Tag Archives: sparkle pop

Dynamic Forces, aka Dynamite, responds to Sparkle Pop’s Breach of Contract Lawsuit. Files Counterclaim Against Sparkle Pop!

Dynamite Entertainment

In mid-September, Sparkle Pop filed a lawsuit against Dynamic Forces, aka Dynamite Entertainment, for what it claims as breach of contract. Sparkle Pop is the new entity that has taken over Diamond Comic Distributors in its chapter 11 process. Sparkle Pop claims Dynamic has “made millions of dollars from its long-standing commercial relationship” but “failed to reimburse Plaintiff for certain costs incurred.” The lawsuit is an attempt to recover those costs. The lawsuit claims that Dynamic was to reimburse Diamond for “storage fees, freight costs, certain marketing-related expenses, and other costs.” Sparkle Pop is looking for damages including interest and costs, disbursements, and attorney’s fees. Dynamic and Dynamite are suing Sparkle Pop/”new” Diamond and claiming they are owed over $500,000 themselves.

Now, Dynamic has responded to Sparkle Pop’s claims and…. filed a counterclaim seeking damages from Sparkle Pop!

Dynamic’s response gets right into things, admitting to simple statement of facts while denying much of the rest. This is a pretty standard response but there are some highlights:

Under Parties: “Denied in part, Sparkle Pop is not the holder of all right title and interest to the assets and receivables owing to Diamond Comic Distributors (“DCD”) pursuant to an Order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland”

Under Factual Allegations: “denied that any contract, receivable, and/or consignment related to Dynamic was purchased through the DCD Bankruptcy sale.”

Those two are setting it up that Sparkle doesn’t have the rights to the claim/contract it’s suing under. In short, old Diamond should be the one suing if anyone, and that was settled it would seem.

Now, to the counts.

Breach of Contract

…denied that Dynamic agreed to pay for certain fees and expenses incurred by DCD at all times relevant to the claims asserted in this matter.

And with all of that denial, Dynamic has requested the judge to rule against Sparkle Pop. It then lists a whole lot of reasons that Sparkle Pop doesn’t have an argument and failed to make its case.

But, where it gets interesting is that Dynamic has included a counterclaim in their response.

In it, Dynamic focuses on the consigned goods, a heated point of contention. When Sparkle Pop purchased Diamond’s assets, it didn’t purchase the consigned goods. But, Sparkle Pop wound up selling those goods and pocketed the money. They’ve been called out and the money is currently is sitting in a bank account controlled by the court until a decision is made as to who “owns” the consigned goods that remain and the ones that have been sold. None of that can be argued.

Because of that, Dynamic is going after Sparkle Pop for the sale of the goods in the amount of $644,403.35 plus attorneys fees and more.

This one should be interesting since it’s now a fact in the court and Sparkle Pop has admitted to doing exactly what Dynamic has claimed.

Dynamic is seeking damages, interest, costs and disbursements. The challenge will be the current ongoing debate in court about the consigned goods and who has a right to them, which is still in the process of being determined.

Loading Viewer…

Sparkle Pop is Suing Dynamic Forces aka Dynamite, for Breach of Contract. Seeking over $1.7 million.

Dynamite Entertainment

2025 is the year of comic related lawsuits and court filings. In September Sparkle Pop filed a civil action against Dynamic Forces, aka Dynamite Entertainment over a breach of contract.

In its introduction, Sparkle Pop claims Dynamic has “made millions of dollars from its long-standing commercial relationship” but “failed to reimburse Plaintiff for certain costs incurred.” The lawsuit is an attempt to recover those costs. The contract between Dynamic and Diamond (the original, “old” Diamond) began on October 1, 2015 and Diamond was Dynamic’s “exclusive worldwide distributor. Dynamic was to reimburse Diamond for “storage fees, freight costs, certain marketing-related expenses, and other costs.” The lawsuit claims Dynamic failed to reimburse Diamond for those costs and fees. Sparkle Pop, the owner of “new” Diamond, is suing over that and claims they have made efforts to collect the receivables since they closed in purchasing Diamond in May 2025.

