Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Too Little, Too Late: The Franchisee's Perspective on the Revised FTC Franchise Rule
The Federal Trade Commission ('FTC') labored a dozen years to revise its Franchise Rule ' only to give birth to a mouse.
The American Franchisee Association ('AFA') was actively involved in the Rule review process since its beginning in 1995. The AFA submitted written comments and participated in public workshops in both 1995 and 1996. In 1997, after the FTC published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ('ANPR'), the AFA submitted written comments again ' along with 70 franchisees representing 20 independent associations of franchisees. The AFA suggested that regional workshops be held in order that franchisees might be better able to have their comments included on the record. The FTC responded to the AFA's request and held six public workshop conferences in which the second day was an open forum in which the public was invited to express its views. Franchisees from another 15 independent franchisee associations, all members of the AFA, participated in these public conferences. After the ANPR workshops, the FTC published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ('NPR') in 1999 to which the AFA again submitted written comments.
By 2002, the AFA had convinced the U.S. House to hold a hearing on the enforcement of the FTC's Franchise Rule, 23 years after its promulgation (American Franchisee Association, Statement of Susan P. Kezios, president, before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, Committee on Energy and Commerce). In August 2004, the FTC issued its Staff Report on the Franchise Rule, to which the AFA again submitted written comments. All along the way, the AFA encouraged its Affiliate Members of the franchisee bar to participate in the Rule review process; a dozen franchisee law firms actually did so.
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.