Source: https://franbuslaw.com/blog/tag/contracts/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:08:03+00:00

Document:
A covenant not to compete is typically included in a franchise agreement to ensure that customer goodwill, once developed in the name of franchise, is not destroyed by former franchisees. The ultimate weapon for a franchisor to enforce a covenant not to compete is obtaining a preliminary injunction against the former franchisee. However, many courts place a heavy burden on the franchisor to prove that a preliminary injunction is proper. The recent case of Colorado Security Consultants, LLC v. Signal 88 Franchise Group, decided in March 2017 by the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, illustrates how difficult that burden can be to meet under unfavorable facts.
Colorado Security Consultants, LLC (CSC), had a three year franchise agreement with franchisor, Signal 88 Franchise Group, Inc., to provide on-site security guard services within a territory in Colorado Springs. CSC also had a right of first refusal over additional franchises to be added within a radius of Colorado Springs. At the end of the initial term, the franchisor and franchisee continued the franchise agreement on a month-to-month basis, subject to 30-day notice of termination. Signal 88 informed CSC that another person, Rebecca Resendes, wished to enter into a franchise agreement for a territory in the right of first refusal area where CSC had developed contracts with some customers. Resendes and CSC negotiated for several months over her either purchasing CSC’s franchise or compensating CSC for customers it had developed in her contemplated territory. When no agreement was reached Resendes signed a direct franchise agreement with Signal 88. After additional negotiations between CSC and Resendes failed, Signal 88 told CSC that it had to stop serving customers in Resendes’ territory and then terminated CSC’s franchise entirely. CSC began providing security services under the name “Guardhail”, and then Signal 88 sued CSC for violation of the 2 year post termination non-compete and sought an injunction to stop it from providing any security services.
To obtain an injunction Signal 88 had to demonstrate the following: (a) without an injunction it would suffer irreparable harm greater than the harm the franchisee would suffer from its issuance; (b) it had more than 50% likelihood of demonstrating violation of an enforceable non-compete by CSC, and (c) the injunction would serve the public interest.
Signal 88 alleged that CSC was causing it irreparable harm because it “contacted Signal 88’s customers, undercut Signal 88 on price, and caused a number of customers to cancel contracts with Signal 88.” CSC responded that it did not use “any of the names or trademarks of Signal 88” nor did they use any confidential materials. All customer contracts in the Signal 88 system are entered into in the name of the franchisor, which also does billing and collection. So if Guardhail sought to continue to serve the customers that CSC recruited for Signal 88 (as seems likely) then CSC would have had to utilize the customer contact information and likely would have made offers that were more attractive than the pricing offered under the franchise.
Nevertheless, in declining to issue a preliminary injunction, the Court determined that Signal 88 failed to show that the “harm is certain and great and of such imminence that there is a clear and present need for equitable relief,” because Signal 88 failed to show that in the harm of CSC’s actions “threatened the very existence” of Signal 88’s business. Accordingly, even if there is a loss of customers and revenue for Signal 88, money damages would still suffice without the “extraordinary” measure of a preliminary injunction.
Signal 88 also argued that failing to enforce the non-compete would cause “irreparable harm to its franchise system”, presumably by encouraging other franchisees to not renew and to flout the non-compete. The court said that Signal 88 had no evidence to back up that general supposition. Since a preliminary injunction would effectively put CSC out of business and would moot the parties’ claims before addressing the merits of the case, including CSC’s breach of contract counterclaim, the court found that the balance of hardships heavily favored CSC.
Despite the case being heard in Signal 88’s hometown of Omaha and the franchise agreement stating that Nebraska law governed, the Court held that Colorado had a greater material interest in the franchise agreement and therefore its laws regarding non-competes applied. Under Colorado law non-compete provisions are disfavored except to protect trade secrets or if issued when selling one’s business. The Court found that the evidence presented did not demonstrate CSC’s use of Signal 88’s trade secrets with any specificity. Moreover, CSC argued that, as Signal 88’s selling and servicing agent when dealing with the customers, its principals were Signal 88’s employees – an allegation that, if proven, would cause the non-compete being held to very strict scrutiny under applicable law. Since that determination is fact-specific the Court would not make such a decision at the preliminary injunction stage.
It is likely that these factors heavily influenced the Court’s denial of the preliminary injunction: (a) CSC recruited and developed the Signal 88 security customers in Colorado Springs, probably through the sales efforts of its owners more than franchisor-provided marketing; (b) accordingly CSC was not provided a customer list and did not inherit a list of long-standing Signal 88 customers, so the Colorado Springs customer list was not trade secret provided by Signal 88; and (c) Signal 88 terminated its relationship with CSC, apparently without cause, and allowed new franchisee Resendes to service all of CSC’s contracts without requiring her to pay for the goodwill that CSC had developed in them.