The lawsuit’s counts are:

  • Breach of Contract – Dynamic and Diamond had an agreement and Diamond performed its obligations under the agreement. Dynamic failed to reimburse Diamond and Sparkle Pop for those costs and expenses. That total sum is in excess of $1.7 million dollars.
  • Quantum Meruit Recovery – Diamond has performed its services which has benefited Dynamic. Dynamic has been “unjustly enriched” and Sparkle Pop is entitled to recover the reasonable value of the services provided. An amount will be determined at trial but it includes interest, costs, and more.

Sparkle Pop is looking for damages including interest and costs, disbursements, and attorney’s fees. A summons was issued to Dynamic on September 15.

Where it gets crazier is that Dynamic and Dynamite are suing Sparkle Pop/”new” Diamond and claiming they are owed over $500,000 themselves.

Loading Viewer…

Sparkle Pop Updates the Court on the Status of its Consignment Sale Proceeds During Diamond’s Chapter 11 Process

Steven Bieg, the Chief Financial Officer of Ad Populum which is the parent entity to Sparkle Pop has provided an update as to the status of money gained through the sale of consigned inventory they weren’t supposed to.

For those who don’t know the details, during Diamond’s Chapter 11 process there’s bunch of consigned inventory. That inventory is under dispute by Diamond and the publishers of that product. After its purchase of Diamond’s assets, Sparkle Pop had sold some of that consigned inventory. Diamond then took Sparkle Pop to court to get a court order for them to stop, they said they already had, and a decision to be made as to what to do with the money. The decision was the proceeds were to be paid into the Registry of the Court and would be held until other disputes have been decided.

Sparkle Pop had generated sales of $1,051,575 before May 15, 2025 and $515,866 after May 15, 2025, a total of $1,567,441.

In the update, Bieg states some of the sold product has been returned. There’s also the fact that payment schedules have varied so paying it all is rather difficult since Sparkle Pop hasn’t been paid for it all.

As of September 5, 2025, Sparkle Pop had processed returns of Consigned Inventory received before May 15, 2025 representing $316,926 in total sales. Accordingly, as of September 5, 2025, Sparkle Pop had collected $778,171 in proceeds net of returns in connection with sales of Consigned Inventory received before May 15, 2025, or approximately 74% of the total amount invoiced and returned.

On September 17, Sparkle Pop deposited $778,171, the amount they’ve collected, to the Court Registry.

As of the date of the Supplemental Declaration, the amount of returns of Consigned Inventory received before May 15, 2025 that Sparkle Pop has processed has grown to $337,975 in total sales.

As of the date of this Supplemental Declaration, and since September 5, 2025, Sparkle Pop has collected a total of $812,416 in proceeds from the sales of Consigned Inventory received before May 15, 2025, or approximately 84% of the total amount invoiced net of returns.

On October 10, Sparkle Pop sent a check for $34,246. That makes the total deposited with the Court Registry, $812,417.

Loading Viewer…

Diamond’s deal over its Memphis Warehouse Hits a Bump

Diamond Comic Distributors

One of the outstanding issues with Diamond‘s chapter 11 bankruptcy is the status of its Memphis warehouse. An order approving a deal regarding it was submitted by Diamond but that has hit a bump. The court has directed Diamond to file a Rule 9019 motion due to objections by the Ad Hoc Committee of Consignors and the Consignment Group.

A 9019 motion is a legal filing that seeks court approval for a settlement or compromise of a controversy. The court must then approve it making sure it’s fair and equitable and in the best interest of not just Diamond but its creditors.

The 600,000 square foot commercial warehouse is located in Olive Brandh, Mississippi and was the main warehouse for Diamond. It was believed that gaining it was one of the main reasons Ad Populum/Sparkle Pop purchased Diamond on the bankruptcy but as we’ve learned, Diamond is just leasing it and the transfer to new Diamond has been delayed.

As part of the agreement:

  1. (New) Diamond would take over the lease of the warehouse;
  2. $451,083.73 will be paid from proceeds escrowed from the closing on the sale to Sparkle Pop that’s in escrow;
  3. $84,510.81 will be paid by Diamond.

The $451,083.73 is due to property taxes paid by AIRETT, the landlord, that Diamond failed to pay.

