Tag Archives: sparkle pop llc

Publishers Get the Win When it comes to Consigned Goods Inspection with Sparkle Pop

Two settlements with publishers in the fight over consigned goods and the Diamond chapter 7 case were settled this past week. One settlement was with 13 publishers and the other settlement was with 15 publishers. It was a big step in wrapping up the situation that has dragged out for over a year. Part of what led to one of those settlements was Sparkle Pop dropping its objection.

Sparkle Pop is one of the companies that purchased assets of Diamond’s and currently houses the consigned goods that are at the center of the dispute. Sparkle Pop had objected to the want of publishers to do an inspection over the inventory being help and generally not being included in the settlement negotiations.

On Friday, the “motion to compel discovery” was approved for a dozen publishers involved. Ablaze, Avatar Press, Zenescope, Paizo, Living the Line, Herman & Geer Communications, Green Ronin Publishing, Fantagraphics, BOOM!, Battle Quest Comics, American Mythology Productions, and Action Lab Entertainment all had their motion to “compel discovery” approved by the court.

The motion is interesting with some new nuggets of information:

  • The inspection of the inventory was performed on October 26 and October 27
  • Each day the inspection lasted for eight hours
  • It was performed by Shawn Hamrick with an assistant. Hamrick worked for Diamond Comic Distributors for almost 32 years and was the Vice President of Operations & Chief Logistics Officer.
  • The plaintiff, aka publishers, are responsible for the fees and costs.
  • Sparkle Pop was able to accompany Hamrick and the assistant during the inspection.
  • It’s a visual inspection and identification of the consigned inventory, but Hamrick and the assistant weren’t able to move any physical items. So, we’re not sure how you really dive in and count and confirm the inventory without being able to do so.
  • Sparkle Pop will pay any fees it incurs during the process (so their staff is on their dime).

So, based on all of this, it sounds like the inspection of the inventory was completed earlier this week, before either settlement was approved… It’s an interesting twist and might explain why Sparkle Pop dropped their entire objection to the settlement. But, there are a lot of different scenarios that we aren’t privy to regarding the specific details of this side quest. If nothing else, it confirms a lot of negotiations occurring behind the scenes that aren’t being made public.

Check out the full court document below:

Loading Viewer…

A Pretrial Conference has been set in Sparkle Pop vs. Alliance for March 2027

In January 2025, Diamond Comic Distributors filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In the months since, the drama that has come out due to the proceedings has been worthy of an HBO miniseries with bids made, bids rejected, last minute switches, and now accusations of NDAs broken and corporate espionage.

On June 9, 2025, Sparkle Pop, one of the winners of Diamond’s assets, filed a complaint against Alliance Entertainment and asked for a temporary restraining order. Alliance Entertainment was the original winning bidder for Diamond’s assets during the bankruptcy but pulled its bid accusing Diamond and its representatives of fraud.

Sparkle Pop has accused Alliance of breaking its NDAs, poaching Diamond employees, and stealing corporate secrets it learned during its bid for Diamond.

While Diamond’s now chapter 7 is nearing an end, the lawsuit between Sparkle Pop and Alliance Entertainment continues.

A pretrial conference has been set for March 11, 2027 at 10am. On the agenda are:

50 − Amended Complaint by Ellen E. Dew on behalf of SPARKLE POP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
against ALLIANCE ENTERTAINMENT HOLDING CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, ALLIANCE
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. (related document(s)1 Complaint filed by Plaintiff
SPARKLE POP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company). (Dew, Ellen)

You can read more about the amended complaint.

75 − Answer to Complaint − Defendants’ Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint Filed by
ALLIANCE ENTERTAINMENT HOLDING CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, ALLIANCE
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. (Grasso, Jonathan)

Read more about that here.

Settlement between Diamond’s Trustee Morgan W. Fisher and Publishers over Consigned Goods “Ordered”

With the approval of a settlement between Diamond, Sparkle Pop, and 13 publishers this week, as well as Sparkle Pop withdrawing their objection, we thought the signs were there that we’d get another major decision in Diamond’s chapter 7 drama. And, this evening, it looks like the settlement between Diamond, its trustee Morgan W. Fisher and 15 publishers has been “ordered” putting into motion the winding down of the drawn out case.

To catch folks up, when Diamond declared bankruptcy, it held a large quantity of product in its warehouse that was on consignment. After some time, Diamond claimed it had a right to sell the consigned goods to help pay down its debt and that nothing would go to the publishers. The publishers claimed it was their property and that when Diamond declared bankruptcy it triggered a whole bunch of different things that would allow them to get their product back. This has gone on for about a year and a half that resulted in all sorts of off-shoot lawsuits and a lot of behind-the-scenes negotiations.