As this case shows, absent favorable facts it is very difficult for a franchisor to obtain a preliminary injunction enforcing a non-compete. Accordingly, certain franchisors may be well-served by adding a provision requiring a former franchisee that violates a post-expiration covenant not to compete to pay 2 years’ worth of continuing franchise fees. Such a liquidated damages provision is more easily enforced and represents a fair compromise between franchisor’s interest in retaining customer goodwill and franchisees’ interests in making sure that the franchisor’s brand and business system continue to provide value.
Take-away. A franchisor’s diligence in conducting and documenting quality assurance inspections is as important as ever, particularly if the franchisor seeks to exercise its ultimate weapon – termination of the franchise agreement. Prudent inspection and documentation practices are particularly crucial in the many U.S. states and territories that have statutes requiring a showing of “good cause” in order for a franchisor to terminate a franchise agreement. In such states, a franchisor must furnish evidence demonstrating that the franchisee failed to substantially comply with the material and reasonable franchise requirements; otherwise, a court may well restore the franchise rights and order money damages to the franchisee.
The Case. Pooniwala v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp., a May 2014 decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, is an exemplary demonstration of how a franchisor establishes that one of its franchisees repeatedly violated quality assurance standards so that there was “good cause” to terminate the franchise agreement under state law. The franchisor’s in this case diligently conducted and documented regular quality assurance (“QA”) inspections.
Pooniwala involved franchise agreements for two hotels, one a “Super 8,” and the other a “Travelodge.” The franchisee alleged that the franchisors, both of which are affiliated companies within the Wyndham Hotel Group, took retaliatory action against the franchisee because of a lawsuit between the franchisee and Ramada Worldwide Inc., its fellow Wyndham Group affiliate. The franchisors, for their side, argued that their attempts to terminate the franchise agreements were not retaliatory actions, but rather that the franchisee had repeatedly violated QA standards found in the respective franchise agreements, giving each franchisor good cause for termination.
The first attempted termination involved a Super 8 hotel facility in Roseville Minnesota. The franchise agreement for the Roseville Super 8 included quality assurance requirements, as well as provisions allowing Super 8 to inspect the facility to ensure that it was operating in compliance with Super 8’s system standards and QA requirements. The franchisee had failed six consecutive QA inspections at the Roseville Super 8. Each inspection was followed by a letter indicating that the franchisee had received a failing score on the QA inspections. The letters also gave the franchisee notice that it had sixty days to cure the QA deficiencies, the failure of which could result in termination of the franchise agreement. Finally in September 2013 Super 8 notified the franchisee that the franchise would terminate on December 29, 2013, unless the hotel passed a final QA inspection. The franchisee failed that final inspection, and shortly thereafter Super 8 informed the franchisee that termination would take effect on the originally scheduled termination date.
The second termination was for a Travelodge hotel facility in Burnsville, Minnesota. The Burnsville Travelodge agreement contained similar QA requirements, and the franchisee failed eight consecutive QA inspections, receiving letters documenting the failures following each inspection. Finally the franchisee received notice of termination for the Travelodge franchise. The notice described QA deficiencies, and stated that termination would take effect in ninety days, but that another inspection would be scheduled to determine whether the QA violations had been cured. The franchisee failed that inspection, and as a result Travelodge informed the franchisee that termination would take effect on the originally scheduled date.
Preliminary Injunction. It is not a wonder that motions for preliminary injunction are commonplace in hotel franchise termination cases. With the great potential for loss of good will among customers, employees and suppliers, franchisees will not want to give up their rights to franchise logos or their presence on a franchisor’s reservation system. In Pooniwala, the franchisee sought an order for preliminary injunction to stop the franchisors from terminating the franchise agreements before the court heard the case on its merits.
In deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction, courts have to balance the harm to the two sides. They also consider the requesting party’s likelihood of success on the merits in the underlying claim–here, violation of the good cause requirement of the Minnesota Franchise Act.
In Pooniwala, the court denied the franchisee’s motion for preliminary injunction and ordered it to go ahead with its post-termination obligations, such as removing the franchised brands’ signage. The court found that, given the many QA inspection failures at the two hotels, and the fact that the franchisees had continuing franchise relationships with Wyndham Hotel Group affiliates at other hotel properties, the franchisee did not demonstrate an adequate likelihood of success of proving that the termination was without good cause. Further, the court held that, while the franchisee would suffer obvious harm through loss of the franchise rights, the franchisors were also suffering continuing, irreparable harm as long as the franchisee’s hotels continued to operate under their trademarks while not maintaining brand quality standards.
