On Franchising

no picture

Adam J. Siegelheim, member of Stark & Stark's Franchise Group, was quoted in the article On Franchising in the May 6, 2008 edition of the Wall Street Journal. The article addresses some of the most common issues facing new franchisors and some new concerns franchisors need to be aware of before starting a franchise of their own. Mr. Siegelheim comments on some of the factors that franchisors need to take into consideration when starting a new franchise, and some tips to ensure the longevity of your franchise concept.

You can read the full article on the Wall Street Journal Online (registration required).

NJ Legislature to Consider Applying the Franchise Practices Act to "Mobile" Franchises

no picture

House Bill 2491 and Senate Bill 1539 of the New Jersey Legislature seek to expand the type of franchises, which are subject to the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act. In general, the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act currently applies to franchises where: 1) the franchisor has granted the franchisee a license, mark, trade name, etc.; 2) there is a “community of interest” in the marketing of goods and services; 3) where the franchisee has established or maintains a “place of business” in New Jersey; 4) where the gross sales between franchisor and franchisee are more than $35,000 in the prior year; and 5) more than 20% of the franchisee’s sales are derived from the franchise. The proposed change in the statute would apply the provisions of the Franchise Practices Act to “mobile” franchises, in other words, franchises that do not have a brick and mortar location. Under the proposed Bill, a “place of business” would include a location where the franchisee “displays for sale or at which or from which the franchisee sells the franchisor goods.” This would include an office or warehouse from which franchisee personnel visit or call upon customers or, perhaps more importantly from which the franchisor’s goods are delivered to customers.


Potentially more significant than the proposed changes to the definition of “place of business” is the additional language that the Bill would tack on to the “general purpose” section of the Franchise Practices Act. The proposed Bill would add the following language:

“…and to protect franchisees from unreasonable termination by franchisors that may result from a disparity of bargaining power between national and regional franchisors and small franchisees. The legislature finds that these protections are necessary to protect not only retail businesses, but also wholesale distribution franchisees that “through their efforts” enhance the reputation and goodwill of franchisors in this State. Further, the legislature declares that the courts have in some cases more narrowly construed the Franchise Practices Act then was intended by the legislature”.

This additional language should concern franchisors doing business in New Jersey, since it is unnecessary to achieve the expansion to the “place of business” definition that is the focus of the Bill. This tougher language may indicate that there are further changes to the statute being considered. Certainly, the inclusion of the proposed language would be used as a justification by judges to give much broader application to the Act than has been the case in years past.


The two Bills are currently in the initial stage of the legislative process, and will probably not be acted upon until May or June of this year. The current sponsors of the two Bills are Assemblyman Joseph Cryan – District 20 (Union County) and Senator Bob Smith – District 17 (Middlesex and Somerset Counties). The legislation was introduced in the House on March 10, 2008, and in the Senate of March 17, 2008.

Vermont Legislature Introduces Legislation That May Render Non-Compete Provisions in Franchise Agreements

no picture

The Vermont legislature introduced House Bill No. 790 on February 1, 2008.  The Bill would render non-compete provisions of franchise agreements void unless the franchisor can prove to the Court’s satisfaction that the franchise agreement is:  (1) consistent with public policy; (2) necessary to protect the franchisor; (3) not a contract of adhesion; and (4) reasonable considering the subject matter and conditions.  Clearly the third requirement is problematic. 


A “contract of adhesion” is legal-speak for “non-negotiable” and is “take-it-or-leave-it” in nature.  Most franchise agreements are non-negotiable because it is important for the system to maintain uniform and consistent standards.  However, various courts have deemed franchise agreements to be contracts of adhesion because of the superior bargaining power of the franchisor.  Since most franchise agreements are contracts of adhesion, and if this Bill passes, it will be extraordinarily difficult for franchisors to enforce non-competition agreements among franchisees in Vermont. 


One can only hope that this idea does not spread beyond the borders of the Green Mountain State.    Vermont’s legislature appears intent of following this strange course of action, which is out of step with the other states.  Watch this log for more updates.

Two Stark & Stark Attorneys Named Legal Eagles in Franchise

no picture

Rachel Lilienthal Stark, Shareholder in Stark & Stark's Franchise group, and Adam J. Siegelheim, member of Stark & Stark's Franchise group, have been named Legal Eagles in the franchise industry by Franchise Times Magazine.