Loading Viewer…

Sparkle Pop submits their Certification They’ve Stopped Selling Consigned Inventory

Last week, the court released their decision as to what to do about Sparkle Pop having sold consigned inventory when they shouldn’t have during Diamond’s chapter 11 process.  It was a rather open and shut case in a general sense, so it was all about the details with this one as to how it needed to be resolved. The court decided:

  1. Sparkle Pop needs to stop all sales, marketing, and advertising of the goods held on consignment. Sparkle Pop has said they’ve already stopped, so this one was pretty open and shut. Sparkle Pop still needs to file a written Certification to the court that it has complied.
  2. Sparkle Pop needs to provide to Diamond and to two of the groups representing some publishers a detailed account, certified by an officer of Sparkle Pop, that has the name of the vendor who provided the product, the name and title of the product, the SKU, and other identifying information, the gross sale proceeds received, the quantity sold and date sold, and the manufacturer’s retail price of the product.
  3. Sparkle Pop needs to pay the gross proceeds of the sale of the consigned inventory into the Registry of the Court. It’ll be held by the court until other decisions have been decided. If any other money comes in due to this, that’ll be turned over too.
  4. The TSA and APA Sparkle Pop agreed to is still in force.
  5. Diamond’s move for damages included attorneys’ fees and costs related to the recovery will be heard at a later date.
  6. JPMorgan Chase Bank’s claims and liens when it comes to the consigned inventory isn’t impacted by this.

Sparkle Pop has submitted their paperwork that certifies they have stopped selling the consigned inventory and removed it from the website and marketing.

I hereby certify that Sparkle Pop has removed all Consigned Inventory (as defined in the Order) from its (and/or any affiliate of Sparkle Pop’s) website, order forms, marketing materials and all other forms of product marketing and sales materials as of the date of the Consent order;

Sparkle Pop has ceased all sales of Consigned Inventory as of the date of the Consent Order.

Loading Viewer…

Diamond vs. Sparkle Pop… The Court’s Decision Released!

Earlier this week, there was a hearing regarding Sparkle Pop‘s sale of consigned inventory they shouldn’t have been selling brought forth by Diamond as part of their chapter 11 drama. While the actual hearing was resolved it seems rather quickly, we’ve been waiting for the official order with the details as to what the court decided. It was a rather open and shut case in a general sense, so it was all about the details with this one.

You can read the full filing below after the summary of what the court had to say.

  1. Sparkle Pop needs to stop all sales, marketing, and advertising of the goods held on consignment. Sparkle Pop has said they’ve already stopped, so this one was pretty open and shut. Sparkle Pop still needs to file a written Certification to the court that it has complied.
  2. Sparkle Pop needs to provide to Diamond and to two of the groups representing some publishers a detailed account, certified by an officer of Sparkle Pop, that has the name of the vendor who provided the product, the name and title of the product, the SKU, and other identifying information, the gross sale proceeds received, the quantity sold and date sold, and the manufacturer’s retail price of the product.
  3. Sparkle Pop needs to pay the gross proceeds of the sale of the consigned inventory into the Registry of the Court. It’ll be held by the court until other decisions have been decided. If any other money comes in due to this, that’ll be turned over too.
  4. The TSA and APA Sparkle Pop agreed to is still in force.
  5. Diamond’s move for damages included attorneys’ fees and costs related to the recovery will be heard at a later date.
  6. JPMorgan Chase Bank’s claims and liens when it comes to the consigned inventory isn’t impacted by this.

None of the above is surprising, it really came down to where the money would be held.

Loading Viewer…

Sparkle Pop releases its Witness and Exhibit List before Wednesday’s Hearing

There’s a lot of balls in the air when it comes to Diamond‘s chapter 11 process. Wednesday, September 10 is the next hearing, this one having to do with Sparkle Pop having sold consignment goods when they weren’t supposed to.

The short version, Diamond still has a lot of inventory in its possession that are on consignment. Diamond wants to sell the inventory to raise money so it can pay back its lender, JPMorgan Chase Bank. But, publishers don’t want them to and have filed been fighting to stop their motion. During that, it was revealed that Sparkle Pop had sold a bunch of the goods on consignment when they shouldn’t have.

Diamond filed a motion at the end of August to force Sparkle Pop to stop selling the inventory and also asking for some sort of damages. Sparkle Pop has said they have stopped selling the inventory and have the money set aside and waiting to be told what to do with it by the court and blamed Diamond for the issues. Then, there’s publishers who have some issues with Diamond’s motion against Sparkle Pop. Diamond released its witness and exhibit list as well as took at some shots at Sparkle Pop’s filing.