Conclusion. Hotel franchise agreements typically provide for substantial liquidated damages if the franchisor terminates for cause, meaning that the Pooniwala franchisees are likely to owe hundreds of thousands of dollars. In other franchise cases, the terminated franchisee may be forced to cease operating a similar business due to a covenant not to compete.
The stakes are high, and franchisors can expect a fight. So if they decide to take the drastic step of terminating for cause, they had better have their “ducks in a row.” In Pooniwala, the Wyndham Hotel Group franchisors showed how this is done.
Nicholas Cintron, a law clerk at the firm and a 2016 J.D. candidate at Wake Forest University Law School, contributed to the preparation of this article.
Take-away: If your franchise offering document is silent on key issues, you can be liable if your people “oversell” to a potential franchisee. Better to deal with the issue in carefully vetted writing than to be surprised by something your people say off the cuff.
The case: A recent Michigan Court of Appeals decision, reinstating a jury verdict against a cellular communications store franchisor, shows the potency of franchise investment and disclosure laws in protecting franchisees against misleading sales tactics, if the information provided does not contradict the franchise disclosure document presentation.
The facts: In Abbo v. Wireless Toyz Franchise, L.L.C., Abbo was a failed franchisee and area developer of cellular communications stores. Looking back, he alleged that an officer of Wireless Toyz provided misleading information in the “discovery day” presentation.
As background, you need to understand something about the business model of cellular franchises. Their profitability can be affected by “hits” (discounts given in the sale of phones); “chargebacks” that decrease store commission revenue; the franchisor’s bargaining power with cell phone carriers; the hidden costs of purchasing inventory from the franchisor; and ultimately the number of cell phone sales necessary to make a profit.
None of these issues was dealt with in any meaningful way in Wireless Toyz’s franchise disclosure document (“FDD”). Since the FDD was silent, that left wide areas about which prospective franchisees could ask for additional information, and left the franchisor’s executives, eager to sell franchises, vulnerable to providing answers outside the FDD. In this particular case, the franchisee directly asked a senior franchisor executive about revenue deductions from “chargebacks” and “hits,” and the franchisor executive apparently said that chargebacks constituted “only five to seven percent” of total commissions and that Wireless Toyz stores outside of Michigan (the home state) had been “subject to only ‘very minor’ hits.” In fact, neither statement was accurate.
The FDD’s Item 19 Financial Performance Representation said that there were 181 average new activation contracts each month, and an average of $222.31 in commissions per activation. However, the presentation did not mention “hits” or the minimal amount of revenue (net of the cost of cellular devices) earned by the stores, and it also did not detail the extent of chargebacks and how they impacted the actual net commissions earned per activation.
After a jury trial, the jury found that the franchisor had failed to provide material facts necessary to make the FDD’s statements not misleading under the circumstances of their presentation, and also that it was liable for creating false impressions when responding to the prospective franchisee’s direct questions regarding “hits” and “chargebacks.” The Michigan Franchise Investment Law (like its statutory cousin, the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law) creates an affirmative legal duty to disclose all material facts necessary to avoid creating a false impression.
In this case, Wireless Toyz made a corporate decision not to provide information on the extent of chargebacks in Item 19 of the FDD, even though that information was clearly relevant to the picture of commission revenue generated per activation. The “gasoline on the fire” in this case was the “five to seven percent” estimate provided by the franchise salesperson in response to a direct question.
Except as provided in the [Disclosure Document] delivered to the Franchise Owner, the Franchise Owner acknowledges that Wireless Toyz has not, either orally or in writing, represented, estimated or projected any specified level of sales, costs or profits for this Franchise, nor represented the sales, costs or profit level of any other Wireless Toyz Store.
The jury concluded that, despite this language in the contract, Abbo was reasonable in relying on the verbal statements on matters not addressed in the FDD. Moreover, because the verdict was for misleading omissions, the jury presumably found that the failure to provide additional clarifying information both in and out of the FDD presentation was what misled the franchisee.
The appellate court agreed with the jury, not the trial judge.
There was a dissenting opinion at the appellate level, and it is likely that Wireless Toyz will seek to have the Michigan Supreme Court review the decision. However, that court is not obligated to do so and may not want to substitute its opinion for that of the jury. As in many franchise cases, Wireless Toyz’s chances were not terribly good once it allowed a jury to deliberate regarding its actions.
In an era when about two-thirds of franchisors now provide written financial performance information in their FDD, this decision is an important reminder to franchisors of the risk of providing only partial information in the FDD – particularly if the franchisor has access to accurate (if not necessary encouraging) information on unit-level expenses or deductions from revenue.
That sort of information is important to prospective franchisees and is almost certainly data that they will seek from the franchisor. It is better to disclose fully in the FDD instead of hoping your salespeople don’t get asked about it or that, if asked, they answer accurately.