Legal Eagles are chosen annually from hundreds of nominations across the country. Legal Eagles are recognized for their strong reputations among their peers, an active involvement in the franchise community through organizations such as the International Franchise Association and the American Association of Franchisors, and their experience and expertise in the franchise industry.


Rachel Lilienthal Stark concentrates her practice in the representation of start-up and emerging franchisors on a variety of issues including compliance with all federal and state regulations, disclosure documents, acquisitions and financing.


Adam J. Siegelheim focuses his practice in the representation of franchisors in various matters, including the preparation of disclosure documents, state registrations, and compliance with applicable federal and state regulations. Mr. Siegelheim is a member of the International Franchise Association, the American Bar Association Forum on Franchising and the New Jersey Bar Association's Franchise Law Committee.

New Jersey Legal Update - Podcast # 73

no picture

This week's Franchise Law podcast is an interview with the Vice President of Franchisee Development for Huntington Learning Center, Tom Spadea. The interview took place at February's 2008 International Franchise Association's Annual Convention in Orlando, Florida and discusses franchise development and recruitment strategies, the new Franchise Disclosure Document, and a discussion on how to train your employees on policy and procedure updates.

This week's Franchise Law Podcast is presented by  Adam J. Siegelheim of Stark & Stark's Franchise group.

You can download the New Jersey Legal Update podcast #73 here (8.6 MB)

New Jersey Legal Update - Podcast # 72

no picture

This week's Franchise Law podcast is an interview with the President of MFV Expositions, Tom Portesy. The interview discusses the growing rate of franchises in and outside of the United States and what this means for the future of the franchise industry. The interview took place at the 2008 Franchise Expo South, held earlier this month in Miami Beach, Florida.

This week's Franchise Law Podcast is presented by Shareholder of Stark & Stark's Franchise Law Group, Adam J. Siegelheim.

You can download the New Jersey Legal Update podcast #72 here. (3.6 MB)

New Jersey Legal Update - Podcast # 71

no picture

This week's Franchise Law podcast is an interview with Chief Franchising Officer of Hollywood Tans, Steve Beagelman. The interview took place at the 2008 Franchise Expo South, held earlier this month in Miami Beach, Florida.

This week's Franchis Law Podcast is presented by Shareholder of Stark & Stark's Franchise Law Group, Adam J. Siegelheim.

You can download the New Jersey Legal Update Podcast # 71 here. (6.8 MB)

New Jersey Legal Update - Podcast # 70

no picture

This week's New Jersey Legal Update podcast will discuss the necessary insurance coverage needed for franchisors in order to protect your franchise system against claims. This podcast will address good practices to follow when determining your level of insurance, as well as a discussion on industry standards and the various types of coverage available to you and your business.

This week's New Jersey Legal Update is presented by Adam J. Siegelheim, a member of Stark & Stark's Franchise Group.

You can download the New Jersey Legal Update Podcast # 70 here. (6 MB)

At Will Employment Alive and Well in the Franchise Context

no picture

In a recent unpublished decision by the New Jersey Appellate Division, known as Ashwall and Winograd v. Prestige Management Services, Inc., et als. (Decided October 16, 2007), the Court dealt with a claim by employees of a New Jersey automobile dealership franchise who claimed religious discrimination and “promissory estoppel” against their former employer.  The Plaintiffs, a manager and top-salesman, claimed discrimination based on their religious faith (Judaism) under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.  One of them had also claimed that, since he had been given the task of turning a non-profitable dealership “around,” that he was entitled to employment for at least a reasonable period of time. 


His argument was that he had been a very successful manager of another dealership, and by asking him to take on the management of a non-profitable dealership, the franchisee in effect “owed” him employment for a certain period of time.  This claim had been dismissed by the trial judge prior to the trial of the case, and was never heard by a jury.  While there appears to have been some factual merit to the Plaintiffs’ argument, the Appellate Division relied on traditional notions of “at-will” employment and determined that the Court had been correct in dismissing the claim for Promissory Estoppel as they did not find that there was enough evidence that the parties had intended to enter a long-term commitment.  Specifically, the Court was looking for “assurances of employment” that were “clear, specific and definite.”  The franchisee in this case avoided any liability on the “promissory estoppel” claim (though there was a jury verdict against it for discrimination). 


