business law
...now browsing by category
Friday, June 8th, 2012
It is common for companies to share confidential information with a third party in order to achieve an operational objective, where the third party may be a prospective joint venturer, an acquirer, an investor or even a client. Prior to disclosing such confidential information, however, these same companies usually require the execution of a confidentiality/non-disclosure agreement by the other party.
This blog has previously discussed issues surrounding confidentiality/non-disclosure agreements. Today’s topic however is specific: the time limits, if any, that should be considered in such agreements.
Most companies if given a choice would prefer to include in their NDA/confidentiality agreements a perpetual term, which essentially means that the confidential information can never be disclosed by the third party except in limited circumstances. Often times however, this desire is diluted in the course of negotiations, leading to a final agreement containing just a limited time for confidentiality, ie, for example, 2, 5 or even 10 years.
Unbeknownst to such parties, agreeing to this watered-down time limit may lead to substantial future risks with regard to confidential information. An example is the California case of Silicon Image, Inc. v. Analogk Semiconductor, Inc. In furtherance of its goal to protect its confidential information, Silicon Image took numerous prudent steps to protect its trade secrets, including: i) requiring its own employees, customers and business partners to sign confidentiality agreements; ii) maintaining a key card access system and by requiring visitors to sign in to protect its trade secrets; iii) protecting computer systems through network security and access control; iv) labeling confidential proprietary information and watermarking all information disclosed outside the company with the name of the individual receiving the information; and, v) providing training sessions to employees on its trade secret protection program.
Yet in spite of its strict adherence to the protection of its confidential information, Silicon Image decided to limit the term of its confidentiality agreements to a set number of years, instead of a perpetual term, due to the fact that that’s what other high-tech companies were doing, and due to the fact that many partners, investors and other third parties pushed back and refused to execute non-disclosure agreements containing a perpetual duration of confidentiality.
Despite its best practices described above, Silicon allowed itself to frequently enter into confidentiality agreements with terms of 2 to 4 years, which proved to be a serious error when the time came for Silicon to seek a preliminary injunction in California Court against a competitor it alleged misappropriated its confidential information.
In denying Silicon’s request for a preliminary injunction, the Court analyzed whether Silicon Image made reasonable efforts to protect its confidential information. One of the key factors the Court focused on was whether or not the non-disclosure agreements between Silicon Image and its customers and distributors provided adequate protection. Unfortunately for Silicon, the Court concluded that reasonable steps to protect trade secrets were not shown by Silicon, pointing particularly to the time limits included in its confidentiality agreements.
The Court held that “one who claims that he has a trade secret must exercise eternal vigilance,” requiring all persons to whom a trade secret becomes known to acknowledge and promise to respect the secrecy in a written agreement. A time limit contained in an NDA demonstrated to the Court that Silicon’s own expectations of maintaining its trade secrets were time limited and, thus, a failure to demonstrate “eternal vigilance” over its trade secrets.
As a result, Silicon lost a serious case in its attempt to protect its confidential information. The moral of this story is a simple one. Companies who include time limits in their confidentiality agreements do so at their peril. In order to avoid the Silicon Image outcome, it is prudent to stand firm and refuse to include a set time limit for the receiving party’s obligations to maintain the confidential information. The best practices are for the trade secret owner to insist that the obligation to maintain confidentiality survive as long as the information disclosed qualifies as a trade secret under the requirements of applicable law.
Posted in business law | No Responses »
Tags: biotech agreement, breach of contract case, breach of contract lawsuit, business breach of contract, business contract review, business law, business lawsuit, business litigation, business start up, CDA agreement, confidential information protection, confidentiality agreement, corporate litigation, covenant not to compete, joint venture agreements, maryland breach of contract, maryland business, maryland business law, NDA agreement, non disclosure agreement, non solicitation agreement, shareholder agreement, small business attorney, small business lawyer, term of confidentiality agreement, term of NDA, term of non disclosure agreement, trade secret protection
Wednesday, March 7th, 2012
N.Y. CLS Gen. Bus. Law § 684(3)(c) of the New York Franchise Act provides an exemption to franchisors from the general registration requirements of the Act for what is deemed an “isolated franchise sale.” Under this exemption, no franchisor is required to register its FDD/UFOC in New York where:
(1) “The transaction is pursuant to an offer directed by the franchisor to not more than two persons . . .