Restaurant and retail franchisors: could this be you in 2014?
The case of Wojcik v. Interarch, Inc., currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the fast casual restaurant franchisor Saladworks, LLC, contains a factual scenario that should serve as a valuable reminder for existing franchisors who are updating their Franchise Disclosure Document (“FDD”) for use in 2014, for companies beginning the offer of franchise rights, and for prospective franchisees who are investigating opportunities. Bottom Line: Franchisors need to be careful not to underestimate site development costs, ongoing operating costs, and the challenges of opening locations in geographic areas not familiar with their brands.
During 2011, one of the plaintiffs, David Wojcik of suburban Chicago, investigated development of a Saladworks franchise restaurant. Saladworks is based in suburban Philadelphia, and the bulk of Saladworks locations are within 250 miles of Philadelphia. When Mr. Wojcik attended Saladworks’ “Discovery Day” to learn more about the franchise, Saladworks’ executives took him to their “Gateway” location, which they described as being typical in terms of physical appearance and menu offerings. They also told him that Saladworks’ designated commercial real estate firm Site Development, Inc. (“SDI”) and a designated architecture firm would help Wojcik find a location and design his restaurant.
After reviewing the FDD and going to “discovery day,” Mr. Wojcik convinced his wife Denise that they should sign the franchise agreement and that she should invest $90,000 that they used to purchase a single franchise license plus multi-unit development rights in suburban Chicago. However, it cost the Wojciks substantially more to open their first Saladworks location than the estimated initial investment cost stated in the FDD, and the business failed within six months – both opening and closing during 2012.
D. Wojcik “would receive a `standard location,'” thus making the financial information Saladworks included in its FDD for franchised restaurants at “standard locations” relevant and meaningful for him.
(4) “[The Saladworks] brand was most successful in a core market area, which included the area covered by an approximate 250-mile radius of Philadelphia. . . . [but] beyond the core market area, most of [Saladworks’] franchises were substantially under-performing in relationship to those that were located within the core market area,” thus making Saladworks’ disclosures about the financial performance of franchised restaurants at “standard locations” deceptive and misleading to a franchisee in Illinois.
(5) The two restaurants for which Saladworks supplied information about average operating costs obtained free labor from new franchisees in training, thus making the average operating costs Saladworks disclosed in its FDD materially misleading.
This case decision was in the context of Saladworks’ and SDI’s motions to dismiss (the architect, InterArch, had already settled), and many of the allegations recited above may not survive a motion for summary judgment on the failed franchisee’s misrepresentation claims. For example, as the court also points out, the franchise agreement specifically warned the franchisee that its “Brand Development Fund” contributions did not have to be used to promote the franchisee’s restaurant (as opposed to other System restaurants), and a franchisee in a new region typically should negotiate that point.
(ii) If your Item 19 disclosure includes operating costs disclosures, are those impacted at all by the use of trainees in place of paid staff?
(iii) if you feel it is necessary to designate a commercial real estate company or architecture firm, be careful about how you promote their abilities, and consider (a) requiring the real estate firm to work with a local firm with whom it would share its fees, and (b) for states where the architect is not licensed, consider allowing the franchisee to select alternative architects upon payment of a modest review fee to your designated designers.
(iv) Are your Leasehold Improvement or construction estimates in Item 7 based on certain positive assumptions? If so, carefully disclose them, and consider whether the high estimate should not include those optimistic assumptions.
From the point of view of a prospective restaurant or retail franchisee, the lesson of this case is to show the kinds of issues you should carefully consider in your due diligence before purchasing a franchise. While litigation may help you recover if the franchisor is not completely truthful, better to figure it out beforehand!
At the October 2013 American Bar Association Forum on Franchising Convention, the keynote program was entitled “If I had a Wizards’s Wand” and concerned what each of the four presenters would change about franchising and the law, if they could. Rochelle “Shelley” Spandorf’s proposals as part of that program are summarized by reporter Janet Sparks in this BlueMauMau.com article . While Ms. Spandorf’s proposed changes are wonderful as far as they go (if not magical), unfortunately she did not clearly address one of the most important dispute resolution issues in the U.S. legal system, including franchising; the use of mandatory pre-dispute arbitration clauses to blunt weaker parties’ access to civil justice.
Aspects of Shelley’s proposals that seem particularly commendable are requiring all new franchisors to have some base of experience, creating a uniform national regisry of franchise sales registration, mandating the provision of a financial performance representation, and freeing states’ attorney generals to puruse enforcement rather than adminiistering a registration system. Moreover, while such legislation might appear to be substantially more burdensome to franchisors than the current legal regime of franchise sales regulation, the reality is that, even in the so-called “non-registration states” most franchisees do have the ability to pursue private civil actions for material violations of the FTC Franchise Rule; for example, see Final Cut, LLC v. Sharkey, 2012 Conn Super. LEXIS 98, 2012 WL 310752 (Conn. Superior Ct., Jan. 3, 2012) (franchisee prevails under Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act in claims that franchise sales were made in material violation of the FTC Franchise Rule).