This case highlights the potential for confusion between the franchisee who owns several locations and employees who are “specially assigned” to trouble-shoot certain kinds of jobs.  To avoid this confusion, a franchisee should notify an employee clearly and in writing that their “at-will” employment relationship continues despite the new assignment and that there is no guarantee of continued employment.  Such a written assurance would have most likely avoided litigation in this case and would have saved the franchisee from having to defend such a claim.

Coordinated Review Program Indefinitely Suspended

no picture

Franchisors and their counsel are not the only ones scrambling to digest the intricacies of the revised FTC Rule. Citing the challenges in examiners having to learn a new disclosure format, the franchise coordinated review program has been suspended indefinitely.  The suspension went into effect on July 31, 2007. 

The coordinated review program was adopted to streamline the franchise registration process.  It provided franchisors with the ability to simultaneously register their franchise offering in two or more participating states.  A lead examiner would then be assigned to coordinate and oversee the registration process among the states.  Prior to the suspension, 11 states participated in the program. 

The future of the coordinated review program is not known.  However, state administrators plan to re-evaluate the program after July 1, 2008, when the new disclosure format becomes mandatory and examiners will no longer have to review disclosures under both the new and old formats.  

Older Entries

August 27, 2007 — Do you think you have a deal? Maybe not, according to the Third Circuit.

August 21, 2007 — Congress Considering Legislation That Would Render Arbitration Clauses in Franchise Agreements Unenforceable

August 20, 2007 — The Franchisor Community Dodges Another Legislative Bullet

August 14, 2007 — Big Deal? Domino's Decision could have big impact, or not

August 2, 2007 — Court enters Preliminary Injunction Enjoining New Jersey Lawn Care Franchisee From Operating

July 30, 2007 — Don't Go West, Young Man. Buy Yourself a Franchise Instead

July 23, 2007 — What's in a Name?

July 11, 2007 — New Jersey Appellate Court finds Arbitration Clause Enforceable

June 28, 2007 — Long-Delayed Revisions for Franchise Regs: Many Inconsistencies Between Federal and States' Disclosure Requirements Eliminated

May 16, 2007 — Punitive Damages in Employment Cases Continue to Pose a Danger for the New Jersey Franchise Community

April 13, 2007 — New Jersey Legal Update - Podcast # 64

April 6, 2007 — New Jersey Legal Update - Podcast # 63

March 30, 2007 — Franchisor Being Sued by Franchisee's Mom?

March 16, 2007 — New Jersey Legal Update - Podcast # 61

February 22, 2007 — Restrictive Covenant Agreements For Franchises

January 9, 2007 — Franchise Emphasizes Careful Growth

October 23, 2006 — U.S. Supreme Court Backs Franchisor's Right to Enforce Arbitration Clauses

October 20, 2006 — New Jersey Legal Update - Podcast # 49

September 1, 2006 — New Jersey Legal Update - Podcast # 45

August 31, 2006 — Enforceability of "Third-Party" Non-Competition Agreements

August 23, 2006 — Leveling the Playing Field in Franchising

July 5, 2006 — Domino's Franchisees Seek Delivery From Papa John's

June 1, 2006 — Consider State Laws When Starting a Franchise

April 10, 2006 — Baby Boomers and Franchising

March 31, 2006 — New Jersey Legal Update - Podcast # 32

March 31, 2006 — Franchise Law in New Jersey

March 24, 2006 — New Jersey Legal Update - Podcast # 31

March 1, 2006 — New to Franchising? Beware of New Jersey Employment Law Requirements

February 14, 2006 — In Franchising: State Law Really Does Matter

February 3, 2006 — New Jersey Legal Update - Podcast # 25

January 10, 2006 — New Jersey District Court Finds Forum-Selection Clause Enforceable in Franchise Arbitration

December 15, 2005 — Siegelheim Comments on Post-Katrina Effects on Franchisors

November 21, 2005 — Siegelheim Comments Franchise Dispute

October 13, 2005 — Stark Comments on Running Multiple Businesses

September 2, 2005 — New Jersey Legal Update - Podcast #9

February 24, 2005 — New Jersey Franchises and License Agreements

January 28, 2005 — New Jersey Franchise Agreement Litigation

October 25, 2004 — Employee Theft

October 20, 2004 — Insurance Coverage for Your Business