Maryland franchise law

...now browsing by tag

 
breach of contract case breach of contract lawsuit business breach of contract business contract review business formation business incorporation business law business lawsuit business litigation business start up Buy a Franchise buying a franchise buying a franchised business confidentiality agreement corporate bylaws corporate formation corporate litigation corporate start up covenant not to compete federal franchise law franchise agreement franchise arbitration franchise attorney Franchise Disclosure Document franchise dispute franchisee franchise future royalties franchise law franchise law firm franchise lawyer franchise litigation franchise your business FTC Franchise Rule limited liablity company maryland breach of contract maryland business maryland business law Maryland franchise registration non solicitation agreement operating agreement selling a franchise sell your franchised business shareholder agreement small business attorney small business lawyer
 

FDD – Sample Franchise Disclosure Questionnaire

Friday, October 26th, 2018

Below is a sample franchisee questionnaire that I recommend be included as an exhibit in each FDD I prepare.   In the event of a problem with the franchisee in the future, it is a powerful document for a franchisor to have, where the franchisee essentially stated at the time of sale that everything told by the franchisor to the franchisee during the sales process was included in the FDD.  In other words, no oral promises, representations or statements were made by the franchisor that did not mirror the FDD.

[SAMPLE]

FRANCHISEE DISCLOSURE QUESTIONNAIRE

As you know, _____________ “Franchisor” and you are preparing to enter into a Franchise Agreement for the operation of a Franchised Business. In this Franchisee Disclosure Questionnaire, Franchisor will be referred to as “we” or “us.”  The purpose of this Questionnaire is to determine whether any statements or promises were made to you that we did not authorize and that may be untrue, inaccurate or misleading.  Please review each of the following questions carefully and provide honest and complete responses to each question.

1.  Have you received and personally reviewed the Franchisor’s Franchise Agreement and each exhibit, addendum and schedule attached to it?

Yes        No

2.  Do you understand all of the information contained in the Franchise Agreement and each exhibit and schedule attached to it?

Yes        No

If “No”, what parts of the Franchise Agreement do you not understand?  (Attach additional pages, if necessary.)

3.  Have you received and personally reviewed our Franchise Disclosure Document we provided to you?

Yes        No

4.  Do you understand all of the information contained in the Franchise Disclosure Document?

Yes        No

If “No”, what parts of the Franchise Disclosure Document do you not understand?  (Attach additional pages, if necessary.)

5.  Have you discussed the benefits and risks of operating a Franchised Business with an attorney, accountant or other professional advisor and do you understand those risks?

Yes        No

6.  Do you understand that the success or failure of your business will depend in large part upon your skills and abilities, competition from other businesses, interest rates, inflation, labor and supply costs, lease terms and other economic and business factors?

Yes        No

7.  Has any employee or other person speaking on our behalf made any statement or promise concerning the revenues, profits or operating costs of a Franchised Business that we or our franchisees operate?

Yes        No

8.  Has any employee or other person speaking on our behalf made any statement or promise concerning a Franchised Business that is contrary to, or different from, the information contained in the Franchise Disclosure Document?

Yes        No

9.  Has any employee or other person speaking on our behalf made any statement or promise concerning the likelihood of success that you should or might expect to achieve from operating a Franchised Business?

Yes        No

10.  Has any employee or other person speaking on our behalf made any statement, promise or agreement concerning the advertising, marketing, training, support service or assistance that we will furnish to you that is contrary to, or different from, the information contained in the Franchise Disclosure Document?

Yes        No

11.  If you have answered “Yes” to any of questions seven (7) through ten (10), please provide a full explanation of your answer in the following blank lines.  (Attach additional pages, if necessary, and refer to them below.)  If you have answered “No” to each of such questions, please leave the following lines blank.

12.  Do you understand that in all dealings with you, our officers, directors, employees and agents act only in a representative capacity and not in an individual capacity and such dealings are solely between you and us?

Yes        No

 

Posted in franchise law | No Responses »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Mandatory Maryland Franchise Agreement Amendment

Friday, October 26th, 2018

Pursuant to the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law, below are the mandatory amendments that must be made to a franchise agreement contained in a Franchise Disclosure Document attempting to be registered in the state of Maryland.  There are additional changes that must also be made to the disclosure portion of the Franchise Disclosure Document.

