Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
While the marital status of a franchisee may seem unimportant to most franchisors, with nearly 50% of all first marriages ending in divorce (and higher for second and subsequent marriages), it is inevitable that a franchisor will be asked at some point, on some level, to become involved in the divorce of a franchisee. Handling the issues that arise can ensure that the specific franchise unit(s) owned by the divorcing parties continue to thrive and that the brand is not damaged.
Discovery motions are typically the first area in which a franchisee's divorce will affect a franchisor. Divorce litigation involves discovering and obtaining many pieces of information regarding the assets, debts and income accumulated during a marriage. When the ownership and value of a franchise are involved in a divorce, the franchisor may be called upon for a variety of reasons, including producing information and documents associated with the franchise.
The franchisor can expect discovery will be issued in the form of a request for production of documents or a subpoena for deposition seeking, among other things, documentation about the franchise, including the following: the franchise agreement; royalty and revenue reports; the franchisee's income tax returns; profit-and-loss statements; balance sheets; leases associated with the franchise; customer complaint reports; the application to purchase the franchise (which might include a personal net worth statement from the franchisee); any promissory notes and guarantees signed by the franchisee; credit reports; criminal background investigations; and other personal information provided by the franchisee-owner concerning its prior employment and residential history. Generally, all of these documents are discoverable in a divorce action because they are used to decide the issues of equitable division or property, alimony and child support.
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 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.
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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
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.