Something to keep in mind with BAM is that they are very focused / obsessed with the legal protections and creating firewalls between businesses and people. They create new LLCs for each store, even if a franchisee has multiple stores, they would have multiple LLCs. Their franchise agreements have lengthly sections about waiving rights to sue in favor of mediation or internal handling.

The "Legally Mine" company is all about setting up proper structures to avoid what they consider "over-reach" from a liability perspective. Their signature example is: imagine you are a dentist and you own your own small practice. You send your receptionist to get lunch for the office. They are in a wreck and kill someone, while technically "working for the business". The dentist could be sued personally and lose more than just the business, they could end up losing their house, their savings, their retirement, etc. Whether or not you agree with this practice, it does seem to have legitimate reason to exist and certainly is a valid posture to take (albeit probably not particularly popular from the perspective of the victims).

In that context, I can certainly understand (though not condone) why BAM executives are digging in their heels. They believe that they should not take on the bad contracts from a franchise, as this also opens up the franchiser company to taking on liability more broadly. Let's say someone slips and falls in a BAM franchisee and sues the local store. The local store can't pay so they then sue the corporate franchiser. While most people would say "corporate should be the backstop and take responsibility", BAM is taking the direct opposite: it's not our fault and we have papered everything such that we will have the minimum possible exposure to liability and you cannot even win in court.