Showing all articles
Showing Results 61 - 80 of 601

  • A New Year, a New Day: The Amendments to the California Franchise Relations Act Are Now in Effect

    01/19/2016 / Henry Pfutzenreuter

    For franchisors with franchisees in California, ringing in the New Year means navigating a new regulatory landscape. All franchise agreements renewed or entered into after January 1, 2016, as well as existing indefinite ones that are terminable without cause, are now subject to the amendments to the California Franchise Relations Act (“CFRA”), which the California legislature passed in fall 2015.[1] The amendments to the CFRA make significant changes to the transfer, termination, and nonrenewal of franchises in California, as well as the resulting remedies available to franchisees. While there are some ambiguities that will need to be resolved by the courts, it is clear that franchisors will have a number of new issues to consider when deciding how to deal with franchisees in California.

    Read More  
  • Metro Cities Contemplate Controversial Housing Policies

    12/28/2015 / Peter J. Coyle and Bryan J. Huntington

    In the November-December 2015 issue of the BATC Digest, Peter Coyle and Bryan Huntington contributed an article entitled, "Metro Cities Contemplate Controversial Housing Policies," which appeared on pages 40-42.

    Read More  
  • Limited Partnerships Must be Represented by an Attorney in State District Court

    11/30/2015 / Gary A. Van Cleve

    In a ruling issued November 9, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that a limited partnership could not represent itself in district court without licensed counsel. Minnesota courts have previously held that corporations and limited liability companies must have licensed counsel in court, but this is the first time a Minnesota appellate court has addressed whether limited partnerships also must be represented by counsel.

    Read More  
  • Minnesota Court of Appeals Strikes Down Sprinkler Rule

    11/30/2015 / Rob A. Stefonowicz and Bryan J. Huntington

    Larkin Hoffman real estate litigation attorneys Rob Stefonowicz and Bryan Huntington successfully obtained a declaratory judgment from the Minnesota Court of Appeals invalidating an administrative rule while representing the Builders Association of the Twin Cities (“BATC”). Specifically, BATC challenged a rule adopted by the Minnesota Department of Labor & Industry (“DLI”) requiring residential fire sprinklers in all newly-constructed single- and two-family homes, except for those single-family homes under 4,500 square feet (the “Sprinkler Rule”).

    Read More  
  • Minnesota Property Tax Watch for Taxes Payable in 2016

    11/30/2015 / Timothy A. Rye

    Minnesota taxpayers will soon have their first real glimpse of their 2016 real estate property tax obligations. Assessed values for 2016 taxes were sent in March or April, but many times the notices of value are filed away without much scrutiny. Now, taxpayers should expect to receive truth-in-taxation notices by November 24, 2015.

    Read More  
  • Court of Appeals Rejects Tenant's Argument in Delivery-of-Premises Case

    11/30/2015 / Inga K. Schuchard

    The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently decided an issue of interest to residential landlords in Minnesota – whether a tenant who paid a security deposit and first month’s rent, but had not moved into the leased premises, was a “residential tenant.” The court of appeals said “no” in Cocchiarella v. Driggs, which means that even though the tenant paid, the tenant cannot force the landlord to deliver possession of the premises under a certain Minnesota statute.

    Read More  
  • Collect Releases Like you Collected Baseball Cards

    11/30/2015 / Charles Modell

    Chuck Modell's article, Collect Releases Like you Collected Baseball Cards, appeared in the Fall 2015 edition of The Franchise Lawyer.

    Read More   Download PDF
  • Court Watch: Franchise Alert - November 2015

    11/04/2015 / Cynthia Klaus and Bryan Huntington

    In the November 2015 issue of the Law Journal Newsletter’s Franchising Business & Law Alert, Cynthia Klaus and Bryan Huntington contributed two articles, "Franchisees and Dealers Should Plead Causation In Actions Against The Government" and "Michigan Court Transfers Case Brought By 41 Franchisees to Franchisor's Home State."

    Read More  
  • Keys for Successfully Mediating Franchise Disputes

    10/28/2015 / Charles Modell

    Chuck Modell's article, Keys for Successfully Mediating Franchise Disputes, appeared in the Fall 2015 edition of the Law Journal Newsletter's – Franchising Business & Law Alert®.

    Read More  
  • It Can Be Done: An Employer’s Challenge to an OSHA Citation was Recently Upheld by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

    10/21/2015 / Phyllis Karasov, David D. Hammargren and Daniel J. Ballintine

    The U.S. Secretary of Labor (“Secretary”) acts through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) to create and enforce workplace health and safety standards. The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (the “Commission”) is the final administrative decision maker in federal OSHA claims. Typically, the Commission affirms the Secretary’s interpretation and enforcement of a particular standard. This case is unusual because the employer won: the Commission refused to adopt the Secretary’s interpretation and the Commission’s decision was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. In Minnesota, the state OSHA agency enforces most federal OSHA standards. Those states with state OSHA agencies do the same.

