now have until August 28, 2026 to respond to the settlement.

Loading Viewer…

Sparkle Pop’s Motion for Relief is Denied Without Prejudice

Red stamp with the word 'DENIED' prominently displayed.

While it feels like the comic industry has moved on from Diamond’s chapter 7 process, the court cases are very much still active with numerous major decisions still to be made. In April, Sparkle Pop 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 stated there are “8,250,936 units of these goods being stored at the Mississippi Facility.”

Sparkle Pop also stated 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.

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

Sparkle Pop was looking to be reimbursed for all of its fees and costs related to the consigned goods and it threatened to 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.”

Today, the court has come down with its decision:

Evidentiary Hearing Held: re: 1265 Relief from Stay and Notice of Motion IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING AFTER 60 DAYS. Order to be prepared by Movant.(related document(s) 1265 Relief from Stay and Notice of Motion, 1277 Objection, 1280 Objection) (Scott, Cherita)

Since it was “denied without prejudice,” Sparkle Pop can refile its motion again with adjustments. It’s possible there was an error in the original filing or new information that has dropped that impacts the original.

We’ll have more information as this court case continues and update this one if more details emerge as to the reason the motion was denied.

« Older Entries