I watched a video from a lawyer who was explaining some of the legal aspects of this debacle, and this one stuck out. Basically, if the Mansells had filed a form with the Oregon Secretary of State, they would have a much simpler claim. That form basically just says "X company is holding Y merchandise that is mine for consignment". Because they (likely) didn't do that, the process for determining their ownership may be more complicated in certain events, and closure of the store might be on that list. Reasons the new owners and BAM corporate are screwed: 1) they made statements during the seizure of the store that they are aware of the consignment and that will transfer to them 2) they were made aware of the consignment in writing by Mansell in a letter terminating the agreement and demanding return of the merchandise after a missed payment in Nov 2025 3) they sold a set from Mansell's collection after 1 & 2 to one of Mansell's confederates 4) they knowingly removed stickers placed on the collection by the previous store owner to identify it as part of the collection

Even if the consignment was undone, they don't get to just keep the collection. The agreement can almost certainly be terminated, but the collection would then be returned to Mansell.

I believe that's the one thing BAM refuses to acknowledge, they have no legal possesion of the lego sets, that's the beginning and end of it. They are trying their damnest to hide that fact behind a consignment/contract/franchise/corporate/arrests/heroin/lawsuit curtain of smoke.

> I'm not a lawyer but I don't see how the Mansells ever stopped owning the lego sets.

The store declares bankruptcy, and corporate is a prioritized creditor. From a certain view, based on the consignment contract means they wanted money, and I could see an argument that they're really owed $200k rather than the physical legos. Ie they're effectively just another creditor, and probably not a prioritized one.

"Ownership" gets very odd when you hand goods over to someone with the expectation that you'll never see those goods again, but will get money. It gets even weirder when that someone ceases to be a legal entity, and the goods are now in possession of someone you never had an agreement with. The store obviously has an obligation to hand over either money or the goods, but it's not clear that obligation is transient to anyone that ends up with the goods.

It goes more like:

"How did you acquire these sets?"

"We acquired them from the previous franchisee when we purchased the store. Here's the contract we signed to acquire the store and contents, here's the payment we made"

"Okay thanks that checks out"