San Fernando Valley Los Angeles Attorneys
Navigation Two
Phone Number

Entries in franchise agreement (6)

Thursday
Nov022017

Franchise 101: Arbitr-"all"; and 31 Flavors of Fees (or just one)

  

Franchise 101 News

bkurtz@lewitthackman.com
dgurnick@lewitthackman.com
tgrinblat@lewitthackman.com
swolf@lewitthackman.com
gwintner@lewitthackman.com
msoroky@lewitthackman.com



OCTOBER 2017

 

Franchise Distribution Attorneys

40th Annual ABA Forum on Franchising

 

Our Franchise & Distribution Practice Group, including three California Bar Certified Specialists (Barry Kurtz, Tal Grinblat and David Gurnick), three associates (Samuel C. Wolf, Matthew J. Soroky and Katherine L. Wallman), and four paralegals (Caitlyn Dillon, Marianne Toghia, Kelly D'Angelo and Peggy Karavanich [not depicted below]) attended the American Bar Association's Forum on Franchising in California's Palm Desert. This three day conference consists of educational programs and networking events designed to keep legal professionals up to date on the latest transaction and litigation concerns affecting both franchisor and franchisee clients.

David Gurnick in Corporate Counsel

When Uber acquired Otto, the autonomous vehicle program headed up by former Google engineer Anthony Levandowski, eyebrows were raised and a lawsuit was filed. Now, more questions come to the fore, this time regarding due diligence by Uber's chief legal officer. Read David Gurnick's quotes on this topic in:


Should Uber’s Salle Yoo Have Taken Earlier Look at Critical Due Diligence Report?

FRANCHISOR 101: Arbitr-“all”

 Conflicting Arbitration Clauses
A federal court in New Jersey granted a franchisor's motion to compel arbitration of disputes involving seven frozen yogurt franchises, even though the claims were subject to different arbitration provisions in different agreements, providing for different arbitral organizations and procedures.

An insolvent franchisee sought to liquidate assets. Each franchise agreement included arbitration and mediation clauses. The franchisee brought a claim against its franchisor for fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of the New Jersey franchise law. The franchisee argued the court should not compel arbitration because the various agreements' arbitration provisions had different language, were in conflict, and did not specify a uniform method of arbitration.

Two franchise agreements provided for arbitration according to rules of the American Arbitration Association. The other agreements called for arbitration with any reputable arbitration services, specifically noting CPR and JAMS.

The court found the various clauses did not require separate arbitrations. The court concluded that while the provisions differed on rules governing arbitration, the differences were minor and did not preclude compelling arbitration. The court also found that the parties could comply with all the provisions by, for example, retaining as arbitrator a neutral, former judge who was willing to proceed according to American Arbitration Association rules.

While speed, cost, and privacy may no longer be persuasive grounds to support inclusion of arbitration provisions in franchise agreements, arbitration often provides control over the location of the dispute, lowers the damages that can be recovered by franchisees, and limits the number of parties to the action. Franchisors often have a tactical advantage if the franchise agreement contains an arbitration provision, particularly in disputes against multi-unit franchisees that own units spread across different jurisdictions.

The nature and extent of these characteristics of arbitration usually advance the business and legal interests of the franchisor.

See Mitnick v. Yogurtland Franchising, Inc., 2017 WL 3503324 (D.N.J. Aug. 16, 2017).

FRANCHISEE 101:
Thirty-one Flavors of Fees (Or Just One)

Baskin-Robbins charges a dairy supplier a so-called "commercial factor" fee for the right to make and sell Baskin-Robbins proprietary ice cream to franchisees. The supplier's pricing to franchisees includes an amount equal to this fee. In Association of Independent BR Franchise Owners v. Baskin-Robbins Franchising, LLC, a franchisee association asked a federal court to rule this price component was an unauthorized fee. But the court ruled for Baskin-Robbins, holding that the charge to franchisees was permissible.

The court found that Baskin-Robbins franchisees pay a "price" for products they buy, not a "fee." Relying on dictionary definitions of "fee" and "price," and noting that Baskin-Robbins franchisees pay a single amount to the supplier for products, the court found that while the commercial factor was a fee the franchisor charged its supplier for the privilege of selling ice cream under Baskin-Robbins's name, the supplier simply charged franchisees for the products and that was not a fee.

