Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Sona Squares Off Against Franchisees
Sona Laser Centers and Sona MedSpas is locked in an increasingly bitter dispute with some of its original franchisees, involving not only typical franchise issues but also the franchisees' allegations that at least one of the services they offer to customers, a laser treatment for hair removal, does not work. While franchisees have received considerable favorable publicity in the fight to date, Sona executives say that the actions of the franchisees belie some of their complaints, and Sona remains committed to building a national chain of spas.
Among the challenges facing Sona are the following, according to Michael Garner of Dady & Garner, P.A. (Minneapolis), who is representing some of the franchisees:
- In April 2006, the state of Mary-land issued a cease-and-desist order against Sona, directing it to show cause why the company should not be permanently enjoined from selling franchises in Maryland;
- In February 2006, a federal court in Alexandria, VA, denied Sona's request to enforce its post-term non-competes against its breakaway Washington, DC-area developer. In denying the motion, the judge observed that on the record before him, the franchisee's proof of Sona's fraud, which he found 'arresting' and well documented, precluded Sona from showing a likelihood of 'success on the merits'; and
- Arbitration proceedings with three franchisees and court challenges with two other franchisees, in which Sona is seeking to enforce arbitration clauses. The challenges claim fraud and violation of franchise acts and RICO statutes.
The franchisees battling Sona are legacy operators that were in the system when Carousel Capital, a Charlotte, NC, investment firm, acquired it in 2004. 'It's a veiled attempt by some of the legacy franchisees to disenfranchise and not pay royalties,' said Heather Rose, CEO of Sona, in an interview with FBLA. 'We have successfully moved each case to arbitration so far, and we believe we will prevail in court.'
Sona's future looked bright 2 years ago, when Carousel purchased the small operation and announced dual goals of becoming the country's leading hair removal spa and expanding into related 'med spa' services such as laser skin rejuvenation. With Rose joined by her father, franchising veteran Jim Amos, former CEO of Mail Boxes, Etc., in the executive office, hopes were high that Sona could deliver on its commitment to become a 'household word.'
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?