Large Investment? Large Franchisee? Insiders? - "Sophisticated Investor Exemptions" to the Franchise Rule
As franchise counsel I am a strong proponent of “disclosure” – the more of it, the better. Quality disclosures contained in your FDD serve a critical role in mitigating future litigation risk and expense. So, when it comes to FDD disclosure exemptions, we typically proceed with extreme caution. Nevertheless, in the appropriate circumstance, franchisors should consider or at least be aware of potential tools available to them when it comes to available exemptions to the disclosure mandates of the Federal Franchise Rule.
One "grouping" of potential FDD disclosure exemptions relate to transactions involving sophisticated investors, insiders and large franchise investments. These "potential" exemptions, should be evaluated and considered under the following circumstances:
- "Large Franchise Investment". The "Large Franchise Investment" exemption applies to franchise transactions involving a franchisee initial investment of at least $1 million exclusive of unimproved land and franchisor (including affiliates) financing. Application of this exemption is dependent upon an analysis of the transaction, satisfaction of the dollar volume criteria and the requirement that the franchisee sign a disclosure acknowledging that the franchise sale was exempt from the Franchise Rule.
- "Large Franchisee Entities". The "Large Franchisee Exemption" applies to franchise sales transactions involving prospective franchisees that are corporate entities, possess a minimum net worth of $5 million and possess no less that 5 years of prior business experience. By combining both net worth and prior business experience requirements, this exemption is intentionally limited corporate franchisees that possess a predicate level of sophistication.
- "Insiders of the Franchisor". The "Insider Exemption" applies to franchise sales to the owners, directors, and managers of the predecessor entity of the franchisor. That is, this exemption applies to the officers, owners and managers of a business before it became a franchisor. These prospective franchisees must possess at least two years experience in the franchisors business and, at the time of becoming a franchisee, have maintained their insider status.These "sophisticated investor" exemptions are an important tool for franchisors to consider and beware of One such exemption relates to “Large Franchisees”.
The foregoing "sophisticated investor" exemptions constitute a critical tool for franchisors to be aware of when planning certain non-traditional franchise sales transactions and when evaluating potential litigation strategy. Application of the foregoing exemptions requires a fact specific analysis of factors and legal criteria - including applicable rules and regulations associated with each exemption) . The key, however, is to be aware of this potential "tool".
Trademarks comprise a fundamental component to all franchise systems. So much so, that FDD "Item 13" is exclusively devoted to disclosures respecting the existence, registration, maintenance and defense of a franchisor's trademarks. Franchisors that are serious about their "systems" must also also be serious about the protection of their trademarks.
Franchise systems have various life cycles and require time to mature and develop the necessary systems and infrastructure to expand. For franchisors, many times, the biggest strain on their franchise system relates to and is traced back to an overambitious rate of expansion. While there are many considerations, motivations and good reasons why your should be aggressive about unit growth, you must nevertheless proceed with extreme caution and evaluate whether or not your systems are capable of supporting your planned levels of expansion. Some factors to consider, include:
Inherent to every franchise system is the license of intellectual property rights that, for good reason, has been (and should remain) focused on the trademarks and trade dress associated with the franchise system. While trademarks, logos, and trade dress are critically important intellectual property ("IP") assets, an additional (and possibly overlooked) IP asset may exist in the form of "design patents" issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Design patents relate to the "novelty" and "ornamental appearance" of a product and may add a supplemental layer of IP protection for franchisors. When evaluating your IP portfolio and whether or not you are maximizing the legal protection of your IP assets, consider the following:
Many times, "start-up" franchisors (and, too often, some established franchisors) overlook the necessity of maintaining a thorough operations manual that is both "current and relevant" to the particular franchise system. That is, many times operations manuals are viewed as an "afterthought" or a"generic" obligation to be sourced out to third party vendors.
For the start-up and established franchisor alike, as your franchise system evolves continuous consideration must be given to your franchise agreement and "the legal rights that you reserve for your franchise system". That is, basic to every franchise agreement are the "reservation clauses" identifying and establishing alternative channels of distribution and legal rights that are not granted, conveyed or licensed to your franchisees. These reserved rights typically address alternative channels of distribution and markets that are expressly reserved to the franchisor. Examples include internet sales, mail order sales, captive market accounts and licensed products sold through alternative sales channels.