The court also considered whether Baskin's franchise agreement prohibited the supplier from charging a pass-through cost to franchisees. The court found that the relevant provisions in the franchise agreement required franchisees to buy products from Baskin-Robbins' designated supplier, at the supplier's price. The court noted that pass-through costs and charges along the supply chain are standard industry practice. The court added that even if it found ambiguity in the franchise agreement, the parties' course of dealing showed that a supplier passing along its cost to franchisees was not prohibited. The franchisees paid for many years without objection and Baskin-Robbins disclosure document noted that the franchisor received revenue from franchisees' purchases of products from designated suppliers.

Some franchisors are creative in finding ways to collect monies from franchisees beyond straight royalties and advertising fees. Prospective franchisees should carefully review the disclosure document, talk with other franchisees and learn about practices in their system, to be informed about each source of revenue, and both direct and indirect charges, their franchisor imposes.

Read: Association of Independent BR Franchise Owners v. Baskin-Robbins Franchising, LLC

This communication published by Lewitt Hackman is intended as general information and may not be relied upon as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer based upon all the relevant facts and circumstances of a particular situation. Copyright Lewitt Hackman 2017. All Rights Reserved.

Friday
Mar242017

Franchisor 101: Ostensible Agency Victory; and Technical Disclosure Violations

Franchise 101 News

bkurtz@lewitthackman.com
dgurnick@lewitthackman.com
tgrinblat@lewitthackman.com
swolf@lewitthackman.com
gwintner@lewitthackman.com
msoroky@lewitthackman.com



March 2017

 

Tal Grinblat Recognized

Once again, Tal Grinblat will be named a 2017 Legal Eagle in franchising, by Franchise Times Magazine. He has been designated as such by his professional peers and the editorial board of the publication each year since 2014. The magazine will publish the list in April.

 

FRANCHISOR 101:
Ostensible Agency Victory

 

Franchise Lawyers

A California federal judge dealt a major blow to employees of a Bay Area McDonald's in their effort to hold the franchisor responsible for its franchisee's alleged failure to pay wages and provide meal and rest breaks. The ruling shut the door on the plaintiffs' argument that franchisor McDonald's could be liable for its franchisees' labor code violations based on an "ostensible agency" relationship.

In Salazar v. McDonald's Corp., the court previously concluded the franchisor was not liable as a joint employer with the franchisee or as the franchisee's principal under an "actual agency" rationale, and that the crew workers' remaining theory that the fast-food giant "ostensibly" controlled their wages was not amenable to class treatment.

With the workers' remaining theory against McDonald's disposed, franchisors who do not directly hire, fire or pay franchisee workers, or control their hours or working conditions, can take a cue from McDonald's to defeat similar "ostensible agency" claims.

In "ostensible agency," the alleged agent "appears" to a reasonable observer to be acting on behalf of a principal. This appearance alone is enough to create liability for the principal party, assuming it bears some responsibility for allowing the appearance to exist. Previously, the crew workers declared that it appeared to them that they and the franchisee worked for McDonald's, with the franchisee acting as McDonald's agent to employ them.

Under California law, an "employer" is one who "directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of any person." The employees argued that the clause "through an agent" was sufficient to render even McDonald's, which only appeared to act as a principal through a franchisee agent, an "employer".

However, the court ruled that the phrase "employs or exercises control over" indicated that to be an employer under California law, there must be actual control, not just the appearance of it.

The crew workers also contended that California wage laws broadly favor workers and that it would advance these goals to adopt their ostensible agency interpretation. The court rejected this argument because it would amount to rewriting the law. Moreover, the argument presumed that McDonald's could remedy the alleged wage violations, a claim the court rejected.

A prudent franchisor facing claims that it shorted a franchisee's employees' pay, rest and meal breaks can look to McDonald's for guidance when the employee asserts a belief that he or she was working for the franchisor.

Read: Salazar v. McDonald's Corp.

FRANCHISEE 101:
Technical Disclosure Violations

The consequences to an unwitting franchisor can be severe when it fails to provide disclosure documents required by franchise law. Most franchise laws provide for rescission of the franchise agreement, allowing the franchisee to "unwind the deal" by enabling it to recover all monies it paid in connection with the franchise sale.

But what if the violation was merely a "technical" one because the franchisee did not suffer damages from non-disclosure?

