The High Court in Kuala Lumpur, in refusing to prohibit a former franchisee from operating independently after a termination, caused more damage to the Franchisor (Chatime Fusion Tea House) than a horde of Helopeltes. The Judge ruled that the Franchisor’s termination was in bad faith and that an injunction preventing the Franchisee from operating would “cause great injustice.” The Franchisee in the case was so angry that he filed a police report regarding the termination.  Too funny. The Goldstein Law Firm has recently been successful in seven straight injunctive cases even though these types of emergency actions are the most difficult to win for franchisees.  http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2017/05/29/court-dismisses-chatimes-bid-for-injunction-against-ex-franchise-holder/      

Read More

Beer Brewer’s Wrongful Termination of Dealer Turns Out to be Grist for the Mill for Beer Distributor By: Jeffrey M. Goldstein The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington recently ruled that a terminated beer franchisee could sue the beer manufacturer for non-statutory damages caused by the franchisor’s termination of the distribution contract without cause. Odom Corp. v. Pabst Brewing Co., No. C17-5279-RBL, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81348 (W.D. Wash. May 26, 2017). As the Court phrased the issue: “This case concerns whether, when a beer supplier terminates its distributor’s contract without cause, Washington’s Wholesale Distributors and Suppliers of Spirits or Malt Beverages Act, chapter 19.126 RCW, provides the distributor with a single remedy: ‘compensation from the successor distributor for the laid-in cost of inventory and for the fair market value of the terminated distribution rights.’” The case is interesting for four reasons. First, even though almost every state has beer distribution relationship legislation, there is a dearth of reported decisions regarding beer franchise terminations; this is primarily because almost all replacements of beer distributors are negotiated and include the payment of agreed-upon fair market value. Second, Pabst’s defenses in the case were not traditional ‘good cause’ arguments usually asserted to justify a termination; instead, the beer franchisor embraced a troika of somewhat absurd schoolyard bully arguments, to wit: the rules in the statute (enacted to prevent unjust terminations by brewers) don’t apply to me (even though I’m a brewer); the rules in the beer franchisor act allow terminations […]

Read More

We are proud to announce that the Goldstein Law Firm was recently named “Franchise Law Firm of the Year” in the 2017 edition of Finance Monthly’s Law Awards. According to a press release from Finance Monthly announcing this year’s award winners: “Every year[,] the Finance Monthly Law Awards recognise and celebrate law firms and legal professionals from all over the world who, over the past twelve months, have consistently excelled in all aspects of their work and set new standards of client service.” The nomination and review process for Finance Monthly’s Law Awards involves months of work by a “diligent research team and dedicated judging panel,” who are tasked with producing a list of winners that represents, “some of the most successful and trusted legal professionals and law firms from across the globe.” “[A] franchise law firm dedicated to you, the franchisee.” Law firms honored as recipients of the Law Awards are featured in a special edition of Finance Monthly. In announcing the Goldstein Law Firm as Franchise Law Firm of the Year, the Law Awards 2017 describe our firm as, “a franchise law firm dedicated to you, the franchisee.” Unlike other franchise law firms that represent both franchisees and franchisors (and which, in reality, predominantly represent franchisors), the Goldstein Law Firm is exclusively dedicated to representing the interests of active and prospective franchise owners. Another factor distinguishing the Goldstein Law Firm from other franchise law firms is our representation in both transactional and dispute-resolution matters. Founding attorney Jeffrey M. […]

Read More

GLF Prevails on MTD in Case Against Bathtub Manufacturer Franchisor The definition of franchise is not always clear, as this case shows. A marketer/seller/installer of walk-in bathtubs in the New York and New Jersey area could qualify as a franchise with standing to assert counterclaims against Safe Step Walk In Tub Co. (Safe Step) under the franchising laws of those states and Connecticut and Rhode Island, the federal district court in New York City has ruled. Therefore, a motion by Safe Step for dismissal of these counterclaims was denied. Safe Step alleged that agreements between the parties constituted franchises under the Connecticut Franchise Act, New Jersey Franchise Practices Act, New York Franchise Act, and Rhode Island Franchise Investment Act. Given the basis of the allegations and the plain terms of the agreements, it was easy to find that the parties’ relationship could plausibly constitute a franchisor-franchisee relationship under the FTC Rule, the court noted. The FTC Rule had three main prongs in its definition of a franchise: (1) the use of the franchisor’s marks; (2) the franchisor’s provision of marketing assistance or control over the franchisee’s operations; and (3) the franchisor’s collection of a franchise fee as a condition of the franchisee’s commencing operation. Here, the first prong of the FTC Rule was undoubtedly met at because the installer distributes goods that are identified or associated with Safe Step’s trademarks. The second prong was also met, since the alleged involvement by Safe Step in the installer’s business operations could amount […]

Read More

New Legal Gestalt Needed for Franchise Relationships in USA By: Jeffrey M. Goldstein  A recent franchise termination case involving a French franchisee of a French franchisor has many similarities to the prototypical wrongful franchise termination in the United States; the only real difference is that when the case was tried in France the franchisor was found guilty of an unfair franchise termination while if the case had been tried in the United States the franchisor would have walked scot-free. In this case, the French bakery brand Paul operated under a master franchise agreement that called for the opening of 18 outlets in the south of France over a five-year period. After opening, the franchisee found itself facing debilitating financial difficulties after having opened only five of the 18 required outlets. After the franchisor’s proposed onerous terms for settlement were rejected by the franchisee, the franchisor sent a default notice to the franchisee for failure to open the remaining locations in the franchise agreement. The franchisee was not able to build the new stores, and the franchisor terminated the franchisee. The franchisee’s primary defense was that the franchisor was liable for inaccuracies in the business plan for the opening of 18 outlets in five years and that the plan itself was unrealistic because it was based on overly optimistic and false financial data. On this basis, the franchisee argued that the termination was wrongful based on the franchisor’s pre-contractual duty of disclosure.             In affirming the lower Paris Court of Appeal’s […]