To make things even more complicated, some items were sold when they weren’t supposed to. Sparkle Pop, the company that took over “old” Diamond, deposited $840,151.00 into an account of which $669,410.00 represents sales of goods from the Consignment Group. In addition, Sparkle Pop has $417,496.00 for sales after May 15 2025 through February 13, 2026 of which $273,503.00 represents sales of the Consignment Group’s goods. Of that initial amount of the $669,410, $50,000 will go to the publishers with $619,410 going to the trustee but what is in escrow and owed to the other publishers not part of this group needs to be figured out and settled. The $273,503 will go entirely to the trustee. If it’s found Sparkle Pop sold even more than what’s known, the publishers need to pursue that at their own cost and 5% of any recovery from that would go to the Diamond trustee after expenses for the legal proceeding are handled.

The settlement in short is that a certain group of publishers will get some money for the product of theirs sold and will be able to get the product back but they’ll need to pay for packing and shipping. The deal is similar to one cut between Image and Diamond (the money is the difference between the two).

What’s also big is that it terminates any distribution agreement that currently exists for these publishers with “old” Diamond. This in particular stands out:

The Trustee agrees and acknowledges that the Consignment Group Members were the owners of their respective Consignment Inventory at all times prior and subsequent to the Petition Date, and the TSA did not permit or authorize Sparkle Pop to sell, distribute or dispose of Consignment Inventory on behalf of either the Consignment Group members or the Debtors other than in accordance with the Distribution Agreements and at the Debtor’s sole and express direction.

Publishers that are part of the compromise:

Ablaze
American Mythology
Avatar Press
Battle Quest Comics
Action Lab

Drawn & Quarterly
Fantagraphics
Green Ronin Publishing
Hermes Press
Living the Line

Paizo
UDON Entertainment
Zenescope
BOOM! Studios
Dynamite Forces/Dynamite

The bullet points of key parts of the deal and we’ve put in bold the major ones:

  • The Court Registry Escrow not allocable to the Otherwise Represented Consignors shall be released to the Parties and distributed as follows: (a) Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) to the Consignment Group Members that are also members of the Ad Hoc Committee (to be allocated as it/they deem appropriate); and (b) the remainder to the Trustee (thus, the net amount to be paid to the Estates is $619,410.00).
  • The Settling Parties shall jointly move the Bankruptcy Court for an order directing that Sparkle Pop release the aggregate amount allocable to each Consignment Group Member from the SP Escrow, as set forth on Schedule 3 to the Trustee.
  • If not already rejected, all Distribution Agreements of the Consignment Group Members shall be deemed rejected as of the Effective Date of the Settlement and terminated in their entirety.
  • The Consignment Group Members will have the authority and are required to retrieve any and all of their inventory from the Warehouse, bearing their own costs of picking and packing such inventory.
  • Sparkle Pop is entitled to pick and pack the inventory identified by the Consignment Group Members, at rates comparable to what the Consignment Group Members can obtain from other third parties to complete the work. If Sparkle Pop declines to do the pick and pack work at comparable rates, the Consignment Group Members are authorized to access their Consignment Inventory and remove it from the Warehouse under the timelines set forth in the Settlement.
  • The Trustee, on behalf of himself the Debtors, releases and discharges the Consignment Group Members from any and all claims, causes of actions, obligations, and damages including, but not limited to, preference claims. Similar releases from the Consignment Group Members flow to the Trustee and Estates, subject to certain claims as described herein and in the Settlement. In other words, the releases are essentially mutual.
  • The Consignment Group Members are reserving all rights with regard to any additional claims against Sparkle Pop. In the event any Consignment Group Member recovers additional funds from Sparkle Pop on account of unauthorized sales of or shortages in the Consigned Inventory in excess of the Court Registry Escrow and SP Escrow, such Consignment Group Member shall pay five percent (5%) of any such recovery to the Estates, net of any legal fees and expenses required to collect such amounts.
  • In the event Sparkle Pop obtains a judgment against any Consignment Group Member for rent, storage, or similar charges with respect to such Consignment Group Member’s Consigned Inventory stored at the Warehouse, that Consignment Group Member shall have an Administrative Claim against the Estates in an amount equal to 25% of such claim.
  • In the event Sparkle Pop or the Consignment Group Members obtain a finding that any consignment inventory delivered by any Consignment Group Member was unreported as being sold by the Debtor prior to the Settlement, but was in fact sold by or at the Debtor’s direction, and paid to or for the benefit of Debtor, the respective Consignment Group Member(s) that delivered any such Missing Inventory shall be entitled to a chapter 7 administrative claim against the Debtors that is subordinate to certain other expenses and claims including any finally-allowed post-conversion administrative claims of Sparkle Pop, JP Morgan Chase and/or the Trustee’s professionals.
  • Within sixty (60) days after the Effective Date, the Trustee will file a notice of abandonment pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 554 as to the Consigned Inventory.
  • Within ten (10) days after the Effective Date, the Trustee shall assign to the Consignment Group all of his rights, title, and interest, without representation or warranty of any kind, in and to the CG Adversary Proceedings as plaintiff therein.
  • Within ten (10) days after the Effective Date, (i) the Trustee will file a notice of dismissal of the Denial Order Appeal (if not already resolved), and (ii) the Members of the Consignment Group, as applicable, will file a notice of dismissal of the CG Adversary Counterclaims.