The Sixth Circuit court confronted this question in Lofgren v. Airtrona Canada. After affirming that a sanitation services franchisor violated the Michigan Franchise Investment Law ("MFIL") when it failed to provide a franchisee with a disclosure statement, the court confirmed that rescission of the franchise agreement was the proper remedy under MFIL for this disclosure violation.

Plaintiff Brian Lofgren purchased equipment for a vehicle-deodorizing and sanitizing business. After Lofgren's business was struggling, he sued the franchisor Airtrona Canada and its sales representative, alleging that he was entitled to rescission and restitution because their failure to provide the disclosure statement violated the MFIL. Upon the Court's finding that Logfren's agreement did establish a franchise, the sales representative argued that rescission was a proper remedy for a violation of the MFIL only when the violation directly causes financial losses.

In rejecting this argument, the Sixth Circuit quoted directly from the MFIL, which states that "[a] person who offers or sells a franchise in violation of [the MFIL's disclosure requirements] is liable to the person purchasing the franchise for damages or rescission." The court noted that, although the absence of a disclosure statement did not directly cause the franchisee's financial struggles, there was no requirement under the MFIL to establish causation; it merely says that rescission is permitted if the franchisor fails to provide the disclosure statement.

The court observed that lower courts may choose not to permit rescission if considerations of fairness are in the franchisor's favor, such as where the franchisor inadvertently provided disclosure a few days late. In this case, however, the franchisee met his franchise requirements and took no improper actions. As a result, Lofgren had the right to rescission and restitution for even a "technical" disclosure violation, without needing proof that the failure to supply a disclosure statement actually caused his losses.

If you are a franchisee looking to "unwind" your Franchise Agreement, consider whether the franchisor dotted all 'i's and crossed all 't's when you started the relationship. If not, there may be a law out there that will grant your wish.

Read: Lofgren v. Airtrona Canada, et. al.

This communication published by Lewitt Hackman is intended as general information and may not be relied upon as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer based upon all the relevant facts and circumstances of a particular situation. Copyright Lewitt Hackman 2017. All Rights Reserved.

Wednesday
Mar012017

Franchisor 101: Easier SBA Loan Approvals; and Perpetual Agreements

Franchise 101 News

bkurtz@lewitthackman.com
dgurnick@lewitthackman.com
tgrinblat@lewitthackman.com
swolf@lewitthackman.com
gwintner@lewitthackman.com
msoroky@lewitthackman.com



Los Angeles Franchise Lawyers

February 2017

 

Barry Kurtz in Practical Lawyer

"Is the business sustainable in the marketplace? Franchises built on fad products or services rarely survive. To be sustainable, the business concept should be unique enough to withstand competition..." Click to read: How to Lead Your Clients to the Purchase of a Franchise

Our Attorneys Recognized

Barry Kurtz, Tal Grinblat and David Gurnick were named 2017 SoCal Super Lawyers in the Franchise/Dealership category. Only 12 attorneys in the entire region were so named. All three are also Certified Specialists in Franchise & Distribution Law, as designated by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization -- less than 60 attorneys in the entire state share that distinction.

New Team Member!

We are pleased to announce that Matthew J. Soroky joined our Practice Group as an associate. He has nearly 10 years' experience in business litigation - and has devoted the last several years to franchise, distribution, licensing and intellectual property matters in both the transactional and litigation contexts. We look forward to introducing our clients to our newest team member. 

FRANCHISOR 101:
Simplification of SBA Loan Approvals

 

As independent small business operators, franchisees may qualify for business loans that are guaranteed by the Small Business Administration ("SBA loans"). However, the SBA considers certain types and levels of control exerted by franchisors over franchisees to create an "affiliation" between them, disqualifying controlled franchisees for the loans because the SBA does not consider them "independent."

Previously, a franchisor could draft an addendum to its Franchise Agreement to remove these controls and, after the addendum and Franchise Agreement were reviewed and approved annually by the SBA or an affiliate organization, franchisees signing the addendum could receive approval for SBA loans. This process was costly and time consuming.

However, as of January 1, 2017, the SBA simplified this process by prescribing a single form of addendum (the "SBA Addendum") that will make any Franchise Agreement kosher. Franchisors are now required to use these 2-page forms to qualify their franchisees for SBA loans, but now no review or approval by the SBA is needed.