However, on the issue of dispute resolution, it is unclear whether the proposal that U.S. federal courts have “exclusive jurisdiction” over U.S. franchise law claims would mean that franchisors could not require arbitration instead of court proceedings. This is particularly important with regard to the ability of franchisees to pursue group or class actions. Through many Supreme Court decisions authored by conservative justices, as well as legislation passed by Republican Congressional majorities, plaintiffs seeking class certification face a rigorous burden in U.S. courts. As many an attorney can attest, there are myriad difficulties (both ethical and practical) in representing substantial groups of franchisees pursuing common claims. However, in appropriate circumstances where common questions of fact predominate, particularly on liability, use of a group or class action is the most efficient (and sometimes the ony practical) way for parties who have suffered grievous financial losses to seek a remedy. Supreme Court decisions have made it extremely easy for parties to bar class or group actions by inserting an arbitration clause in their form contracts and refusing to remove them.
While reforms freeing state attorneys’ general to focus on claims enforcement might help improve failed franchisees’ access to justice, experience shows that attorney generals tend to focus on relief for large number of consumers rather than smaller numbers of small business owners. Unless a federal franchise law contains an express exemption from the Federal Arbitration Act for disputes between franchisors and franchisees, its benefits for franchisees may prove to be illusory.
Summary: Recent cases involving attempted enforcement of covenants not to compete by franchisors show the unpredictability of the results in such cases. However, careful reading of the factual circumstances of the cases also supports the adage that “bad facts make bad law.” So it behooves franchisors to check whether they have a sympathetic case on the facts when trying to enforce their non-competes.
Under those circumstances, the court enjoined the former franchisee and her son, who had managed the restaurant, from continued operation of a Caribbean-style restaurant. In its order the court, acting under New York law, enjoined such operations at the former franchised location and within 4 miles of it (rather than 10 miles, as written in the contract), or within 2.5 miles of any other Golden Krust restaurant (rather than 5 miles, as written in the contract). While giving them a bit of a break on the geographic extent of the non-compete, the court overall had no sympathy for the franchisee’s arguments of harm to their livelihood, including the possibility that their landlord would not allow them to operate a different type of restaurant at the leased premises; rather, the court found that to be a harm of the former franchisee’s own making.
In September of this year, in the case of Steak ‘N Shake Enterprises, Inc. v. Globex Company, LLC, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado found that the franchisor had good cause to terminate and force its Denver franchisee to cease use of the trademarks, but did not find cause to enjoin the former franchisee from violating the covenant not to compete. The cause for termination was that the franchisee refused to comply with the franchisor’s demand that it offer a “$4 value menu” and instead insisted on charging higher prices. The court held that Steak ‘N Shake had good cause to terminate the franchise and enjoined continued use of the Steak ‘N Shake trademarks, trade dress and menu item names.
However, the court did not order the former franchisee to refrain from operating a similar restaurant, finding that, because the next closest Steak ‘N Shake restaurant was in Colorado Springs (about 100 miles away) and the franchisor had no prospects to open up any Denver area locations in the near future, it could not prove irreparable harm if the former franchisee continued to operate. This decision does not preclude the franchisor from seeking damages due to violation of the covenant not to compete later in this case. While not expressly stated in the opinion, it is quite possible that the court may have been swayed by the fact that Steak ‘N Shake was requiring that an enormous number of meals be offered for $3.99, which likely would mean little or no profit to the franchisee on those sales. In other words, Steak ‘N Shake had a right to insist that restaurants using its name follow its pricing demands, but if it chose to terminate on those grounds it would have to suffer repercussions.
Finally, on August 6, 2013, in the case of Outdoor Lighting Perspectives Franchising, Inc. v. Patrick Harders, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed a state trial court ruling denying enforcement of a post-expiration covenant not to compete by a North Carolina based franchisor against its former franchisee in northern Virginia. In so doing, the court wrote, “During the time in which Mr. Harders operated as an OLP franchisee, entities holding OLP franchises encountered numerous problems with OLP suppliers. Since [Outdoor Living Brands] purchased [the franchisor] in 2008, numerous franchises have closed and the OLP business model has been devalued. Among other things, [the franchisor] failed to provide its franchisees with adequate support, feedback, and product innovation. Although the information provided to Mr. Harders and OLP-NVA by [the franchisor] was alleged to be proprietary, much of it was publicly available and common knowledge in the industry. Similarly, the training that Mr. Harders had received from [the franchisor] was readily available without charge in many national home improvement stores.