Maryland Franchise Agreement Amendment

In recognition of the requirements of the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law, the parties to the attached Franchise Agreement (the “Agreement”) agree as follows:

1.     “execute a general release, in a form prescribed by Franchisor, of any and all claims against Franchisor and its subsidiaries and affiliates, and their respective officers, directors, agents, and employees.  Notwithstanding the above, pursuant to COMAR 02.02.08.16L, the general release required as a condition of renewal, sale, and/or assignment/transfer shall not apply to any liability under the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law.”

2.     “the Franchisee’s execution of a general release of the Franchisor, in a form satisfactory to Franchisor, of any and all claims against Franchisor and its affiliates, successors, and assigns, and their respective directors, officers, shareholders, partners, agents, representatives, servants, and employees in their corporate and individual capacities, including, without limitation, claims arising under this Agreement, any other agreement between Franchisee and Franchisor or its affiliates, and federal, state, and local laws and rules.  Notwithstanding the above, pursuant to COMAR 02.02.08.16L, the general release required as a condition of renewal, sale, and/or assignment/transfer shall not apply to any liability under the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law.”

3.     “Notwithstanding the above, the provision in the Franchise Agreement which provides for termination upon bankruptcy of the franchisee may not be enforceable under federal bankruptcy law (11 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq.).”

4.     “Notwithstanding the above, the parties agree that only with respect to claims arising under the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law, Franchisee may bring such claims in any federal or state court in the state of Maryland.”

5.      “Limitations of Claims.  ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AND ACTIONS ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT, THE RELATIONSHIP OF FRANCHISEE AND FRANCHISOR, OR FRANCHISEE’S OPERATION OF THE FRANCHISED BUSINESS, INCLUDING ANY PROCEEDING, OR ANY CLAIM IN ANY PROCEEDING (INCLUDING ANY DEFENSES AND ANY CLAIMS OF SET-OFF OR RECOUPMENT), MUST BE BROUGHT OR ASSERTED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE EARLIER OF (A) THE TIME PERIOD FROM BRINGING AN ACTION UNDER ANY APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; (B) ONE (1) YEAR FROM THE DATE UPON WHICH A PARTY DISCOVERED, OR SHOULD HAVE DISCOVERED, THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO AN ALLEGED CLAIM; OR (C) TWO (2) YEARS AFTER THE FIRST ACT OR OMISSION GIVING RISE TO AN ALLEGED CLAIM; OR IT IS EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED BY ALL PARTIES THAT SUCH CLAIMS OR ACTIONS SHALL BE IRREVOCABLY BARRED; EXCEPT THAT ANY AND ALL CLAIMS ARISING UNDER THE MARYLAND FRANCHISE REGISTRATION AND DISCLOSURE LAW (MD. CODE BUS. REG. §§ 14-201 THROUGH 14-233) SHALL BE COMMENCED WITHIN THREE (3) YEARS FROM THE GRANT OF THE FRANCHISE. CLAIMS OF FRANCHISOR ATTRIBUTABLE TO UNDERREPORTING OF SALES, AND CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES FOR FAILURE TO PAY MONIES OWED AND/OR INDEMNIFICATION SHALL BE SUBJECT ONLY TO THE APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.”

6.     “No Waiver.  The foregoing acknowledgments are not intended to nor shall they act as a release, estoppel or waiver of any liability incurred under the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law.”

7.     Each provision of this amendment shall be effective only to the extent, with respect to such provision, that the jurisdictional requirements of the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law are met independently without reference to this amendment.

Posted in franchise law | No Responses »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Definition of “Franchise Fee” Under the Maryland Franchise Law

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Definition of “Franchise Fee” Is Extremely Broad Under the FTC Franchise Rule

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Vacating an Arbitration Award

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Types of Relationships Covered by Federal and State Franchise Laws. [Part 3]

Thursday, April 28th, 2011

The Payment Requirement.

 The last of the three definitional elements of a franchise covered by the FTC Franchise Rule is that purchasers of the business arrangement must be required to pay to the franchisor as a condition of obtaining a franchise or starting operations, a sum of at least $500 at any time prior to or within the first six months of the commencement of operations of the franchised business.

 Here is what the FTC Franchise Rule states on the “Required Payment” element, directly from the FTC website at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/franchise/bus70.pdf. 

As to what constitutes a payment, the term “payment” is intended to be read broadly, “capturing 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, and begin operation of the business. Often, required payments go beyond a simple franchisee fee, entailing other payments that the franchisee must pay to the franchisor or an affiliate by contract – including the franchise agreement or any companion contract. Required payments may include: initial franchise fee, rent, advertising assistance, equipment and supplies (including such purchases from third parties if the franchisor or its affiliate receives payment as a result of the purchase), training, security deposits, escrow deposits, non-refundable bookkeeping charges, promotional literature, equipment rental and continuing royalties on sales.  Payments which, by practical necessity, a franchisee must make to the franchisor or affiliate also count toward the required payment. A common example of a payment made by practical necessity is a charge for equipment that can only be obtained from the franchisor or its affiliate and no other source.”

