Unlike most states, California’s registration and disclosure law does not stop applying when the franchise agreement is signed. An agreement between the parties to materially change (or amend) an existing franchise agreement is an event triggering special requirements in California.
California Assembly Bills 1782 and 2637, which would have improved the regulatory climate for franchises in the state, have been vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown after being passed by an overwhelming majority of the legislature.
Today I attended the International Franchise Association's fourth annual California Franchising Day. During the course of the day, I had the opportunity to meet with
The International Franchise Association’s (IFA) fourth annual California “Franchising Day” is set for March 8, 2016. The goal of Franchising Day is to inform California legislators about some of the key issues affecting the franchise industry.
This week, the California legislature nearly unanimously approved Assembly Bill 525, which would (if signed by Gov. Brown) amend the existing California Franchise Relations Act (“CFRA”).
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.