Now, ahead of the hearing which takes place today, Sparkle Pop has released its own witness and exhibit list.

While it doesn’t name any specific individuals, Sparkle Pop has stated it reserves the right to call:

  1. any person listed or called as a witness by any other party;
  2. any person necessary to establish the authenticity or admissibility of exhibits;
  3. (any person for purposes of impeachment; and
  4. any person for purposes of rebuttal.

That could change though as things play out.

The exhibit list has much of what we’d expect like the various agreements Sparkle Pop agreed to when it purchased Diamond’s assets but there’s a few items that do stand out.

  • May 27, 2025 Email from Diamond Comic Distributors to Vendors regarding VENDORS Important Update on Outstanding Invoices and Future Payments
  • Sparkle Pop document production in response to Subpoena, Bates stamped SP000001-SP000079

So, there’s some email that went out from Diamond to vendors regarding invoices and payments, most likely clarifying who is responsible for what after the purchase but there might be more. Also, there’s document production and who knows what might be in there.

You can check out the full filing below:

Loading Viewer…

Diamond replies to Sparkle Pop’s Objection calling it “Self-Serving Misdirection”

There’s a lot of balls in the air when it comes to Diamond‘s chapter 11 process. Wednesday, September 10 is the next hearing, this one having to do with Sparkle Pop having sold consignment goods when they weren’t supposed to.

The short version, Diamond still has a lot of inventory in its possession that are on consignment. Diamond wants to sell the inventory to raise money so it can pay back its lender, JPMorgan Chase Bank. But, publishers don’t want them to and have filed been fighting to stop their motion. During that, it was revealed that Sparkle Pop had sold a bunch of the goods on consignment when they shouldn’t have.

Diamond filed a motion at the end of August to force Sparkle Pop to stop selling the inventory and also asking for some sort of damages. Sparkle Pop has said they have stopped selling the inventory and have the money set aside and waiting to be told what to do with it by the court and blamed Diamond for the issues. Then, there’s publishers who have some issues with Diamond’s motion against Sparkle Pop.

In the lead up to Wednesday’s hearing, Diamond has released its witness and exhibit list and responded to Sparkle Pop’s objection to the whole thing. And Diamond responds with some big swings and drops some emails.

In its reply, Diamond doesn’t mince words calling Sparkle Pop’s objection “self-serving misdirection.” They mock Sparkle Pop’s framing that it was “trying to do the right thing for all parties.”

In their response they say Sparkle Pop’s objection doesn’t explain and leaves out:

  • The purchase agreement provided Sparkle Pop reimbursement for the cost and expenses in connection to the consigned inventory when the sales were at the direction of the debtors.
  • Diamond is paying Sparkle Pop for the storage of the consigned inventory and instead says Sparkle Pop criticized Diamond for “failing to remove such consigned inventory.”
  • The consigned inventory is distinguishable from the “owned” inventory by the coding system that was handed over to Sparkle Pop by Diamond when Sparkle Pop purchased Diamond’s assets.
  • Sparkle Pop has provided information as to what consigned inventory was sold showing it knows what is consigned inventory.
  • Sparkle Pop didn’t respond to Diamond’s demand to stop selling the consigned goods and hand over all of the proceeds to Diamond. Nine emails were sent that are part of the exhibit filed with this motion.
  • Sparkle Pop asked Diamond if the consigned inventory should be included on its website and ignored the response by Diamond’s counsel to remove the inventory from the website.
  • Sparkle Pop never told Diamond it was segregating the proceeds from the sale of consigned inventory.
  • Sparkle Pop doesn’t seem to get the impact of the automatic stay that’s in place concerning consigned goods.

It also highlights some agreements:

  • Sparkle Pop has stopped selling the consigned goods.
  • The proceeds from the sale should be held but there’s disagreement as to who should manage it until it’s decided what to do with it.
  • The inventory should be removed from Sparkle Pop’s website.

Diamond feels that the court should still tell Sparkle Pop to stop selling the inventory and remove it from their website and marketing materials. The gross proceeds should be handed over to Omni Agent Solutions which is managing already as an escrow agent connected to funds dealing with the sale process. Finally, Diamond will figure out damages at a later date.

