I read the counterclaims from Bricks and Minifigs here:
https://bricksandminifigs.com/blog/blog/2026/05/28/bricks-mi...
This post and TFA have a common issue: no one seems to have a clear, compellingly evidenced account of basic questions about the collection and its history under consignment:
1. What exactly was in the collection?
2. What happened to the collection after it was consigned: which sets were sold, which were stolen or lost, which were moved to off-site storage, etc.?
3. How much money did the original franchise owner owe the consigner for the sets sold?
The peripheral claims about e.g. police malfeasance are disturbing, but without this basic evidence about the substance of the matter, I don't know if it's a great idea for an online mob to take sides.
One thing really stands out, which is that Bricks and Minifigs is pointing the finger at the franchisee for an "unauthorized" consignment deal. While the blog post has a screenshot of the contract specifically allowing consignments. Which undercuts a large part of the corporate argument.
Yeah, that's a glaring issue.
They say it was prohibited in the 2023 operating manual [1]. That's the same year as the franchise contract.
It'd be strange for B&M to lie about such an objectively falsifiable statement.
My best guess is that the franchise and operating manual were simply not in agreement.
(B&M wants to reject the consignment because they want the franchise operator to take liability for any missing or unreimbursed sales.)
[1] https://bricksandminifigs.com/blog/blog/2026/05/28/bricks-mi...
You're right that we don't have the facts. That said, the way that Bricks and Minifigs handled this has been horrible. The CEO should have said on camera that he's willing to work with the lego owner to return the property and to work with police to charge the former franchise owner with theft.
If you see this clip, this is when corporate was removing the previous franchisee https://youtu.be/wscQpkcwgNU?si=_k_EDfs4NmO5riB5&t=126
Have you seen the youtube videos? They paint a pretty clear picture.
[flagged]
You are more or less accusing a named individual of severe crimes without much to back it up.
Presumably the company's legal team felt the claims were so strong that they felt comfortable airing them publicly.