upvote

points

by crazygringo16 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby munk-a15 hours ago|
next
[-]
The store in question was a franchise so potentially the liability will be limited to just the assets of that franchise. But there's a lot of weird stuff here and it looks like the corporation may have (in a legally questionable manner) removed assets from the store to the corporation during proceedings to shield them.
reply
upvoteby alasdair_12 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
A representative of the corporation, while taking over the store, expressly states that the corporation is taking over the consignment agreement, on camera and with several witnesses.
reply
upvoteby gamblor95615 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Courts are allowed to pierce the corporate veil when that happens.
reply
upvoteby munk-a13 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
They absolutely are and a good lawyer, I'm sure, could audit the accounts and find some misdeeds - the issue is that the auditing and even getting access to those records in court is extremely expensive. To my knowledge there isn't a way to trigger that kind of a discovery in small claims so you need to go through the pricey legal system.

The money in question here is the proceeds from selling a collection valued at 200k - the recovery (unless you start to get into punitive territory) is likely to be rather meager... and it's a large risk so there may be few bites on firms willing to take it on purely commission.

reply
upvoteby swiftcoder7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> unless you start to get into punitive territory

Is there not potential grounds here for punitive damages? The false police reports and harassment seem egregious even by corporate standards.

And the corporation is valued at $400 million, so it's not like the pot isn't sweet enough

reply
upvoteby benmmurphy6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
In the UK you can make an order of information to compel directors of a company that is in debt to answer questions about company assets, accounts and records under oath. This can be done in County Court and my understanding it is inexpensive. I'm not sure how useful this is for carrying out an audit because I think its meant to be used for seeing if the debtor has the ability to pay. I think generally incorrect trading during an insolvency is meant to be discovered by the receivers during the insolvency process. Also, I'm not sure if there is an equivalent to an order of information in the US system.
reply
upvoteby 6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby whall613 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Seems like it would be hard to know which blue Lego was Bryan’s
reply
upvoteby barake13 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It was sealed sets, still NIB, not individual pieces. No one would bother selling $200k of loose bricks on consignment.
reply
upvoteby whall612 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Let me rephrase: “blue Lego set”
reply
upvoteby sgerenser2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Somewhere in one of the long videos, they mentioned that there were unique stickers on each of his items that he was selling on consignment. They had to have known which items were his.
reply
upvoteby throwawaysoxjje10 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
This is a collectible market so Lego sets aren’t fungible, so being unable to keep track of that sounds like negligence.
reply
upvoteby gblargg6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
*grey, since it was Star Wars
reply
upvoteby sleepybrett15 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
because, i assume, that they sued the salem location directly?
reply
upvoteby crazygringo15 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
They wouldn't make any sense, if the whole thing started because corporate took over control and ownership the location.
reply
upvoteby Electricniko13 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It sounds like corporate took away ownership and gave it to a new franchisee.
reply
upvoteby mcv5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The original franchisee claims to have lost their life savings in that move. I have no idea how exactly that happened. Their story really sounds like something from Russia back when western investors had their company simply taken from them by someone well-connected.
reply
upvoteby sgerenser2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It sounds like the original franchisee doesn’t want to admit that they were losing a lot of money already. Only someone really desperate would take on a $200K lego collection and only collect a 10% consignment fee. It would also explain the corporate “takeover” if they were already behind on paying their franchise fees or whatever they might have owed to corporate.

That being said, it’s not illegal to be a bad business person, and none of that excuses the subsequent behavior by BAM corporate or the new franchise owner.

reply
upvoteby plorg11 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
* The store's consignment fee was 35%

* They had sold about half of the consigned inventory

* The old franchise owner said they had a job offer outside the country

* Said franchise owner was current on a restructured fee schedule that, they allege, was the direct result of corporate bungling the transfer of accounts from the franchise owner previous to them

reply
upvoteby mcv2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
From what I understand, the original franchisee wanted to sell the store because they wanted to leave the US (for "political reasons"; I suspect they don't want to live in Trumpland anymore, but that's pure speculation). The way it appears, the moment they announced that desire to sell, B&M corporate showed up to take control of the shop. And the consignment.
reply