SBA Addendums remain effective until either the underlying loan is paid off or the SBA no longer has any interest in the loan. In summary, the addendums modify Franchise Agreements as follows:

  • Change of Ownership: 1) The franchisor has no right of first refusal if the franchisee wants to transfer a partial interest in the franchise to a family member or one of the franchise's present owners. 2) The franchisor cannot unreasonably withhold consent to any proposed transfer. 3) After a transfer, the transferor cannot be held liable for the actions of the transferee.
  • Forced Sale of Assets: Upon the default or termination of a franchise: 1) If the franchisor exercises a right to force the franchisee to sell it the assets of the business but the parties cannot agree on a price, then the price will be determined by an appraiser appointed jointly by the parties. 2) If the franchisee owns the real estate where the franchise was located, then the franchisor cannot compel the franchisee to sell it the property, but rather only to lease it for fair market value for the remainder of the franchise's term.
  • Covenants: If a franchisee owns the real estate where the franchise is located, the franchisor cannot require the recording of any restrictions on the use of the property.
  • Employment: The franchisor may not directly hire or fire the franchisee's employees.

This simplification of obtaining approval for SBA loans will save the SBA time and money, while simultaneously allowing franchisors and franchisees to benefit from SBA loans.

Read: Notice from the SBA 

FRANCHISEE 101:
A Perpetual Franchise

When a franchisee "buys into" a franchise system by paying an "initial franchise fee," the franchisee is typically purchasing the right to use the franchisor's trademarks and business system for an initial term that lasts a certain number of years (usually between 5 and 20).

The franchisor may hope to continue its relationship with the franchisee far beyond this initial term, but nevertheless limits the term in this way so that it can periodically revise the details of the relationship with an updated agreement. The franchisee, by contrast, would understandably prefer that those details remain known and consistent as long as possible.

In H&R Block Tax Services, LLC v. Strauss, Strauss, an H&R Block franchisee, claimed that her Franchise Agreement was effectively "perpetual" and not subject to the kinds of revisions described above. The Franchise Agreement between stated that its term was 5 years and that, unless Strauss was in default, the Franchise Agreement would be "automatically renewed for successive Renewal Terms [of 5 years each]." Strauss operated for 30 years under this agreement until H&R Block told her that it would not renew, but invited Strauss to sign its "current form" of Franchise Agreement. Strauss claimed that the franchisor could not decline to renew the agreement and therefore had effectively just breached the agreement.

A federal court determined that relevant Missouri precedent required that "a contract which purports to run in perpetuity must be adamantly clear that this is the parties' intent." The language in the Franchise Agreement did not meet this standard, and therefore the court found that H&R Block was within its rights to decline to renew it perpetually.

A franchisee that is interested in a "perpetual" Franchise Agreement should be sure that the language in the agreement is explicit on the subject, and should consult with legal counsel before signing to verify that the language meets the standards of relevant state law.

Read: H&R Block Tax Services, LLC v. Strauss

This communication published by Lewitt Hackman is intended as general information and may not be relied upon as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer based upon all the relevant facts and circumstances of a particular situation. Copyright Lewitt Hackman 2017. All Rights Reserved.

Tuesday
Dec202016

Are Franchisees Your Employees?; and Locked In to One Approved Vendor

Franchise 101 News

bkurtz@lewitthackman.com
dgurnick@lewitthackman.com
tgrinblat@lewitthackman.com
swolf@lewitthackman.com
gwintner@lewitthackman.com

 

 

December 2016

 

Certified Franchise Executives

Barry Kurtz, Tal Grinblat and David Gurnick completed the experience, education and participation requirements to become Certified Franchise Executives under the auspices of the International Franchise Association (all three are already State Bar of California Certified Specialists). This distinction will be conferred on Barry, Tal and David at a ceremony at the International Franchise Association's annual convention in January, 2017. 

FRANCHISOR 101:
Are Franchisees Your Employees?

Prudent franchisors have been reducing their apparent control over franchisees' employees to reduce the risk of becoming joint employers of those employees. But could a franchisor's control over the franchisees themselves be used to prove that franchisees are the franchisor's employees?

In Matter of Baez, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that franchisees of Jan-Pro Cleaning Systems, a janitorial franchisor, were Jan-Pro's employees. The Board held Jan-Pro liable as an employer to pay unemployment insurance contributions on payments it made to franchisees.