(2) if the franchisor does not grant the franchisee the right to offer franchises to others,
(3) a commission or other remuneration is not paid directly or indirectly for soliciting a prospective franchisee in this state, and
(4) the franchisor is domiciled in this state or has filed with the department of law its consent to service of process on the form prescribed by the department.” N.Y. CLS Gen. Bus. Law § 684(3)(c).
New York courts have interpreted § 684(3)(c) to mean in essence that the sale of the first franchise unit is exempt from registration if the unit was only offered to a maximum of two people (See BMW Co., Inc. et al. v Workbench Inc. et al. (No. 86 CIV 4200 1988 WL 45594 (S.D.N.Y. April 29, 1988); CCH Business Franchise Guide ¶ 9104, at 18,850).
This exemption is well settled law in New York: “This isolated franchise sale exemption is potentially useful for new U.S. franchisors or foreign franchisors that are new to the United States. It permits them to sell one franchise in New York without having to register a disclosure document with the state.” LJN, Law Journal Newsletters, Franchising Business & Law Alert, Volume 18, Number 4, January 2012, by George J. Eydt.
Further, in a recent New York case, Burgers Bar Five Towns, LLC v. Burger Holdings Corp., 897 N.Y.S. 2d 502 (2d Dep’t 2010), again upheld the existence of the isolated franchise sale exemption under § 684(3)(c) provided the franchisor is able to meet the four prongs of the statute. In reversing a summary judgment that had been entered by the trial court against a franchisor that had failed to register its UFOC/FDD, the appeals court stated that the matter be remanded back to the trial court to determine whether the franchisor indeed met the exemption factors. Further, the appeals court held that even if the exemption was not available, the franchisee had to prove that it sustained damages as a result of the failure to register and that the failure to register was willful.
There is some support for the proposition that not only does § 684(3)(c) exempt a franchisor from the registration requirement of the New York Franchise Act for the isolated franchise sale, the franchisor is also exempted from the disclosure requirements of the Act.
§ 683(8) of the New York Franchise Law provides that: “A franchise which is subject to registration under this article shall not be sold without first providing to the prospective franchisee, a copy of the offering prospectus, together with a copy of all proposed agreements relating to the sale of the franchise.”
No New York Court has yet delved this deeply into the disclosure exemption question. The few Courts that have addressed the issue, BMW Co., supra, The National Survival Game of New York, Inc., supra, and Burgers Bar Five Towns, LLC, supra., have either failed to examine the relationship between the two statutes, or resolved the merits of their cases on other grounds.
Nevertheless, a franchisor faced with a registration and disclosure violation in New York for an isolated franchise sale would be smart to argue that both registration and disclosure are exempted.
Posted in business law, franchise law | No Responses »
Tags: breach of contract lawsuit, business law, business lawsuit, business litigation, Buy a Franchise, buying a franchise, buying a franchised business, corporate litigation, federal franchise law, franchise agreement, franchise arbitration, franchise attorney, Franchise Disclosure Document, franchise dispute, franchise future royalties, franchise law, franchise lawyer, franchise litigation, franchise your business, FTC Franchise Rule, Isolated Sales Exemption, New York Franchise Act, New York Franchise Exemption, new york franchise registration, sell your franchised business, selling a franchise, small business attorney, small business lawyer
Wednesday, March 7th, 2012
To prevail on a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation in Maryland, a plaintiff must establish, by the heightened evidentiary standard of clear and convincing evidence:
“(1) that the defendant made a false representation to the plaintiff, (2) that its falsity was either known to the defendant or that the representation was made with reckless indifference as to its truth, (3) that the misrepresentation was made for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff, (4) that the plaintiff relied on the misrepresentation and had the right to rely on it, and (5) that the plaintiff suffered compensable injury resulting from the misrepresentation.” VF Corp. v. Wrexham Aviation Corp., 350 Md. 693, 703 (1998), quoting Nails v. S&R, 334 Md. 398, 415 (1994).
The defendant must actually be aware of the falsity, or atleast the potential for falsity. The requirement concerning knowledge of the falsity or reckless indifference as to the truth of the representation means either the defendant’s actual knowledge that the representation was false or the defendant’s awareness that he does not know whether the representation is true or false. Ellerin v. Fairfax Savings, 337 Md. at 231, 652 A.2d at 1124.
Negligence or misjudgment, “‘however gross,'” does not satisfy the knowledge element. Ellerin, 337 Md. at 232, 652 A.2d at 1125, quoting Cahill v. Applegarth, 98 Md. 493, 502, 56 A. 794, 796 (1904). See also VF Corporation and Blue Bell, Inc. v. Wrexham Aviation Corp., 350 Md. 693 (1998).