But… there’s more!

The Consignment Group Members are entitled to file a “substantial contribution claim” for their legal fees and costs having to do with this fight.

The case has dragged on for some time and with numerous individual court cases between Diamond and publishers, the cost was adding up which led to the settlement.

The Parties believes the Settlement is in the best interest of the Estates. It eliminates a burdensome administrative cost that is being asserted by Sparkle Pop with regard to the continued storage of the Consignment Inventory at the Warehouse; it relieves the Trustee from any further involvement in the CG Adversary Proceedings of the Settling Parties and the Appeal; it provides a substantial cash infusion to the Debtors’ Estate; and it protects the Consignment Group Members from further erosion of value of their Consignment Inventory as well as prevents the flooding of the market with respect to unauthorized sales of their inventory.

From today’s approval:

NOW, THEREFORE, it is by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland, hereby:

ORDERED, that the Motion be, and the same is hereby, GRANTED and all objections and responses to the Motion or the relief requested therein that have not been withdrawn, waived, settled, or resolved as stated on the record or herein are hereby overruled and denied on the merits; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Settlement (as defined in, and attached as Exhibit A to the Motion) is approved in its entirety. Thus, the failure to specifically include or refer to any particular provision of the Settlement in this Order shall not diminish or impair the effectiveness of such provision; provided, however, that to the extent any provision of this Order is inconsistent with the terms of the Settlement, the terms of this Order shall control; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Settlement and any related agreement, document or other instrument may be modified, amended, or supplemented by the Settling Parties thereto in accordance with the terms thereof, without further order of this Court; provided that any such modification, amendment, or supplement is not material, is consistent with this Order, and has the approval of the Settling Parties; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Settling Parties are authorized to take all actions necessary or appropriate to effectuate the terms of the Settlement and that they shall be, and hereby are, authorized to fully perform under, consummate, and implement the terms of the Settlement, including the filing of further pleadings and the execution and delivery of all instruments and documents that may be reasonably necessary, required or desirable to implement and effectuate the Settlement and the transactions contemplated therein; and it is further

ORDERED, that the releases set forth in the Settlement with regard to Boom Entertainment, LLC (“Boom”), shall be only as against Boom and not any affiliates; and likewise the releases of Boom by the Trustee and the Debtors’ estates are only as against Boom and not any affiliates; and it is further (We’re figuring out this aspect of the deal – Brett)

ORDERED, that any party that is engaged to destroy any of the Consignment Inventory with regard to the Settlement terms shall, promptly after destruction, provide a certificate of destruction to the respective Consignment Group Member to evidence the destruction of the respective property, which certificate shall be in accordance with industry standards; and it is further

ORDERED, that, this Order and the Settlement shall be binding in all respects upon the Settling Parties, the Debtors, all creditors of the Debtors and all interested parties affected hereby, and upon the successors and assigns of any of the foregoing; and it is further

ORDERED, that this Court shall retain sole and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters arising from or related to the implementation of this Order.

There’s still much to go including lawsuits involving Diamond, Sparkle Pop, and Alliance having to do with the bankruptcy sale and various issues spinning out of it and there’s also a big question as to what lender JPMorgan Chase Bank will get out of this who lent Diamond a considerable sum of money.

There’s also a question as to what the stock that’s been fought over is actually worth? It’s sat in a warehouse for over a year so it’s unknown how valuable it’ll be at this point.

Overall, this has been a drawn out fight that could have been settled many months ago (and we hear there was a lot of drama between publishers behind the scenes as to what to do).

While this is a major step in settling matters, there’s still many steps to go and unanswered questions.

You can read all of the documents below and we’ll have more as this major decision unfolds:

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

Sparkle Pop withdraws Objection over Ad Hoc and Diamond Settlement

Diamond Chapter 7
That's all folks?

Yesterday, a settlement between Diamond, Sparkle Pop, and 13 publishers was approved by the court. It’s a major step in finally winding down Diamond’s chapter 7 drama which has been going on for close to two years. That approved settlement still left open a different settlement that would impact 15 publishers which is currently being litigated.

But, with one settlement approved, there’s speculation that the fight over the other might be winding down as well and there’s a sign that might be the case.

Today, Sparkle Pop has withdrawn their objection to the outstanding settlement with the 15 publishers. This helps pave the way for it to be approved by the court instead of being dragged out even further.

Even if this settlement is approved, there’s still more to go including numerous lawsuits over the process and then there’s the settlement between Diamond and its bank lender JPMorgan Chase Bank.

Stay tuned, we might be seeing light at the end of the very long tunnel!

Loading Viewer…

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

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…

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

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…

« Older Entries