Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Conference Review: Implementation of FTC Franchise Rule Draws Significant Attention at IFA Legal Symposium
With optional use of the updated Franchise Rule coming on July 1, 2007, and mandatory use beginning on July 1, 2008, the broad outlines of the Rule are well understood in the franchise industry even at this early point. Yet, as franchise attorneys work with individual clients, they are finding unique circumstances under which the Rule's guidance is confusing or even contradictory, particularly during the one-year transition period. Thus, two panel discussions at the International Franchise Association ('IFA') Legal Symposium on May 6-8 in Washington, DC, were the ideal opportunities for attorneys to raise what-if questions with regulators and their fellow franchise attorneys.
Franchise attorneys who see the changes in the Franchise Rule as incremental are interpreting it correctly, said Stephen Toporoff, franchise program coordinator for the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. Speaking on both panels, Toporoff said the rule revision had four 'modest' goals:
- Reduce inconsistency between federal and state franchise laws;
- Reduce compliance costs for franchisors 'where warranted';
- Clarify for franchisees their relationships with franchisors; and
- Reflect technological innovation.
Consensus among panelists at the IFA Legal Symposium is that those goals were met, and compliance will become easier and less costly for franchisors as a result. 'The FTC did a great job assembling input from experts in the industry, representing franchisors and franchisees,' said Joel Buckberg, of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC (Nashville), a panelist at the conference. 'It's a dynamic marketplace, and franchisees are better educated and better able to negotiate in their interests ' and the FTC deserves credit for realizing it.'
'I don't see major changes for practitioners arising from the updated Franchise Rule,' said Rupert Barkoff, partner, Kilpatrick Stockton LLP (Atlanta). 'But it was a very important exercise [for the FTC] to sit down and review the Rule in light of changes in technology and the franchise industry.'
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.