A defendant must have the intent, the scienter, to cheat another: “It is well recognized under Maryland law that an action for fraud cannot be supported … without any design to impose upon or cheat another.” VF Corp. v. Wrexham Aviation Corp., 350 Md. 693, 703 (1998).
The complaining party though, must have reasonably relied on the defendant’s representations. To determine whether one party’s reliance upon the allegedly fraudulent statements of another party is reasonable, a court looks to all the facts and circumstances present in the particular case. “In determining whether reliance is reasonable, a court is required to view the act in its setting….” Parker v. Columbia Bank, 91 Md. App. At 361-362.
The One of the most important circumstances in this regard is the plaintiff’s background and experience. For example, a complaining person who is knowledgeable in the commercial real estate realm could not be said to have reasonably relied on another’s false representations in that realm, as the complainant would have the requisite knowledge and resources to determine whether such statements were true in the first place.
Posted in business law, franchise law | No Responses »
Tags: breach of contract case, breach of contract lawsuit, buseness attorney, business breach of contract, business contract review, business formation, business incorporation, business law, business lawsuit, business lawyer, business litigation, business start up, Buy a Franchise, buying a franchise, buying a franchised business, corporate attorney, corporate formation, corporate lawyer, corporate litigation, federal franchise law, franchise agreement, franchise attorney, franchise lawyer, franchise litigation, fraud, fraud law in marylabd, fraud law in maryland, fraudulent misrepresentation, FTC Franchise Rule, limited liablity company, maryland breach of contract, maryland business, maryland business law, maryland fraud law, non solicitation agreement, shareholder agreement, small business attorney, small business lawyer
Wednesday, March 7th, 2012
Before transacting interstate or foreign business in Maryland, a foreign limited liability company (“LLC”) shall register to transact business with the State Department of Assessments and Taxation (“SDAT”) in accordance with Md. Corp. & Ass’ns. Code Ann. § 4A-1002:
“(a) Requirement. — Before doing any interstate, intrastate, or foreign business in this State, a foreign limited liability company shall register with the Department.”
Under § 4A-1002, a foreign LLC is required to complete an application setting forth, among other information, its name, state of organization, business purpose, and resident agent, and pay a filing fee to SDAT.
Md. Corp. & Ass’ns. Code Ann. § 4A-1007 states that any foreign limited liability company that fails to register with the SDAT in accordance with § 4A-1002 is barred from maintaining a lawsuit in any court of this State, as follows:
“(a) Barred from maintaining suit. — If a foreign limited liability company is doing or has done any intrastate, interstate, or foreign business in this State without complying with the requirements of this subtitle, the foreign limited liability company and any person claiming under it may not maintain suit in any court of this State, unless the limited liability company shows to the satisfaction of the court that:
(1) The foreign limited liability company or the person claiming under it has paid the penalty specified in subsection (d)(1) of this section; and
(2) (i) The foreign limited liability company or a successor to it has complied with the requirements of this title; or
(ii) The foreign limited liability company and any foreign limited liability company successor to it are no longer doing intrastate, interstate, or foreign business in this State.”
In essence, Md. Corp. & Ass’ns. Code Ann. § 4A-1007 bars a foreign LLC from acting as a plaintiff in any Maryland state or federal court if the LLC is doing or has done “any intrastate, interstate, or foreign business” in Maryland without registering or qualifying with SDAT.
Foreign corporations face nearly identical Maryland statutes. See Md. Corp. & Ass’ns. Code Ann. §§ 7-202, and 7-301, respectively.
The Maryland Court of Appeals stated the following in Yangming Marine Transport Corporation v. Revon Products U.S.A., Inc., 311 Md. 496 (1988):
“As pointed out above, under § 7-301, a foreign corporation that has not complied with § 7-202 or § 7-203 is barred from suing in Maryland if the corporation “is doing . . . any intrastate, interstate, or foreign business in this State.” …. Instead, we have held that § 7-301 embodies a test for determining whether a foreign corporation is “doing business” in Maryland. See G.E.M., Inc. v. Plough, Inc., 228 Md. 484, 486, 180 A.2d 478, 480 (1962). Under this test, § 7-301 bars an unqualified or unregistered foreign corporation from suing in Maryland courts only if the corporation is doing such a substantial amount of localized business in this State that the corporation could be deemed “present” here. See, e.g., S.A.S. Personnel Consult. v. Pat-Pan, 286 Md. 335, 339-340, 407 A.2d 1139, 1142 (1979); G.E.M., Inc. v. Plough Inc., supra, 228 Md. at 488-489, 180 A.2d at 480-481.
