Last night I reviewed a franchise agreement and found a surprising, and illegal, provision buried deep in the contract. If ever there was a compelling case for being careful when you are choosing legal counsel, I just found the provision that makes it.
On May 14, 2015, the California state Assembly passed AB 525, a bill that would amend the existing California Franchise Relations Act by expanding the protections for existing franchisees. The bill is now in the Senate for consideration.
Franchisees and franchisors continue to fight new minimum wage laws by U.S. cities that discriminate unfairly against small business owners who are affiliated with franchise systems. Are these types of laws “industry specific” within the meaning of Item 1 of the Franchise Disclosure Document?
The NLRB’s General Counsel, Richard Griffin, recently explained his McDonald’s “joint employer” opinion to a group of law students. His comments offer some hope for franchisors concerned with his determination.
The second of a two-part piece examining why “dabbling” franchise attorneys — that is, those who are inexperienced in franchising and franchise law but get involved with franchise transactions anyway — can be harmful to their clients.
Another Franchise Disclosure Document section franchisors frequently get wrong is Item 5; avoid making these mistakes in Item 5 of your own FDD.