Green Ronin Crowdfunding Legal Defense Fund In Fight Against Diamond Distrubutors

Green Ronin Publishing has set up a crowdfunding campaign to help cover legal fees fighting to get back their inventory from Diamond Comic Distributors in what it describes as "a dire financial threat to our company, not just today, but well into the future".

Diamond, which filed for Bankruptcy in January, still holds the stock of Green Ronin and over one hundred other companies in its warehouse, and has asked the court for ownership of that inventory so that it can liquidate it and pay its creditors. The distributor, while being mainly comic-book focused, also serves as distributor for some toy and TTRPG companies, including Green Ronin, Paizo, Goodman Games, and Roll For Combat.

The GoFundMe had raised $17K at the time of writing, with over 200 donations.

Paizo Publishing, also affected, has announced that its upcoming releases will not be available at major bookstores or at Amazon because the company has stopped shipping products to Diamond. This includes 12 August releases and 10 September releases, such as Starfinder Player Core, Starfinder GM Core, Pathfinder Battlecry, and more.

The court has scheduled a hearing on July 21 to hear objections from the affected vendors.

My name is Nicole Lindroos, co-owner of Green Ronin Publishing. Diamond Comic Distributors' recent Chapter 11 bankruptcy has impacted over 100 independent publishers, including Green Ronin, putting us in a very precarious position. Diamond is attempting to use a legal technicality to claim ownership of millions of dollars worth of consigned inventory, which amounts to several hundreds of thousands of dollars for Green Ronin Publishing alone. This is stock that we still own and have not been paid for.

This is a dire financial threat to our company, not just today, but well into the future. We must secure legal representation immediately before the deadline to do so passes.

While there is no "good" time for someone to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of your property to sell for the benefit of their biggest creditors, it is especially challenging given that Gen Con is weeks away. Gen Con is not just a convention for us, it's our most important annual event for connecting with TTRPG enthusiasts, our business partners, and our community, and this year is no exception. We're launching new products and have already committed significant funds to cover everything from booth space, travel (flights, rooms), and most critically, the production of new books and merchandise specifically for the show floor.

Diamond’s bankruptcy and this legal action also mean that Green Ronin has lost its book trade distributor. We are looking for a new partner, but that will take some time. Book trade sales of literary licenses, currently The Fifth Season and The Expanse, are a key part of our strategies for those games. This is especially bad timing for The Fifth Season RPG because we recently received final approvals from N.K. Jemisin and the game is ready to go to print.

We simply don't have the cash on hand to do all of this, pay for an attorney, or participate in any collective legal actions with other publishers in our same position.

The banks are stopping at nothing to wring every last dollar out of Diamond - including taking several hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of Green Ronin product to sell in order to pay Diamond’s debts - but they can't do that, and we've got a legal agreement that says as much. Now, we just need to secure a law firm to represent us in the courts.

The funds raised through this campaign will be used directly to cover the escalating legal fees associated with fighting Diamond's claim in bankruptcy court. This includes attorney retainers, court filing fees, and the costs of pursuing every possible avenue to recover our inventory and protect Green Ronin's assets.

 

[JLowder]

In the USA, malice exists only after a verdict is reached in a court of law. No one in the court is even suggesting that course, so once again, you are in the realm of fantasy.

As to incompetence, the fact they are in bankruptcy is an arguement, but that's not a crime, nor unique to Diamond.

An action can be malicious without meeting the court definition, just as it can be unethical without being a crime.

Again, they have clearly acted in ways that maximize the chances that their failure will damage their business "partners." This is either malice or incompetence.

As for the company's legal behavior, Diamond is, last I heard, being sued by Alliance Entertainment, alleging fraud and deception, related to the recent failed purchase offer. You can read more about that here: Alliance sues Diamond - again: “The truth finally emerged.”

 

[Jd Smith1]

An action can be malicious without meeting the court definition, just as it can be unethical without being a crime.

Actually, no. If it doesn't meet the court definition, it is simply speculation, delusion, or slander.

Again, they have clearly acted in ways that maximize the chances that their failure will damage their business "partners." This is either malice or incompetence.

Not seeing any proof of that in the public release documents. So we're back to fantasy.

As for the company's legal behavior, Diamond is, last I heard, being sued by Alliance Entertainment, alleging fraud and deception, related to the recent failed purchase offer. You can read more about that here: Alliance sues Diamond - again: “The truth finally emerged.”