Posted in business law | No Responses »
Tags: arbitrate business disputes, arbitration award, breach of contract arbitration, breach of contract case, breach of contract lawsuit, business breach of contract, business contract review, business incorporation, business law, business lawsuit, business lawyer, business litigation, commercial arbitration, corporate agreement, corporate bylaws, corporate formation, corporate lawyer, corporate litigation, foreign corporation, foreign LLC, franchise litigation, limited liability company operating agreement, limited liablity company, litigate or arbitrate?, LLC, LLC transacting business in MD, maryland business, maryland business law, shareholder agreement, single member limited liability company, small business attorney, small business lawyer, transacting business in maryland
Wednesday, August 24th, 2011
The New York Franchise Law defines a franchise fee as any fee or charge that a franchisee or subfranchisor is required to pay or agrees to pay directly or indirectly for the right to enter into a business under a franchise agreement, or otherwise sell, resell or distribute goods, services, or franchises under such an agreement, including, but not limited to, any such payment for goods or services. The NY Franchise Law also contains several exclusions to the franchise fee definition, but no exemptions pertain to the purchase/sale of equipment. Rather, the exemptions to the NY law are nearly identical to the Maryland law.
The dollar threshold for a franchise fee under NY law is $500.
Like Maryland, the scope of the New York Franchise Law franchise fee definition is construed broadly. For example, a one-time fee or a monthly payment during a four-year period, which was characterized as a lease, was ruled a franchise fee.
Posted in business law, franchise law | No Responses »
Tags: Buy a Franchise, buying a franchise, buying a franchised business, federal franchise law, franchise, franchise agreement, franchise arbitration, franchise attorney, franchise concept, Franchise Disclosure Document, franchise dispute, franchise fraud, franchise future royalties, franchise law, franchise law firm, franchise lawyer, franchise litigation, franchise purchase, franchise renewal, franchise transfer, franchise your business, franchisor dispute, FTC Franchise Rule, maryland franchise disclosure, Maryland franchise registration, New York Franchise Act, new york franchise disclosure, new york franchise law, new york franchise registration, selling a franchise
Wednesday, August 24th, 2011
The Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law (“MD Franchise Law”), Section 14-201, defines a franchise as “an oral or written agreement in which: 1) a purchaser is granted the right to engage in the business of offering, selling or distributing goods or services under a marketing plan or system prescribed in substantial part by the franchisor; ii) the operation of the business under the marketing plan or system is associated substantially with the trademark, service mark, trade name, logotype, advertising or other commercial symbol that designates the franchisor or its affiliate; and iii) the purchaser must pay, directly or indirectly, a franchise fee.”
Section 14-201 of the MD Franchise Law goes on to define a franchise fee as a charge or payment that a franchisee or subfranchisor is required or agrees to pay for the right to enter into a business under a franchise agreement. The purchase of equipment is included in the definition of a franchise fee. Section 14-201 contains several exclusions from the definition of a franchise fee, but no exclusions for the purchase of equipment by a franchisee/licensee.
Many of the Maryland exclusions are limited to products-oriented licensors, as for the sale of goods at wholesale prices. Other exemptions are for the sale or lease of real property for use in the business, and any amounts paid for sales materials used in making sales, sold at no profit by the licensor. An additional exemption exists for the sale, at fair market value, of supplies or fixtures that are necessary in order to operate the business.
Section 14-203 of the MD Franchise Law sets the threshold amount for the franchise fee at any amount exceeding $100.
Posted in business law, franchise law | No Responses »
Tags: Buy a Franchise, buying a franchise, buying a franchised business, federal franchise law, franchise, franchise agreement, franchise arbitration, franchise attorney, Franchise Disclosure Document, franchise dispute, franchise fraud, franchise future royalties, franchise law, franchise law firm, franchise lawyer, franchise litigation, franchise purchase, franchise renewal, franchise transfer, franchise your business, franchising or licensing, FTC Franchise Rule, licensing v. franchising, maryland franchise disclosure, Maryland franchise law, Maryland franchise registration, maryland fraud law, New York Franchise Act, selling a franchise
Wednesday, August 24th, 2011
A licensing or other relationship where the trademark and system/significant control prongs of the FTC Franchise Rule are met is excluded from the scope of the franchise regulation if the total required payments by the franchisee before and during the 6-month period after the business opens do not exceed $500.
