CONFIRMED REFUTED on its face
On June 29, Bricks & Minifigs issued a statement titled “Determined to Find Amicable Resolution with the Mansell Family.” We checked its claims against the two documents BAM cannot disown: its own 2026 Franchise Disclosure Document and the verified complaint it filed in court. Four of its central claims are contradicted on the face of those documents. Two are concessions that match what the record already showed. The rest is hedging. Every counter-point below carries the exact line or paragraph.
One note up front, in fairness: the statement is written almost entirely in qualifiers, “believes and alleges,” “apparently,” “seems to align,” “believed to have.” It is a legal filing in the shape of a press release, and we grade it as one.
“Consignment… is not part of the company’s business model, or authorized by the franchise agreements… expressly limited.”
BAM’s 2026 FDD, in the section of the franchise agreement that defines what a franchise does, states that a franchisee “may also offer: consignment services.” The flat claim that consignment “is not… authorized by the franchise agreements” is contradicted on the agreement’s face. BAM’s narrower gloss, that consignment is “expressly limited” to venue and event fees and “never extended to acquiring LEGO products,” appears nowhere in the FDD; the document lists “consignment services” with no such restriction. Whether the franchisor would have approved this arrangement is a fair question, the menu is offered “approved by us,” but “we never authorize consignment” is not what BAM’s own agreement says.
2026 FDD, Franchise Agreement, Item 1 Introduction, line 3738
“…triggered the company’s repossession pursuant to its security interest in any onsite inventory.”
BAM’s complaint does plead a security agreement with the franchisee, so grant the security interest for argument’s sake. A security interest reaches the borrower’s own collateral; it does not reach goods a third party owns. And the decisive document is one BAM attached to its own complaint: the consignment agreement states “Consigned merchandise shall remain the property of Mansell until sold.” A franchisee cannot pledge, and a franchisor cannot take under any security interest, goods the franchisee does not own. Whatever Law-Gorman owed, the collection was not hers to forfeit. For completeness, the FDD itself grants BAM no security interest in franchisee inventory and no “repossession” at all, the word appears zero times in its 17,292 lines; its only termination mechanism is a Section 15.E option to purchase the franchisee’s own assets, with title conveyed “free and clear of liens.”
Verified Complaint ¶ 27 (security agreement) Consignment Agreement (Compl. Ex. A) § IV 2026 FDD § 15.E, lines 6339–6346
“the new owners Brandon Best and Josh Johnson took over the Salem location, they discovered… a small number of Star Wars products.”
They are not independent outsiders. BAM’s own 2026 FDD lists “Josh Johnson” among “BAM Franchising, Inc.’s franchise sellers,” at the franchisor’s Provo headquarters, a person who sells the franchise on the company’s behalf. And BAM’s verified complaint pleads that “Brandon was engaged as a contracted inventory inspector for BAM” who “secured the location” at the November 14 repossession, after which he and Johnson “agreed to jointly do so and formed” the successor that took the store. The franchisor’s own recruiter and the franchisor’s own repossession inspector are the two men who ended up owning the store they cleared out.
2026 FDD, franchise-seller disclosure, lines 17215–17217 Verified Complaint ¶¶ 41–42
“more than 300 other independent and unrelated franchisees… an isolated… incident.”
Two claims here. On the number: the most recent count BAM has disclosed is its own Item 20, 217 franchised and 6 company-owned outlets at the end of 2025, 223 in total. BAM cites no source for “more than 300,” and its latest disclosure is 223. On “independent and unrelated,” the FDD refutes it directly: that same Item 20 footnote states the company-owned outlets “are owned and operated by entities in which one or more of our officers owns an interest,” and Item 2 discloses that Ammon and Matthew McNeff have co-owned Kragle, LLC, “our franchisee in Orem,” since 2017. At least one “franchisee” is the two top officers. Whether this is an “isolated” incident is also contested: terminated-and-sued franchisees recur across Oregon and Texas, and the owners themselves are now circulating a no-confidence petition.
2026 FDD Item 20, lines 3123–3136 Item 2, lines 484–494
“A so-called promotional higher value of $200,000… was apparently not a confirmed or appraised value.”
This is the conclusion the record reached and published long before this statement. The $200,000 traces to a November 2023 store promotion, not an appraisal, and the “BAM corporate stole $200,000” framing was corrected accordingly. BAM is now conceding it. We note it only because the company leaned on that number for months.
“point-of-sale data showing about $61,000… may have been sold from the collection prior to Nov. 14, 2024.”
True, and it always was. The point-of-sale log totals roughly $61,000, and BAM’s own complaint breaks the same data into about $46,000 and $12,600 of lot sales. Those sales ran before the repossession, under the franchisee, which is exactly why the record holds that most of the collection sold under Law-Gorman’s store, not in any “corporate theft.” What the same figure exposes is a gap: roughly $61,000 sold against the roughly $15,000 BAM believes Mansell was actually paid.
Verified Complaint ¶ 56
“in an apparent statement to Keizer police, Bryan Mansell is believed to have confirmed he received part of the collection back… in January 2025.”
Double-hedged, and unsupported. The only Keizer police matter in the file is a December 2024 / January 2025 theft complaint, not a record of a return, and the “Cloud City” sets BAM cites trace to a layaway, not a January handover. BAM is entitled to its belief; a belief about what someone told the police is not a fact until the police record or Mansell says so.
The fair counterpoint. BAM is not wrong about everything, and the honest version says so. The collection did largely sell before the repossession, under the franchisee’s own store, so the original “BAM corporate physically carried off a $200,000 collection” framing was overstated, and the record corrected it. The franchisee’s failure to pay Mansell what his consigned sets earned may be the single largest piece of the harm, and that is on the departed owner. BAM does now list Best as a franchisee and has, on paper, offered to return the remaining sets. None of that, though, answers its own documents: the franchisor’s recruiter and its repossession inspector ended up with the store, the consigned goods were never the franchisee’s to pledge, and the FDD authorizes the very consignment BAM now calls rogue. A statement about an “amicable resolution” that opens by re-litigating the family is, on its face, doing something else.
Sources: Bricks & Minifigs, “Determined to Find Amicable Resolution with Mansell Family” (June 29, 2026); BAM Franchising’s 2026 Franchise Disclosure Document (lines cited); BAM’s Verified Complaint, Bricks & Minifigs v. Schneider, No. 260402353 (paragraphs cited), and the Consignment Agreement attached to it as Exhibit A. The franchise mechanics are walked in The store and The law; BAM’s prior filings are checked in BAM’s own words.
The BAM Map is independent reporting on matters of public concern. Nothing here is a finding of any person’s guilt; the criminal charges referenced are unadjudicated and every defendant is presumed innocent. Sources are linked so readers can check the record. · Home · Map · The law · Bodycam