A New York appeals court said the Board may find an employment relationship if "substantial evidence" shows that an alleged employer "exercises control over the results produced or the means used to achieve the results," and said that control over the means is the more important factor. The court found there was sufficient evidence that Jan-Pro exercised such control over franchisees.

This was because Jan-Pro:

(i) Assigned geographic territories to franchisees;

(ii) Required franchisees to be trained, which Jan-Pro paid for;

(iii) Required franchisees to operate according to Jan-Pro's procedures and standards, including using only pre-approved equipment and supplies;

(iv) Could claim ownership of concepts or techniques created by franchisees;

(v) Had a contractual non-compete provision against franchisees for 1 year after termination;

(vi) Helped resolve complaints between franchisees and their clients;

(vii) Had the right to discontinue franchisees' services to any of their clients;

(viii) Provided franchisees with a starter set of business cards bearing Jan-Pro's logo, and had to approve any franchisee-designed business cards before use; and

(ix) Had the sole right to bill and collect payments from franchisees' clients.

As a result, the court upheld the Board's ruling against Jan-Pro.

Experienced franchisors will recognize much of the court's assembled "evidence of control" as common features of franchise systems. But franchisors may distinguish themselves from Jan-Pro, and hopefully avoid the same fate, by:

A) avoiding, to the extent possible, inserting themselves between franchisees and their customers as Jan-Pro did in points (vi) through (ix) above; and

B) charging franchisees a distinct "initial training fee," instead of offering training "for free" as Jan-Pro did (point (ii) above).

The latter may be potent counter-evidence against a finding of employment because employees rarely pay their employers for the right to be trained.

See In the Matter of Baez, N.Y. Sup. Ct., App. Div., ¶15,878

 

FRANCHISEE 101:
Locked In to One Approved Vendor

Franchisors often require franchisees to purchase supplies, materials, or inventory only from suppliers the franchisor approved. But where franchisors see benefits of consolidating by requiring franchisees to participate in volume purchases and ensuring product quality and consistency, franchisees see potential conflicts of interest.

In Window World of Baton Rouge v. Window World, a vinyl window sales and installation franchise, the franchisees agreed to: "sell and install only and exclusively those products, goods, equipment, and parts from vendors approved by [Window World]." The agreements added that Window World would try to get the lowest possible wholesale pricing for franchisees. Window World did not collect royalties from franchisees. Instead it collected from vendors a percentage of the sales price of items sold to franchisees.

In 2007, Window World announced that Associated Materials (AM) would be the only approved supplier of windows. Franchisees sued under antitrust law, claiming Window World and AM had an illegal conspiracy to "lock them in", forcing them to buy inventory at higher prices than they could get from other suppliers or even than they could get from AM if they weren't franchisees. The alleged price inflation increased AM's profits and Window World's royalty collections.

The North Carolina court concluded the franchisees could pursue their antitrust claim if Window World conspired to manipulate the "market" so that franchisees were forced to pay artificially high prices. But in this case Window World was able to require franchisees to buy windows solely from AM not because of power over the market, but because the license agreements gave the franchisor the right to approve even only one supplier if it wished.

The agreements were clear, so when franchisees signed they had fair warning of the risks of buying a Window World franchise. Franchisees effectively purchased windows in a free market; before signing, they had freedom in the "market" to buy a different franchise in which the franchisor didn't have the right to designate a sole supplier. The court dismissed the claim.

Before buying a franchise, a potential franchisee should be sure to understand the scope of the franchisor's right to designate approved vendors. Ask other franchisees in the system if they get competitive prices from vendors. Check the franchise agreement for terms that may limit this freedom in the future. Make sure to understand how the franchisor gets its revenue. It may be illogical to expect to pay rock bottom prices for supplies if what the vendor charges must be enough to also provide revenue to the franchisor.

But don't automatically reject a franchise just because there is a single source of supply. A franchise brand's concentration and volume purchasing from a chosen supplier may have offsetting benefits that contribute to the success of the system and its franchisees.

See Window World of Baton Rouge v. Window World, N.C. Super. Ct., ¶15,880

This communication published by Lewitt Hackman is intended as general information and may not be relied upon as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer based upon all the relevant facts and circumstances of a particular situation. Copyright Lewitt Hackman 2016. All Rights Reserved.