The required fee element captures all sources of revenue paid by a licensee to a licensor for the license. The element is deliberately expansive, encompassing lump sum, installment, fixed, fluctuating, up-front, and periodic payments for goods or services, however denominated, whether direct, indirect, hidden, or refundable.
To avoid the FTC Rule franchise fee requirement, it is possible for a licensor to defer required payments exceeding $500 for at least six months, and as a result, not be deemed a franchise under the FTC Rule and federal law. This remains true even if the licensee signs a nonnegotiable, secured promissory note (with no acceleration clause) promising to pay the money after six months.
The deferment option is not all-encompassing however. While the FTC Rule permits this deferment of payment option, this is applicable only in those states that do not have individual, state specific franchise laws, since in those states such license transactions are governed by the FTC Rule. There are upwards of 15 states across the country, including Maryland, Virginia, New York, California, and Illinois, which do have specific franchise laws, and which do not grant this deferment option. As a result, deferment is not an option in these states. Have your franchise attorney check the franchise law of each individual state before proceeding.
Posted in business law, franchise law | No Responses »
Tags: Buy a Franchise, buying a franchise, federal franchise law, franchise, franchise agreement, franchise arbitration, franchise attorney, Franchise Disclosure Document, franchise fee, franchise law, franchise law firm, franchise lawyer, franchise litigation, franchise renewal, franchise royalties, franchise transfer, franchise your business, franchisee, franchising or licensing, franchisor dispute, FTC Franchise Rule, licensing v. franchising, maryland franchise disclosure, Maryland franchise registration, maryland franchise registration and disclosure, maryland fraud law, new york franchise law, purchase a franchise, selling a franchise
Wednesday, August 24th, 2011
In addition to the trademark and system/significant control prongs of the FTC Franchise Rule, the FTC Rule requires as a third prong that the franchisee make a required payment or commit to make a required payment to the franchisor or the franchisor’s affiliate in order for a relationship to be deemed a franchise.
The term “required payment” is defined broadly by the FTC to mean: “all consideration that the franchisee must pay to the franchisor or an affiliate, either by contract or by practical necessity, as a condition of obtaining or commencing operation of the franchise.” 16 C.F.R. §436.1(s).
The definition of a required payment captures all sources of revenue that a franchisee must pay to a franchisor or its affiliate for the right to associate with the franchisor, market its goods or services, or begin operation of the business.
The FTC Franchise Rule Compliance Guide states that “required payments go beyond payment of a traditional initial franchise fee. Thus, even though a franchisee does not pay the franchisor or its affiliates an initial franchise fee, the fee element may still be satisfied. Specifically, payments of practical necessity also count toward the required payment element. A common example of a payment made by practical necessity is a charge for equipment or inventory that can only be obtained from the franchisor or its affiliate and no other source. Other required payments that will satisfy the third definitional element of a franchise include: (i) rent, (ii) advertising assistance, (iii) training, (iv) security deposits, (v) escrow deposits, (vi) non-refundable bookkeeping charges, (vii) promotional literature, (viii) equipment rental, and (ix) continuing royalties on sales.”
Courts throughout the country, both in interpreting the FTC Franchise Rule as well as various state franchise laws, have held that almost any payment made by a franchisee to the franchisor will satisfy the franchise fee element.
For example, a boat dealer’s extensive advertising and its required purchases of promotional materials from the franchisor satisfied the franchise fee requirement under the California Franchise Investment Act. Boat & Motor Mart v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc., Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) ¶8846 (9th Cir. 1987).
Similarly, a forklift dealer’s payments to a manufacturer for additional copies of a Parts and Repair Manual constituted a franchise fee under the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act. To-Am Equip. Co., Inc. v. Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Am., Inc., 953 F. Supp. 987 (N.D. Ill. 1997).
Finally, required payments for training or services made to the franchisor or its affiliate may satisfy the payment of a fee element. Metro All Snax v. All Snax, Inc. Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) ¶ 10,885 (D. Minn. 1996).
For further investigation of this issue, see also two separate FTC Opinions, FTC Informal Staff Advisory Opinion #00-2 dated January, 2000, as well as FTC Informal Staff Advisory Opinion #03-2 dated April, 2003, found on the FTC website. In both instances, the FTC did not focus on whether payments made by the licensee were up front initial fees or royalty payments, but whether any payment whatsoever was made by the licensee to the licensor.