Once the court laid out the facts in this manner, it was obvious that it would rule against the franchisor. It did so in a fairly creative manner, seizing on the fact that the non-compete prohibited the non-renewing franchisee from engaging in a “competitive business” within any “Affiliate’s territory.” At the time of the franchise agreement, the franchisor was only involved in Outdoor Lighting Perspectives, but during the term the franchisor was purchased by OUtdoor Living Brands, which also owned the Mosquito Squad® and Achadeck® franchise systems. While the likely purpose of restricting competition with “affiliates” was to protect Outdoor Lighting Perspective businesses owned by the Franchisor’s corporate siblings, and the franchisor was not seeking to enjoin the former franchisee from competing with later-acquired affiliates in unrelated fields, the literal language of the non-compete supported an argument that it was overbroad in its geographic scope.
The court also found that the definition of a prohibited “Competitive Business” under this non-compete was overly broad. It prohibited involvement in “any business operating in competition with an outdoor lighting business” or “any business similar to the Business.” The provision’s scope could prohibit the former franchisee from operating an indoor lighting business or “obtaining employment at a major home improvement store that sold outdoor lighting supplies, equipment tor services as a small part of its business even if he had no direct involvement” in that part of the operation. The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s decision to read the provision literally and therefore refuse to enforce it in any manner, rather than entering a more limited injunction prohibiting the former franchisee from operating or managing an outdoor lighting business.
These court rulings demonstrate the “bad facts make bad law” truism. The Golden Krust franchisor had a sympathetic case and a franchisee acting badly; in the Steak ‘N Shake case, the parties clearly needed to go their separate ways, but the franchisor’s inflexibility persuaded the court to allow the franchisee to operate independently, at least pending a full trial; and the Outdoor Lighting franchisor, despite litigating in its “home court,” apparently had such an unimpressive franchise system that the court was unwilling to fashion an equitable remedy when confronting an overly broad non-compete. These cases should make franchisors think carefully about the situations in which they seek to enjoin competition by their former franchisees.
In the opening General Session of the International Franchise Association (“IFA”) Legal Symposium on May 6, 2013, Aziz Hashim, President & CEO of NRD Holdings, LLC (Multi-Unit Franchisee of Popeye’s, Checkers, and Domino’s Pizza) & the IFA’s current Secretary, and Kenneth L. Walker, formerly IFA Chairman and the Chairman of the Board of Driven Brands, Inc. (franchisor of Meineke Car Care businesses), commented on franchise agreements and franchise relationship management in an interview-style program moderated by Joel Buckberg. Their comments, which are summarized below, demonstrate both the promise and the challenges inherent in franchising.
4.	Franchisor’s right to require “periodic” remodeling, without limitations on the frequency, timing or cost of the facility changes.
Walker did not list any concerns with franchise agreements, which is not surprising given his background as a franchisor executive. However, he did emphasize that one of his biggest “turnoffs” when he was CEO (from 1996 until 2012) was having the first contact in a negotiation coming from a franchisee’s lawyer rather than the franchisee executive himself. He was much more likely to negotiate an issue with a franchisee who first approached him directly, even if the final agreement might be worked through by each party’s counsel.
Use of Marketing Funds: Walker expressed a preference for wide franchisor discretion in deciding how to use franchisee contributions, as long as the uses were devoted to growing franchisees’ businesses. Hashim agreed, but with the caveat that franchisees had to be actively engaged and consulted as to the franchisor’s proposed uses of the monies. Hashim objected to use of such funds to cover part of franchisor’s executive salaries (such as for a Chief Marketing Officer) or to conduct product development analysis. He supported flexible uses such as contributing towards the remodeling and rebranding of franchisee restaurants. Walker agreed that franchisee engagement and “buy-in” is critical, on the basis that it is better to have a somewhat flawed marketing plan that is widely executed than an outstanding plan that the franchisees refuse to implement.
Territorial Rights: With regard to franchisees’ territory protections, Walker argued that if the brand as a whole is losing market share to competitors with its existing network of locations, then it should be able to “backfill” with additional franchises. Hashim seemed to agree, as long as the plan protected franchisees who were properly executing the system and meeting expected revenue targets.
Supply Chain Controls: Hashim argued that franchisors should not require purchases of commonly available supplies or ingredients from more expensive sources, if the franchisees can obtain the same items less expensively through other means. He said that at a minimum, there should be clear disclosure to prospective franchisees of how the franchisor makes money from the supply chain.