Read More

  This food franchise dispute now in litigation in Florida has all of the expected allegations and markings of a prototypical franchisor-franchisee litigation battle in 2017: (1) a believable ulterior motive for termination (the franchisee store’s closure, according to the franchisee, was part of a scheme by the franchisor (B&B’s parent company) to oust the franchisee from the West Palm Beach dining center so the franchisor could do a competing deal with the franchisee’s competitor (Revolutions); (2) traditional ‘fraud and breach of contract’ claims by franchisee; (3) franchisee termination follows its alleged failure on a quality assurance inspection conducted by the franchisor; (4) ‘other hidden off-the-contract’ motivations for getting rid of the franchisee (franchisee was operating a gay bar on the second floor of the location, which had never before been objected to); (5) the franchisor allegedly failed to meet its contractual obligations (although the franchisee was assured 162 hours of classroom and on-the-job training, franchise claims it was provided with “zero training”; similarly, the franchisor’s “operations manual” allegedly wasn’t any help because it ‘was cut-and-pasted from manuals for sushi and Mexican restaurants’); (6) the franchisor, after the franchisee purchased the franchise, modified the entire strategic thrust of the franchise business (the franchisor allegedly moved the franchise company into the movie theater and bowling alley business — and away from a nationwide franchise roll-out, as promised); (7) the franchisor’s undisclosed strategic decision caused the franchisee to fail (according to the franchisee, with the company’s new direction, the franchisee was left […]

Read More

Courts, Lawyers, Franchise Agreements, Right of First Refusal, Restrictive Covenant, Competing Franchisor all combine to Create the Efficient Free Market Outcome: “No Beer for Any Consumers at an Empty Restaurant.” Interestingly, from a law and economics point of view, the legal rules and process associated with this dispute have resulted in an inefficient outcome: unused restaurant space, unemployed workers, less beer being sold, and one fewer businesses paying taxes. http://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20170327/jdubs-dub-shack-beer-bar-closes  

Read More

It appears that no post-termination restrictions on smoking pot will be imposed on terminated former licensee. It would have been interesting to see how a court might have applied the doctrine of unclean hands in any injunctive action. What is also notable in this dispute is that the business relationship between the parties, even though it was based on a non-traditional product, was hindered by a very traditional point of conflict between franchisors and franchisees selling more traditional products — “a differing vision of what a traditional “Hempfest” event should be, so we have amicably dissolved the licensing relationship to allow the Las Vegas event to follow its vision unhindered by the contractual agreements.” http://mjnewsnetwork.com/events/seattle-hempfest-and-las-vegas-hemp-festival-end-franchise-agreement/  

Read More

Instant Replay:  According to the franchisor, the franchisees are thieves and the franchisor is the good guy who is saving the community from corrupt people. Result: Massive investigations, terminations, and take-backs. The franchisor: (1) vows to stamp out underpayment of franchisee employees; (2) removes store owners who broke the rules from its system; (3) claims that “When a franchise is terminated, an independent valuation of the franchisee’s assets is undertaken and, in general, the franchisee is paid accordingly for their assets….The process for refranchising a site is also very costly and takes considerable time and corporate resources.”; (4) announced the outcome of an independent review that he said “confirmed our [franchise] model allows franchisees to draw a wage, make a profit and pay employees in accordance with lawful wage rates”. In contrast, the franchisees: (1) claim that when Caltex forces out an owner it does so without paying compensation beyond assets, which means it could gain back stations almost free and profit from their resale or merge them into its corporate-owned store network; (2) claim that “no site with weekly shop sale of about 30K to 35K … can be profitable in your current model by fulfilling its [workplace] obligation”; (3) explain that “The truth is they [the franchisor] want the stores back to make them into company stores and that is the best way to do it – they are going to get their stores back for free.” http://www.smh.com.au/business/caltex-denies-profiting-from-terminating-franchisees-for-wage-fraud-20170221-guhqd0.html

Read More

In a recent franchise case the United States District Court of New Jersey (the “Court”) hammered another nail in the termination coffin of a former 7-Eleven franchisee Karamjeet Sodhi (“Franchisee Sodhi” or “Mr. Sodhi”), Manjinder Singh, and Karamjit Singh (collectively, “the Franchisees”), when it denied the Franchisees’ Motion for a stay of the Court’s Order granting judgment to Plaintiff 7-Eleven. In Sodhi, the Court found that the Franchisees failed to show that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims because they breached the franchise agreements by failing to pay payroll and income taxes and then subsequently failing to cure those breaches. 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Sodhi, Civil Action No. 13-3715 (MAS) (JS), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14339 (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2017) In refusing to grant the Franchisees’ Motion for Stay, the Court initially noted that “the standard for obtaining a stay pending appeal is essentially the same as that for obtaining a preliminary injunction, and that such a stay ‘should be granted only in limited circumstances.’” The Court explained that to obtain the stay, the Franchisees must show all four of the following factors, including; (1) the movant is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) denial will result in irreparable harm to the movant; (3) granting the injunction will not result in irreparable harm to the non-movant; and (4) granting the injunction is in the public interest. With regard to the first factor, the Franchisees argued that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their appeal […]

Read More