The emails are interesting and reveal some new info, but also seem to be missing responses from Sparkle Pop:

  • Sparkle Pop was late in some of its payments owed to Diamond
  • Sparkle Pop put forth a scenario where it would purchase the consigned goods but Diamond thought it was too low.
  • From May 16 to July 8 $1,353,364 was the amount of sales of consignment inventory.
  • After that amount there was an additional $31,258.60 sold for a total of $1,384,622.60.
  • There was disagreement of who would pay customs of goods shipped before purchase but didn’t get through customs until after.
  • “I am following up since we never heard back from you after our conversation last evening. Have you had an opportunity to discuss our proposal with your client?” <- What was this proposal about?

Wednesday should be an interesting one!

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

Diamond releases its Witness and Exhibit List for Wednesday’s Hearing Regarding Sparkle Pop Selling Consigned Goods

There’s a lot of balls in the air when it comes to Diamond‘s chapter 11 process. Wednesday, September 10 is the next hearing, this one having to do with Sparkle Pop having sold consignment goods when they weren’t supposed to.

The short version, Diamond still has a lot of inventory in its possession that are on consignment. Diamond wants to sell the inventory to raise money so it can pay back its lender, JPMorgan Chase Bank. But, publishers don’t want them to and have filed been fighting to stop their motion. During that, it was revealed that Sparkle Pop had sold a bunch of the goods on consignment when they shouldn’t have.

Diamond filed a motion at the end of August to force Sparkle Pop to stop selling the inventory and also asking for some sort of damages. Sparkle Pop has said they have stopped selling the inventory and have the money set aside and waiting to be told what to do with it by the court and blamed Diamond for the issues. Then, there’s publishers who have some issues with Diamond’s motion against Sparkle Pop.

So, that’s what’s being covered on September 10.

For witnesses, Diamond has called Robert Gorin who is the co-Chief Restructuring Officer and Ramy Aly who is the Senior Director, Getzler Henrich & Associates, LC. Both will have knowledge of the agreements of the sale of Diamond’s assets to Sparkle Pop. Those assets did not include consigned goods.

As far as the exhibits, there’s various agreements, email that is likely Diamond telling Sparkle Pop to stop selling the inventory, and most importantly, the consignment inventory list. If it’s released, it’ll be the first time we’ve gotten idea as to what inventory Diamond still has access to.

The hearing will take place September 10 and 10am ET.

Check out the full list filed below:

Loading Viewer…

The Consignment Group joins the Ad Hoc Committee of Consignors in their Limited Objection to Diamond

At the end of August, Diamond submitted a motion with the court going after Sparkle Pop for selling consigned goods that it did not own. Those goods are part of a battle between Diamond, comic and game publishers, and now Sparkle Pop as to who owns the inventory and who should receive any money from the sale of them. In their motion, Diamond asked the court to enforce a stay that prevented the sale of the consigned goods while other legal matters were being decided and Diamond felt there should be damages paid for it too. The Ad Hoc Committee of Consignors, which represents some of the publishers, submitted a “limited objection” to Diamond’s motion. Now, the Consignment Group has filed a motion agreeing with the Ad Hoc Committee with basically “we support what they said.”

The Consignment Group represents multiple publishers consisting of Aspen Comics, Black Mask Studios, DSTLRY, Dynamite Entertainment, Heavy Metal International, Magnetic Press, Massive Publishing, Oni Press, Panini UK, Alien Books, Graphic Mundi, Titan Publishing, Vault Comics, and Dark Horse.

Their filing keeps it simple:

  • The Consignment Group hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the arguments and limited objections set forth in the Objection and reserves the right to be heard at any hearing regarding the Debtors’ Motion and the relief requested therein.
  • The Consignment Group further asserts as an independent basis of limited objection, and to the extent that the Court grants the Debtor’s Motion, that the certification to be provided by Sparkle Pop to the Court, per the proposed from of order, also include a detailed list of any consignment stock sold by Sparkle Pop, identifying the publisher, title, quantity, date of sale, sales price and proceeds such that all consignment stock sold can be fully accounted.

In short, they object as well, want to be hear, and want to know what was sold by Sparkle Pop with some specific details.

Loading Viewer…

« Older Entries Recent Entries »