Facility Remodeling and “Upgrades”: The panelists agreed that it is critical for franchisors to efficiently monitor the quality of goods and services being provided and to discipline franchisees who are not meeting such standards. However, Hashim argued that franchisors need to “make the business case” as to how facility updates or remodeling are going to benefit the profitability and value of the franchisees’ businesses rather than just drive revenue growth. He also believes that “smart franchisors” help fund the costs of facility updates to obtain rapid adoption by most franchisees.
Training and Operations Support: Walker believes that in-person, live training and conventions continue to have value in fostering a team spirit among franchisees and an exchange of best practices information, as compared to Internet “webinars” or recorded trainings. Hashim expressed frustration that the ratio of franchisor field staff or “business consultants” to franchisees has been decreasing over time, and the experience level of those consultants has been decreasing. He said that periodic visits by qualified field representatives play in important role in franchisee satisfaction and success.
Termination and Damages: Despite his broad disapproval of personal guarantees and liquidated damages, Hashim agreed with Walker that, if a franchisee is not in financial distress but simply wants to quit the franchise to stop paying royalties, then it is appropriate to require that franchisee to pay termination compensation to the franchisor.
5.	Employ a true ombudsman to address franchisee complaints and concerns before they mushroom into disputes.
In many ways this program showed the best that the IFA has to offer, since it brought together franchisor and franchisee perspectives for the purpose of furthering industry best practices. It also highlighted Aziz Hashim as a rising leader in franchising who bears watching in the future.
During 2012 Sylvan Learning, Inc. and its corporate affiliates are fighting a claim of violating of the Maryland Franchise Registration & Disclosure Law and fraudulent conduct in its sale of tutoring center franchise rights, after having its motions to dismiss the fraud claims denied by the U.S. District Court in Baltimore.
In Next Generation Group, LLC v. Sylvan Learning Centers, LLC, Case CCB-11-0986 (decided Jan. 5, 2012), the plaintiff franchisee alleged that he agreed to develop and operate a new Sylvan Learning Center in Irving, Texas, in reliance upon representations from Sylvan that it would sell the plaintiff two existing Centers in nearby Arlington and Allen, Texas. According to the Amended Complaint, those representations were made orally by Sylvan’s agent to plaintiff’s principal both before and after the plaintiff signed the franchise agreement for Irving, but several weeks before the Irving location opened, Sylvan’s agent advised plaintiff’s principal “in writing that Sylvan had approved his acquisition of the Arlington and Allen Learning centers, respectively.” The parties executed letters of intent for the sale of both sites about two weeks before the Irving Center opened. However, about three weeks after the Irving Center opened, Sylvan’s same agent “informed [plaintiff] that Sylvan would not sell him the license and assets for any more franchises.” According to the Amended Complaint, Sylvan provided no explanation of its reversal of course. The franchisee claimed that Sylvan fraudulently induced it to develop and open the Irving location.
Sylvan argued for dismissal of the claims on the basis that the Irving franchise agreement contained an “integration clause” that prevented the plaintiff from relying on promises made outside that written agreement. The court rejected this, by quoting a prior court decision stating, “[T]he law in Maryland … is that a plaintiff can successfully bring a tort action for fraud that is based on false pre-contract promises by the defendant even if (1) the written contract contains an integration clause and even if (2) the pre-contractual promises that constitute the fraud are not mentioned in the written contract. Most of our sister states apply a similar rule. Greenfield v. Heckenbach, 144 Md. App. 108, 130, 797 A.2d 63, 76 (2002).” Sylvan’s problem is that the contractual “integration clause” did not disclaim any specific oral representations, and certainly not any concerning Sylvan’s willingness to sell the plaintiff additional existing franchised businesses. Without specific disclaimers as to representations made on that specific topic, the integration clause did not prevent pursuit of the claim.
While Sylvan could use the presence of the integration clause at trial to challenge whether the plaintiff reasonably relied on promises made outside of the Irving franchise agreement, based on the facts alleged the court stated, “there is reason to believe [plaintiff] could reasonably have relied on Sylvan’s representations” concerning the sale of the existing locations. Therefore, the court held that permitting the plaintiff to file a second amended complaint would not be “futile” and granted the plaintiff’s motion to do so.
After the plaintiff filed its Second Amended Complaint, Sylvan immediately moved to dismiss it on essentially the same grounds as asserted previously, and the court once again refused to dismiss the claims for fraud and violation of the Maryland Franchise Registration & Disclosure Law. Accordingly, the parties are now conducting discovery that may take most of 2012 to complete.
It is important to recognize that the proceedings in this case to date solely concern the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s factual allegations as a matter of law, and in later proceedings Sylvan’s representatives will provide information on what occurred with regard to this franchise sale. Nevertheless, the decision reiterates an important point for all Maryland business people – even if promises and statements are excluded from a particular written agreement, they may have legal consequences if the subsequent business relationship fails to meet the other party’s expectations.