Posted in business law, franchise law | No Responses »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Types of Relationships Covered by Federal and State Franchise Laws. [Part 2]

Thursday, April 28th, 2011

Here is what the FTC Franchise Rule states on the “Significant Control or Assistance” element, directly from the FTC website at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/franchise/bus70.pdf. 

“The FTC Franchise Rule covers business arrangements where the franchisor will exert or has the authority to exert a significant degree of control over the franchisee’s method of operation, or provide significant assistance in the franchisee’s method of operation.”

 The relevant question is when does such control become significant.  “The more franchisees reasonably rely upon the franchisor’s control or assistance, the more likely the control or assistance will be considered “significant.” Franchisees’ reliance is likely to be great when they are relatively inexperienced in the business being offered for sale or when they undertake a large financial risk. Similarly, franchisees are likely to reasonably rely on the franchisor’s control or assistance if the control or assistance is unique to that specific franchisor, as opposed to a typical practice employed by all businesses in the same industry.

 Further, to be deemed “significant,” the control or assistance must relate to the franchisee’s overall method of operation – not a small part of the franchisee’s business. Control or assistance involving the sale of a specific product that has, at most, a marginal effect on a franchisee’s method of operating the overall business will not be considered in determining whether control or assistance is “significant.”

 For the sake of the Rule, significant types of control include: site approval for unestablished businesses, site design or appearance requirements, hours of operation, production techniques, accounting practices, personnel policies, promotional campaigns requiring franchisee participation or financial contribution, restrictions on customers, and locale or area of operation.

 Significant types of assistance include: formal sales, repair, or business training programs, establishing accounting systems, furnishing management, marketing, or personnel advice, selecting site locations, furnishing systemwide networks and website, and furnishing a detailed operating manual.

 The following activities will not constitute significant control or assistance:  promotional activities, in the absence of additional forms of assistance, (this includes furnishing a distributor with point-of sale advertising displays, sales kits, product samples, and other promotional materials intended to help the distributor in making sales. It also includes providing advertising in such media as radio and television, whether provided solely by the franchisor or on a cooperative basis with franchisees;), trademark controls designed solely to protect the trademark owner’s legal ownership rights in the mark under state or federal trademark laws (such as display of the mark or right of inspection), health or safety restrictions required by federal or state law or regulations, agreements between a bank credit interchange organization and retailers or member banks for the provision of credit cards or credit services, and assisting distributors in obtaining financing to be able to transact business.”

Posted in business law, franchise law | No Responses »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

New York Franchise Act Inapplicable Where Franchisee Resides Outside New York

Wednesday, January 5th, 2011

In the recent case of JM Vidal, Inc. v. Texdis USA, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93564 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), the New York District Court held that the New York Franchise Sales Act is inapplicable to the sale of franchises by a franchisor based in New York where the franchisee resides outside of New York and the franchised business is based outside of New York. In Vidal, a franchisee located in Washington State brought an action against a franchisor that was incorporated in Delaware and maintained its principal place of business in New York.

The franchisee alleged that the franchisor violated the New York Act by: (i) selling a franchise before it registered the UFOC; (ii) failing to timely deliver the UFOC at or before the initial meeting; and (iii) misrepresenting the estimated future earnings of the franchised unit, among other claims.

The Court dismissed the franchisee’s New York Act claim by holding that the New York Act is inapplicable and unavailable in an action by an out of state franchisee in a claim against a New York-based franchisor. The Court determined that the principal place of business of the franchisee is the essential element in the analysis – so that if the franchisee is not based in New York, then the New York Act is not applicable.

In making this determination, the Court relied on previous New York decisions, including Century Pac, Inc. v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6904 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2004) and Mon-Shore Mgmt., Inc. v. Family Media, Inc., 584 F. Supp. 186 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). Vidal stated that “only the franchisee’s domicile matters for the purposes of determining whether the statute applies.”

This case should be reviewed carefully by Maryland franchisors and franchisees, and their lawyers, since the specific jurisdictional language of the New York Franchise Act that was at issue in this case is nearly identical to that contained in the Maryland Franchise Act.

Posted in business law, franchise law | No Responses »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,