After consuming a lot of media around this, reading the former store owners' lawsuit filing, and discussing with a couple lawyers in my life, I think the business is in severe trouble. The decisions they make are that of a teetering company clawing to stay afloat. For example, the former owners' lawsuit says that BAM franchising let it's business registration lapse. Between that and the many many actions that indicate they don't have any lawyers in the loop at any step, I conclude that they must not be able to pay one.

Also, and I know it isn't incredibly rare, but it stuck out to me, the store was owned by corporate before it was sold to the then-manager (who is now suing corporate) for $65k, despite saying that it costs upward of $200k to start a franchise. I couldn't make the numbers make sense, personally. Why would they sell a corporate store for 1/3 of the value?

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.

Consignment never transfers ownership without payment.

The payment was never provided, so the ownership never transferred. It has always been with the original owner. This isnt complicated.

Oregon case law comes off looking terrible here. Who would want to do business in this environment?

In what way? It’s not a local concern that when you buy a business you get its obligations. That’s pretty common.

Their B2B goods exchange tax is 0.

That would be why.

Mormons who have Mormon friends in the judiciary.

Or they thought that the losses were acceptable to avoid having to make sworn statements about the series of events that are still at issue in the previous owner's case and some events that may very well still be charged by Oregon prosecutors.

So they chose to lose a case on merits related to the other case instead of making statements that would help (if they are in the right)?

That’s one possibility, yes.

Quantum physics guarantees us anything is a possibility. The question is, is it a likely one at all? And the overwhelmingly likely reasons are obvious to anyone with half a brain, given all the surrounding context here.

They didn't even lose any money, because by closing the store the damages were never paid.

It's really depressing to see to be honest.

While this is true at the moment, closing a store and transferring its assets to another store owned by the same people could reasonably be alleged to be fraudulent transfer. The owners don't just get to keep whatever was in the store because they closed it before they paid.

I believe they would need to dissolve the business entity. These default judgments against them should count as debt that needs to be paid before the business is closed unless they declare bankruptcy in court and not like Michael Scott.

I haven't watched this particular video, but I've read her 46 page suit. That's not the case that was lost. The case(s) that were lost are small claims actions made by the YouTuber and 9 of his friends, essentially. They got default judgments from the court on 10 claims each worth $10k. The previous owner's suit was just filed in March of this year, I believe.

Now as for the previous question of who was at the pointy end of those default judgments, I haven't been able to find that answer. I assume they should have named the local franchise as an entity and it's owners individually. Closing the store to avoid paying is arguably a fraudulent transfer of assets, but that would need to be taken to court in an enforcement action.

Oh yeah sorry, I misunderstood the suit the comment was referring to.

It is my understanding that BAM took direct ownership of the local store and therefore the small claims case was also directed against them, but at the moment I can't find where I've heard that so I'm not 100% sure.

According to the former store owner's lawsuit, and what comports with what I've seen in the original video, the store was seized by corporate and then sold quickly to the owners of the Eugene, OR BAM store.

There are questions of fact involved, and the judge empaneled the jury to resolve the factual dispute. In this case, when did the clock on SoL start ticking? Was it tolled for any amount of time to extend the date? Those are more than just counting 3 years on a calendar.

You didn't cite any to look at?

The article.

This is part of the value prop of TCGPlayer, which was bought by eBay. They're specifically a marketplace for trading cards. Like Amazon, sellers can keep their product and sell it through the site, they can ship their inventory to TCGPlayer to manage logistics, and TCGPlayer sells cards on their own.

This does happen. SAEs are reported in real time, and they do halt trials sometimes. Also, there is often a condition of approval that requires ongoing data collection for adverse events post-approval.

I can say in one role in my job, I'm getting a lot of use and I know my colleagues are at least trying a lot of things. One use is a first-pass review of animal care and use protocols. The Claude project was given all of the relevant policies and guidelines as well as a fairly long prompt that explains the things we look for in protocol review. It's checking some things that the software we use makes very tedious to check and raising inconsistencies between sections. Some places have a full time "protocol reader" who does this kind of first check, but we've never had that, so it's helpful.

Another project I'm seeing in the same realm is taking an approved protocol and some study results and checking that the records of what was done match what they said they could do in the approved protocol. It can also make sure that surgical records have all the things they should have. This can help meet one of the requirements from the national accreditation organization to do "post approval monitoring".

Another way I've used it is to have it collate and compare a particular kind of policy across many institutions who transparently put their policies online. Seeing the commonality between the policies and where some excel helped me rewrite our policy.

This is work that just wasn't happening before or, more accurately, it was being spread over lots of people, and any improvement in efficiency or consistency is hard to measure.

Claude, add a bit of whimsy to this design.