1.	Does your business primarily involve the sales of products you supply, the sale of products to be created by others using your methods, or the provision of services?
2.	Does your business benefit from close association with a related enterprise? Examples are energy auditing, which is complementary to mechanical and renovation contractors, and the selling of fractional interests in real estate as part of a real estate brokerage business.
3.	Will your business incur substantial upfront costs in the opening of new locations, either directly in the purchase of materials and inventory or indirectly in the time spent by staff in supporting the new operator?
4.	Are your business methods a more compelling business asset than your brand name?
5.	To what degree is poor service quality in one location likely to jeopardize the ongoing fortunes in other locations?
6.	What is your ability to finance growth through profits from existing operations?
7.	What is your appetite for risk in growth? Company-owned locations can be more profitable than franchises, but also substantially riskier for many reasons, including employment risk (for a recent example, see this National Labor Relations Board decision).
Your answers to these questions and others will help lead to the desired method of growth and, in turn, the steps required to comply with applicable laws and that safeguard your company’s interests. The answer could be granting a franchise for someone else to develop and own a truly new, independent business, i.e., licensing someone else to operate using your brand, under methods you prescribe and in exchange for fees paid to you. Alternatively, you might recruit local representatives who have successful related businesses to sell your product or service as a relatively small part of their ongoing operations. You might use profits from existing operations to finance part of the costs of opening new locations, while recruiting “local talent” who will finance the other part of the cost and operate those locations (as “partners”). Or perhaps you will offer stock in your company and recruit talented salespeople or managers who will make no cash investment, but who also will have more limited ability to control and profit from local operations over time.
Each such solution (and there may be more than one) requires different legal services and provide different challenges. As growth counselors, the attorneys of Whiteford Taylor & Preston L.L.P. have the skills to assist with any of these endeavors. Contact David L. Cahn to discuss your growth strategy.
In its recent decision of Meineke Car Care Centers, Inc. v. RBL Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 09-2030, Case No. 09-2030, Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) ¶ 14,586 (decided April 14, 2011), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit provided valuable guidance on one of the most important legal issues for franchisors and franchisees. Specifically, if a franchisee closes franchised businesses that it can no longer afford to operate, can its franchisor obtain a judgment for “lost future royalties” that it would have earned had the businesses continued to operate?
In this Meineke case, the trial court had granted summary judgment dismissing the franchisor’s claim, on the bases that: (1) the franchise agreement did not state that the franchisee would be liable for royalties even if the business closed, and (2) even if Meineke had the right to seek lost future profits due to the franchisee’s closure of the stores, the claim failed because Meineke could not prove that it was “reasonably certain” that such profits would have been realized if the stores had not been closed. The U.S. Court of Appeals disagreed on both points and remanded the case for trial on Meineke’s claim.
On the first point, the court held that the parties are not required to specify in the Franchise Agreement all categories of potential damages each could seek as a result of the other’s breach. Rather, the standard is whether, at the time of entering into the agreement, “lost profits may reasonably be supposed to have been within [the parties’] contemplation as a probable result of [the franchisee’s] premature closure of the Shops.” A specific statement in the Franchise Agreement that the franchisee would be liable for all royalties throughout the term of the agreement would have been powerful evidence of the parties’ understanding when they signed the contracts. However, it was not the only admissible evidence of the parties’ “contemplation” on that issue, and therefore a factual dispute on that point existed – making it an issue for the jury to decide.
On the second point, the court emphasized that the royalties payable to Meineke were calculated from a percentage of the Stores’ gross revenue, not net profits. The court found that Meineke had demonstrated “with reasonable certainty” that, except for the franchisee’s breach of the agreements by closing the Shops, some revenue and therefore some lost royalties would have been realized. Thus, a trial was necessary to determine the amount of those lost “profits” with reasonable certainty.
However, at the trial, it would be relevant in making that determination how long it would have been “commercially feasible” to continue to operate each of the Shops, based on its historical net profits to the owner. In other words, the fact finder’s decision of how long it was “commercially feasible” to expect the franchisee to keep the doors open would determine the amount of the lost future royalties damages.
(1) the only way that a franchisee and its personal guarantors can be sure that they will not be liable for lost future royalties if the franchise fails is to insist upon language in the franchise agreement eliminating (or limiting) the franchisor’s right to those damages.
(2) if a franchised store ceases operations and truly “goes dark” due to ongoing net operating losses, at trial on a claim for lost future royalties the franchisor will need to be able to demonstrate that it was “commercially feasible” for the franchisee to remain open and, if so, provide some reasonable basis for the fact finder to determine how long the store should have remained open.
How Can You Know If Your Business Is Ready To Franchise?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.