Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
As a lawyer exclusively representing franchisees, the types of claims that I see are numerous and varied. Anything from a franchisor’s failure to approve a transfer, to a threatened termination, to failure to support the franchise in a way the franchisee is expecting (which happens a lot) — the calls I receive keep my job interesting. However, the call that I and my colleagues get most frequently relates to fraud; someone somewhere oversold the franchise opportunity, typically in multiple ways.
Unlike the sale of a typical business, someone who is selling a franchise is really selling the use of a trademark and particularized systems. Finding the location, building the unit, and operating the business are all left up to the franchisee. Because the franchisee bears nearly the entirety of the financial risk, government regulation, at both the state and federal level, focuses primarily on attempting to prevent fraud in the sale of franchises by requiring robust disclosure of the franchise opportunity.
Unsurprisingly, the primary question franchisees want answered is “after I have paid to get into this business, how much money can I make?” To help answer this question, one of the federally required disclosures, known as Item 19, prevents a franchisor from making financial performance representations outside of the disclosure document (the FDD) or that are in any manner inconsistent with what is contained within the FDD. In other words, you can tell someone that the average franchisee makes a certain amount per year, but you need the data that establishes that to be true; you cannot cherry-pick the data to drive up the number, and if you say it in your marketing materials, those numbers need to appear in your FDD as well.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.