Wednesday
May252016

States Protect Against Joint Employer Liability; and Combatting Franchisor's Harmful New Policies

Franchise 101 News

bkurtz@lewitthackman.com
dgurnick@lewitthackman.com
tgrinblat@lewitthackman.com
swolf@lewitthackman.com
gwintner@lewitthackman.com

 

May 2016

 

Franchise Lawyers

Barry Kurtz in The Business Journals

 

"...Is the business sustainable in the marketplace? To be sustainable, the business concept should be unique enough to withstand competition, and also...”

Click to read: Guidelines When Considering Buying a Franchise

IFA Legal Symposium

 

Barry Kurtz, David Gurnick and Tal Grinblat attended the International Franchise Association's 49th Annual Legal Symposium in Washington D.C. The conference provides an opportunity to gain insights into many of the legal challenges faced by franchisors around the world. This year's symposium featured Philip Miscimarra of the National Labor Relations Board, who spoke on the NLRB's recent decisions regarding joint employer liability.

 

FRANCHISOR 101:
State Bills re Franchisor Joint Employer Liability

With franchisors deeply concerned about joint liability for franchisee employees, more states are passing laws trying to prevent that from happening. Here are some states and measures that have passed:

Texas enacted Senate Bill 652, providing that: "[A] franchisor is not considered to be an employer of: (1) a franchisee; or (2) a franchisee's employees." 

Michigan passed House Bills 5070 - 5073, stating: "[A]s between a franchisee and franchisor, the franchisee is considered the sole employer of workers for whom the franchisee provides a benefit plan or pays wages." 

Utah passed House Bill 116, stating, "[A] franchisor is not considered to be an employer of: (i) a franchisee; or (ii) a franchisee's employee."  

Wisconsin enacted Act 203 stating: "[A] franchisor ... is not considered to be an employer of a franchisee ... or of an employee of a franchisee."

Indiana approved House Bill 1218, which provides: "a franchisor ... is not considered to be an employer or co-employer of: (1) a franchisee ... or (2) an employee of a franchisee." 

Georgia enacted Senate Bill 277, providing: "[N]either a franchisee nor a franchisee's employee shall be deemed to be an employee of the franchisor for any purpose."

The Virginia legislature attempted to pass House Bill 18, stating that "[N]either a franchisee nor a franchisee's employee shall be deemed to be an employee of the franchisee's franchisor." But, the governor vetoed the bill.

These state laws will not protect franchisors from all claims. For example, various claims based on federal law may not be affected. But passage shows which states are friendlier to franchises and want to retain and grow their franchise industries.

 

FRANCHISEE 101:
What to Do About Franchisor’s Harmful New Policies

Franchisees aren't always excited when their franchisor introduces a new policy. But if a new policy overreaches and might doom a franchisee's business, can it be stopped before it starts?

Automotive Technologies, Inc. ("ATI") is the franchisor of "Wireless Zone" stores. These stores sell Verizon Wireless cell phone products and services. The franchisor, ATI, received sales commissions from Verizon that it passed on to franchisees who made the sales. ATI also paid performance incentive payments ("PIPs") to franchisees when they sold certain phones. When ATI announced it would stop paying the PIPs or start taking a 5% royalty from commissions before passing them on, a group of franchisees sued. They claimed the new policy was a breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and unfair practice, and asked the court for a preliminary injunction to stop the new policy.

The court ruled that to immediately stop ATI from applying its plan, the franchisees had to show they would be irreparably harmed - that is, they would lose "substantially all of their businesses." Based on financial information from the franchisees, the court found they could suffer no more than a 2% loss of revenue from ATI's new policy, and were not at risk of losing their businesses. The court denied the preliminary injunction.

Franchisors and franchisees may disagree on what is best for a franchise system, and the wisdom of a particular course may be known only in time. The case shows that franchisees must meet a high bar before a court will cut off a proposed new policy implemented by the franchisor in good faith.

This communication published by Lewitt Hackman is intended as general information and may not be relied upon as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer based upon all the relevant facts and circumstances of a particular situation. Copyright Lewitt Hackman 2016. All Rights Reserved.

LEWITT HACKMAN | 16633 Ventura Boulevard, Eleventh Floor, Encino, California 91436-1865 | 818.990.2120