Last you heard? Hard to top a source like that, or a speculative Net article, but again, going back to explaining the basics, a lawsuit in the USA is a civil action, not criminal. Meaning a completely different definition of fraud.

And explaining yet another very basic concept: in the USA, you, be you a person or a corporation, are innocent until found guilty in a court of law.

This is a bankruptcy. A company is going under. Its not a conspiracy. Other than to the creditors involved, its an everyday event.

 

[JLowder]

Actually, no. If it doesn't meet the court definition, it is simply speculation, delusion, or slander.

As we are not in a courtroom and no one is formally or even casually accusing Diamond of criminal malice, this is nonsense and just more straining to deflect any criticism of them. This is not the flex you seem to think it is.

The linked article quotes the complaint, which is also available online. They are being charged with fraud and deception. No one has declared them guilty, not even me--as you will see from the word "alleging" in my comment. It's part of your quote.

Thank you, though, for repeatedly reminding everyone Diamond should have been aware of the possibility of bankruptcy, as it shores up my comments noting how they acted in ways to maximize the damage to their business "partners" if this "everyday event" transpired. The Alliance Entertainment complaint covers some of their actions in the months leading up to their failure, so it's not like they did not know it was imminent. And yet they still acted in ways that maximized the damage to their business "partners." Doing so did not save them. It did, however, endanger companies that had worked with them for years.

 

[Jd Smith1]

As we are not in a courtroom and no one is formally or even casually accusing Diamond of criminal malice, this is nonsense and just more straining to deflect any criticism of them. This is not the flex you seem to think it is.

The linked article quotes the complaint, which is also available online. They are being charged with fraud and deception. No one has declared them guilty, not even me--as you will see from the word "alleging" in my comment. It's part of your quote.

Thank you, though, for repeatedly reminding everyone Diamond should have been aware of the possibility of bankruptcy, as it shores up my comments noting how they acted in ways to maximize the damage to their business "partners" if this "everyday event" transpired. The Alliance Entertainment complaint covers some of their actions in the months leading up to their failure, so it's not like they did not know it was imminent. And yet they still acted in ways that maximized the damage to their business "partners."

I'm not defending Diamond per se. I'm simply pointing out that you are taking very common, ordinary things, and trying to twist them into some sort of strange melodramatic conspiracy based on literally nothing.

 

[JLowder]

I'm not defending Diamond per se. I'm simply pointing out that you are taking very common, ordinary things, and trying to twist them into some sort of strange melodramatic conspiracy based on literally nothing.

The facts and your posts all say otherwise.

 

[Jd Smith1]

The facts and your posts all say otherwise.

Given that the process is still pending, there are no facts established yet, and no, my posts say nothing of the kind.

At this point, I'm going to accept that you are experiencing an entirely different event.

 

[mamba]

I say this because it would be wise to simply wait for the court to make its decision, and then decide whether or not DCD is completely in the wrong

they are completely in the wrong, regardless of what the court decides. The court does not decide right or wrong / ethical or not, it only decides whether it is legal or not. Those two are not necessarily the same.

Big business is much better protected than consumers or small businesses, unlike say Europe

 

[mamba]

When I look at the post from me you quoted, I am seeing the post I quoted and replied to. Not sure why you are not.

chances are the person you are replying to has them blocked or vice versa

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'm not defending Diamond per se. I'm simply pointing out that you are taking very common, ordinary things, and trying to twist them into some sort of strange melodramatic conspiracy based on literally nothing.

You certainly seem to be acting like a mouthpiece for Diamond, the receivers, or those creditors who stand to benefit. Can you clarify that you have no financial interest in this case?

 

[Swanosaurus]

Actually, no. If it doesn't meet the court definition, it is simply speculation, delusion, or slander.

this is ... absurd.

The word malicious has meaning beyond its legal definition. There's a difference between legal and legitimate. If there wasn't, criticism of existing law would be impossible, because there would be no ethical grounding for it. You have it absolutely, dangerously backward.

Of course I can call Diamond's actions malicious. If I do so, it's my personal moral judgement, not a legal one. But denying ourselves (or anyone) the right to make moral judgements independent from legal judgements would mean that we were forced to agree with each and every legal judgement ever made. Which is ridiculous.