Posted in business law, franchise law | No Responses »
Tags: Buy a Franchise, buying a franchise, federal franchise law, franchise agreement, franchise arbitration, franchise attorney, franchise concept, Franchise Disclosure Document, franchise dispute, franchise fee, franchise future royalties, franchise law, franchise law firm, franchise lawyer, franchise litigation, franchise purchase, franchise renewal, franchise royalties, franchise your business, franchising or licensing, franchisor, franchisor financial statements, FTC Franchise Rule, licensing v. franchising, maryland franchise disclosure, Maryland franchise law, Maryland franchise registration, maryland fraud law, new york franchise law, what is a franchise
Wednesday, August 17th, 2011
There are many reasons one can point to in order to explain how over the last several years arbitration has become less and less favored as a dispute resolution mechanism in the franchise arena. One of the mean reasons that the arbitration bubble has burst is due to a lack of a valid and fair appeals process. While it is common knowledge that a losing party in a state or federal court trial is permitted to appeal an unfavorable decision on a multitude of grounds, the same is hardly true in the arbitration process. Rather, it is extremely difficult for most losing parties in an arbitration matter to come close to meeting the rigid criteria for vacating an arbitration award.
For those arbitration matters resolved under the Federal Arbitration Act, the standard of review of an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act provides for only four specific grounds for vacating an arbitration award, as follows: i) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; ii) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them; iii) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy, or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or, iv) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made. In addition, most state arbitration statutes mirror the FAA in this area.
As a result of the rigid four categories stated above, it is extremely difficult to overturn an arbitration award except in the most egregious circumstances. A court is prohibited from vacating an arbitration award regardless of how vociferously the court may disagree with the reasoning behind the arbitrator’s decision. Rather, parties that have been successful in appealing an arbitration award have for the most part been able to provide evidence to the court that either the arbitration committed fraud, misconduct or was biased, or the party has been able to prove that a procedural defect was committed thereby severely prejudging a party to the point the party was denied its fundamental rights of due process.
Unless an aggrieved party can show documented evidence in one of these two areas, a court is extremely unlikely to grant a motion to vacate an arbitration award. It is for this reason, and others, that many franchisors in a variety of industries have turned away from arbitration and instead prefer to have their disputes heard by a state or federal court judge.
Posted in business law, franchise law | No Responses »
Tags: Buy a Franchise, federal franchise law, franchise agreement, franchise arbitration, franchise attorney, Franchise Disclosure Document, franchise dispute, franchise law, franchise litigation, franchise purchase, franchise renewal, franchise your business, franchisee, FTC Franchise Rule, maryland franchise disclosure, Maryland franchise law, maryland franchise registration and disclosure, selling a franchise
Thursday, April 28th, 2011
An existing franchisee that sells his or her franchised business directly to a third party, without any significant contact with the franchisor does not need to abide by the federal franchise disclosure law, or any state franchise registration or disclosure law.
The FTC Franchise Rule states, directly from the FTC website found at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/franchise/bus70.pdf.
“Even if the franchisor has, and exercises, the right to approve or disapprove a subsequent sale (transfer) of a franchised unit, the transferee will not be entitled to receive disclosures unless the franchisor plays some more significant role in the sale. For example, if the franchisor provides financial performance information to the prospective transferee, the franchisor would be required to provide the transferee with its disclosure document.”
Likewise, in the case of an existing franchisee that purchases one or more additional outlets from the same franchisor for the same brand, the franchisor is not required to provide a disclosure document to such a franchisee exercising a right under the franchise agreement to establish any new outlets.
Finally, the franchisor is not required to provide a disclosure document to a franchisee who chooses to keep its existing outlet post-term either by extending its present franchise agreement or by entering into a new agreement, unless the new relationship is under terms and conditions materially different from the present agreement. In the case of a materially different franchise agreement, the franchisor must abide by state and federal franchise registration and disclosure laws.
Posted in business law, franchise law | No Responses »
Tags: Buy a Franchise, buying a franchise, buying a franchised business, franchise, franchise agreement, franchise assignment, Franchise Disclosure Document, franchise dispute, franchise fraud, franchise law, franchise litigation, franchise purchase, franchise renewal, franchise transfer, franchise your business, FTC Franchise Rule, maryland franchise disclosure, maryland franchise registration and disclosure, purchase a franchise, sell your franchised business, selling a franchise
Raymond McKenzie is a corporate and franchise attorney in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.
Subscribe in an RSS reader
