Tag Archives: sparkle pop

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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!

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:

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.

Sparkle Pop Blames Diamond for Sparkle Pop Selling Consigned Goods, Objecting to Diamond’s Motion

In August, the Ad Hoc Committee of Consignors, a group that represents a bunch of publishers, filed a motion in (old) Diamond‘s chapter 11 process attempting to get clarity as to who is selling consigned goods. The consigned goods are inventory that is currently at the center of a legal fight between (old) Diamond and comic and game publishers as to who “owns” them and if (old) Diamond has a right to sell the goods.

In a response to the Ad Hoc Committee’s motion (old) Diamond revealed that Ad Populum/Sparkle Pop had been selling consigned goods when they never purchased them and that (old) Diamond had told them to not do that with threats from their lawyer. Sparkle Pop was one of the winning bidders that purchased assets from (old) Diamond for their own (new) Diamond. That purchase of assets didn’t include consigned goods.

Most recently, Diamond filed a motion against Sparkle Pop wanting the court to force Sparkle Pop to stop selling those consigned goods as well as “compensatory damages and punitive damages.” It is believed to be around $1.38 million worth of inventory has been sold.

Today, Sparkle Pop responded back to Diamond’s motion objecting to it and basically pointing a finger at Diamond’s incompetency.

In Sparkle Pop’s filing, they describe themselves as being “thrusted” “in the middle of their dispute with the consignors to use as a scapegoat and to obtain interim monetary relief.”

Sparkle Pop objects to any expedited treatment of the dispute between it and Diamond because:

  1. That it is no longer selling any Consigned Inventory; and
  2. That the proceeds of any Consigned Inventory sold since May 15, 2025 have been segregated and are being held pending clear instruction or Court order regarding who is entitled to the proceeds of those sales.

In short, Sparkle Pop is admitting they sold the goods and just waiting to hear what they should do with the money gained from it. Should it go to Diamond, or as the Ad Hoc Committee has recently motioned, go to the publishers?

In our original article where Diamond pointed the finger at Sparkle Pop for selling the consigned goods, we asked how this could have happened? All it’d take was Diamond zeroing out the consigned goods in the database it handed over to Sparkle Pop to prevent this. It couldn’t be that simple, can it?

The answer is, Diamond really is that incompetent.

From Sparkle Pop’s filing, Diamond made no effort to remove the consigned goods from their website when they handed it over to Sparkle Pop.

According to Sparkle Pop, Diamond also “did not segregate, remove, transport or otherwise dispose of the Consigned Inventory from the Olive Branch, Mississippi warehouse facility that Debtors sold to Sparkle Pop.”

All of that made it difficult for Sparkle Pop to distinguish between the consigned inventory and non-consigned inventory among the commingled goods. This would also hint that Sparkle Pop didn’t inspect the inventory it purchased to make sure what was purchased was present. If they did, they would have come across inventory not on their purchase list… even if they were given a list of the purchased inventory (or could have been given a list of inventory that included the consigned goods).

Sparkle Pop in their filing say they just filed orders that came through the website that Diamond handed over to them as part of regular business. It didn’t go out of its way to sell the consigned goods.

Sparkle Pop further argues that if they didn’t sell the inventory, the consigners (aka publishers) might come after Sparkle Pop “for failing to secure value-maximizing sales in the ordinary course of business, and in continuation of the business expectations the consignors had developed during the course of their relationships with” Diamond. The goods, Sparkle Pop argues, lose value over time. So, it was in the publisher’s best interest they sell them.

Sparkle Pop then claims when it recognizes it was selling consigned goods, they put any proceeds from the sales into a separate bucket so they could eventually be given to the “rightful party.”

Further clarifying the timeline of all of this:

  • May 27, 2025 – Sparkle Pop informed vendors, including consignors, that Sparkle Pop had taken over ownership of Diamond’s assets and operating the business.
  • For a month after Sparkle Pop fulfilled orders including consigned goods placed through its website with no objection from Diamond.
  • June 8, 2025 – Diamond contacts Sparkle Pop telling them they needed Diamond’s consent to “process sales of Consigned Inventory” and Sparkle Pop should “cease honoring all sales of Consigned Inventory.”
  • Sparkle Pop was still receiving shipments of Consigned Inventory to the distribution warehouse for sale.
  • They continued to sell consigned goods with Diamond’s knowledge since they told vendors they were in charge of sales now and vendors kept sending Consigned Inventory.
  • August 2 – The Ad Hoc Committee of Consignors files their motion to find out who is selling the consigned goods.

As far as how much was sold. Sparkle Pop claims they generated:

$1,051,575 and $515,866 in revenue for Consigned Inventory received prior to Closing and after the Closing, respectively.

Sparkle Pop incurred approximately $251,897 and $181,373 in costs, including shipping, packaging, and other costs associated with honoring sales of Consigned Inventory received prior to Closing and after the Closing, respectively.

Sparkle Pop also states they expected Diamond would reimburse Sparkle Pop for the costs associated with processing the Consigned Inventory which is required under one of their agreements, the TSA, which states Sparkle Pop can process Consigned Inventory.

Read all of Sparkle Pop’s objection below as well as a declaration by Steven Bieg, the Chief Financial Officer of Ad Populum.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »