Salem Brick Trials
Blog archive

Featured entry

BAM Franchising, Inc. - 2026 FDD

A review of Brick's and Minifigs 2026 Franchise Disclosure Document. Generated by Claude + Gemini. I've personally (human) reviewed the cited items, but mistakes can still happen. After I have time to read through the entire 393 page document, I'll write a personal review.

Summary

The most serious issue is the FDD's own Special Risks disclosure: BAM's financial condition "calls into question the franchisor's financial ability to provide services and support you." That is not an outside analyst's opinion; it is BAM's own mandatory disclosure. The negative equity position, now at ($621K) and worsening every year, is the root cause.

The trademark position is alarming for a 224-location franchise system. "Bricks & Minifigs" only has supplemental register protection, which is weaker than principal register protection. Principal register applications were filed in July 2023 and are still pending more than three years later, leaving the brand's IP protection exposed.

The pipeline of 70 signed-but-unopened stores is also a significant contingent liability. It represents about $2.55M in deferred revenue that must either be earned through successful openings or potentially refunded if those stores do not open.

June 2026Salem Brick TrialsSource document

Major findings

Major

BAM's own FDD questions its financial ability to support franchisees

The Special Risks section explicitly states that the franchisor's financial condition "calls into question" its ability to provide services and support. This is a mandatory disclosure and directly reinforces the balance-sheet concern in the audited financials.

Major

Primary trademark is not on the principal register

"Bricks & Minifigs" has been on the supplemental register since 2012. The FDD says supplemental registration provides more limited protections and that a challenged user may be forced to switch brands. Principal-register applications were filed in July 2023 and remain pending.

Major

Negative stockholders' equity - ($621K)

Total liabilities of $6.69M exceed total assets of $6.07M. The deficit worsened from ($182K) in 2022 to ($621K) in 2025, and the company has not shown positive equity in the history presented.

Major

70 signed franchise agreements with stores not yet open

As of Dec. 31, 2025, 70 franchise agreements had been signed but not yet opened, with 83 projected new locations in 2026. The FDD flags this as a special risk and the deferred franchise revenue on the balance sheet magnifies the refund-risk if openings do not happen.

Significant findings

Significant

Mandatory minimum royalties regardless of sales

Royalties are 6% of gross revenue or $500 per month minimum, whichever is greater. The brand fund adds 1%, local marketing requires 3%, and a technology fund of up to 1% may be added. The FDD warns that inability to make the payments may result in termination.

Significant

All disputes must be resolved in Utah

Arbitration, mediation, and litigation are all required in Utah County, Utah under Utah law. For out-of-state buyers, that can raise the cost of any dispute and may reduce leverage in settlement discussions.

Significant

3-year post-termination non-compete

After the franchise ends, a former franchisee cannot compete within 25 miles of any company-owned or franchised location for 3 years. The agreement also restricts online e-commerce activity anywhere in the world for 3 years.

Significant

Total initial investment increased sharply

Earlier materials listed an investment range of $108,500 to $276,400. The 2026 FDD now discloses $303,500 to $597,500, more than doubling the high end and materially changing the capital required to enter the system.

Notable findings

Notable

Bottom quartile stores average only $293K revenue

The 4th quartile of 39 stores averaged $293,524 in 2025 revenue. With royalties, marketing, occupancy, staffing, and COGS, that level of revenue looks tight and may sit near breakeven or below it.

Notable

Gross margin data is incomplete

Item 19 gross margin tables cover only 104 of 153 qualifying stores because some locations did not report reliably. That leaves prospective franchise purchasers with an incomplete profitability picture.

Notable

Washington AG action over no-poach clauses

BAM entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance in 2019 over franchise no-poach provisions. The Washington Attorney General’s investigation found that BAM Franchising’s franchise agreements contained restrictive language that prevented individual store owners from soliciting or hiring workers from competing or neighboring Bricks & Minifigs franchises. Resolution: Under the AOD, BAM Franchising agreed to cease utilizing and enforcing these restrictive employment provisions across its network and to remove the no-poach language from all of its standard franchise agreements.

Notable

BAM is not contractually required to defend trademarks

Item 13 says BAM is not obligated under the franchise agreement to protect marks or defend franchisees against infringement claims. The company says it intends to do so as a matter of policy, but that is discretionary.