At the New York Franchise Law blog we have been fortunate to receive insightful and instructive comments from our readers. Many of our readers are franchisors, franchisees and some extremely experienced franchise consultants and professionals. Basically, our readers have a lot of good information to share. So, recently my staff had the opportunity to interview and speak with Bob Harper, an existing franchisor. Mr. Harper, has posted some informative comments on our site and has shared his experiences as a "start-up" franchisor. Mr. Harper's franchise provides bookkeeping services in the United Kingdom under the
Short Answer: Avoid lawsuits. That is, work on and establish with your legal counsel "legal systems and procedures" that is designed to avoid unnecessary litigation. (Slightly longer answer follows)
This afternoon in consulting with a client who had recently signed a franchise agreement involving a substantial commitment of capital, I was reminded about the importance of maintaining "realistic" expectations when buying a franchise. When discussing his expectations about his franchise purchase and the business that he will be developing, he was extremely "realistic" as to his expectations and the work ahead of him. That is:
Part of the
In an effort to expand the information provided at the New York Franchise Law Blog and, hopefully, the timeliness and value of this information for our readers and subscribers, we will now be featuring a continuing series of succinct fact based articles (in addition to our commentary and reports) focused on the "basics of franchising", comprised of
For the "start-up franchisor" (and even established franchisors) determining the appropriate franchise fee and royalty structure for your franchise system is a critical task that will have long standing implications. The fee structure that you establish will serve as the primary source of revenue for your franchise system and will represent one of the most significant "expenses and obligations" on the part of your franchisees. Set the fees to high and you risk franchisee and, ultimately, franchise system failure. Set the fees too low and you risk "franchise system" failure resulting from your inability (as the franchisor) to properly support, develop and expand your system.
For the successful business owner considering the franchised expansion of his or her business one critical question that must be answered is "how do you approach the preparation and development of your franchise agreement." That is, do you "approach" the preparation and development of your franchise agreement (and franchise disclosure documents) as:
Can you expand your business in the State of New Jersey through a "license agreement" without triggering New Jersey's franchise relationship laws? (This is not a simple question and, unfortunately, the answer involves an evaluation of both "objective" and "subjective" factors.)
Driving into the office this morning I listened to a radio commercial that I found to be repulsive . The commercial was not political, did not contain any profane language and, quite possibly, did not contain any false statements. Nevertheless, the information conveyed in this commercial (really just a bunch of self-serving platitudes) could do harm to the unprepared.
The definition of a franchise and the factors utilized to evaluate the existence of a franchise have important implications. That is, does the business arrangement providing for the multi-unit expansion of your business qualify as a franchise and thereby subject you to franchise regulations and disclosure requirements? The answer to this question depends on the "substance" of the business relationship and an evaluation of both federal and state law.
The typical franchise agreement is representative of the disproportionate bargaining power between the franchisor and franchisee. That is, franchise agreements favor franchisors. One such favorable clause contained in franchise and license agreements relates to "liquidated damages".
If you are researching the benefits of franchising, buying a franchise or starting a franchise, chances are that you have come across articles and promotional materials discussing the benefits of a "proven franchise system". That is, prospective franchisees are advised that if they become a franchisee of a particular franchise they will benefit from a "proven system". While this vague term is used often and claimed by almost all franchisors, not every franchisor possesses legitimate systems and not every franchise system is "proven".
Although the State of New Jersey is not a
The licensing of
If you are a successful business owner and entrepreneur, chances are that you have considered or, at least, thought about expanding your business through the establishment of a franchise system. That is, taking the trademark(s), services and business systems that you have created and licensing them to third parties (franchisees) who will then devote their own time and capital to expanding your business concept and, hopefully, benefit from the experience and success that you have achieved to date. No doubt, franchising is a popular and extraordinary vehicle (when done correctly) to achieve the multi-unit expansion of a business. However, the franchising is not right for every business or entrepreneur. Before "starting a franchise", consider the following 4 questions to evaluate if franchising is right for your business:
If you are a successful business owner and thinking about franchising your business, it is critical to recognize that with the benefits of franchised expansion come both federal and state regulation - regulation that is manageable and, actually, helpful if approached correctly. While
In a recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
This weekend, driving back to New York from an an exceptional legal conference in Virginia my partners and I came across one of my childhood heroes (maybe not really a hero but a pretty cool guy):
“Franchising” has been and remains one of the most successful vehicles for the multi-unit expansion of a business. However, for many entrepreneurs looking to expand their business and brand,“franchising” is too often disregarded as a viable business model. For these entrepreneurs, the establishment of a franchise system (unnecessarily) appears to be a daunting task and is disregarded in favor of “licensing”. That is, in an “attempted” effort to avoid franchise regulation, but nevertheless achieve brand growth, the entrepreneur (as a “licensor”) licenses his or her trade name and trademarks to third parties (known as “licensees”) who conduct their own business utilizing the licensed marks.