    Read More  
  • Minneapolis City Council Considering Requiring Sick Leave and Scheduling Obligations for All Employers

    10/13/2015 / Daniel Ballintine

    The Minneapolis City Council is currently considering a sweeping new ordinance that would mandate all employers in Minneapolis to provide sick leave to their employees, and impose broad requirements with respect to scheduling shifts. The proposal is supported by Mayor Betsy Hodges and a committee which the city council created earlier this year.

    Read More  
  • The ABCs on NASAA’s Proposed Changes to Financial Performance Representations

    10/07/2015 / Chuck Modell

    On October 1, 2015, the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) ‎published 19 proposed Questions and Answers addressing the preparation of financial ‎performance representations (“FPRs”). This proposed “Commentary,” discussed in this article, would likely affect most franchisors that make FPRs in their franchise disclosure document. Franchisors, franchisees, and other interested parties have until November 2, 2015 to submit ‎comments to NASAA on the proposed Commentary. If no comments are received, the ‎Commentary will likely become law, as written, in 2016.‎

    Some portions of the Commentary will be welcome clarifications that should reduce the ‎number of inconsistent comments franchisors receive from state regulators who review their ‎franchise filings. Others will impose burdensome requirements. We urge you to read the ‎Commentary carefully, and consider commenting on provisions you believe will be problematic ‎for your system. The task force that prepared the Commentary will review every comment ‎received. To the extent you can show that a proposed change will not be of significant benefit to ‎franchisees, or that the cost of complying outweighs the benefits to prospective franchisees, or ‎that a proposed change will likely cause many established franchisors to stop making FPRs, your ‎comments will receive more significant consideration.

    Read More  
  • Data Breach Risk and Responsibility in Franchise Systems

    10/07/2015 / Mark Robertson

    Every franchise system uses common technology systems to ‎facilitate systemwide customer service standards and system ‎reporting. Problems with technology and IT systems are easily ‎foreseeable, including data breaches, viruses, service interruptions, ‎inconsistent databases, outdated data, end of term data transfers, ‎inappropriate uses of data and more, but are often not covered by ‎existing contractual provisions with franchisees. ‎When these problems arise, implied IT warranties, express ‎warranties, disclaimers, limitations on liability, exposures to and ‎limitations of consequential damages, system requirements related to ‎confidentiality and privacy, and many more IT-specific legal ‎provisions that are not customarily included in longer-term franchise ‎agreements all create ambiguity and risk the introduction of ‎unintended parole evidence that is inconsistent with the underlying ‎franchise relationship.

    Read More  
  • Washington Update: State Regulators Circumvent Venue Clauses for Arbitration

    10/07/2015 / Sawan Patel

    In State Regulators Circumvent Venue Clauses for Arbitration, The Franchise Lawyer, vol. 18, no. 1 (Winter 2015), Susan Tegt (Anytime Fitness) and I discussed the constitutionality of state franchise laws that require any arbitration between a franchisor and franchisee be held in the franchisee’s state, and whether these state laws are preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (“FAA”), which provides that contracting parties’ arbitration provisions in interstate commerce are “valid, irrevocable and enforceable.” 9 U.S.C. § 2; Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 (1984). Courts have overwhelming held that parties can agree to arbitration in a different state notwithstanding state law. Nonetheless, some states require franchisors to remove out-of-state venue clauses from their arbitration provisions as a condition to approving the registration of their franchise offerings. This forces franchisors to pick from a bad or worse option – either not comply with state law on the grounds that in-state arbitration provisions are preempted but risk rejection of the franchise registration or consent to in-state arbitration as required under state law even if the state law is unconstitutional.

    Read More  
  • New Executive Order Mandates Paid Sick Leave for Employees

    10/01/2015 / Phyllis Karasov and R. Henry Pfutzenreuter IV

    On Labor Day, President Obama issued a new executive order mandating paid sick leave for employees working under federal contracts. The rules outlined in the order, to be further defined by the secretary of labor and Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council over the next several months, will apply to new federal contracts entered into after January 1, 2017. The U.S. Department of Labor will issue regulations concerning the executive order by September 30, 2016. Within 60 days after the Department of Labor issues its regulations, the Federal Acquisition Council will issue regulations concerning the clauses to be included in federal procurement solicitations and contracts.

    Read More  
  • Supreme Court Maintains Rule Prohibiting Post-Expiration Royalties

    09/28/2015 / Craig Lervick and Hilda Li

    The Supreme Court maintained the status quo – patent royalties that extend beyond the expiration date of the underlying patent remain prohibited.

    In Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a flexible test proposed by Kimble, a patentee and licensor, and maintained the clearly defined rule it adopted in a patent royalty case more than 50 years ago, Brullotte, that prohibits post-expiration royalties. The Kimble decision further eliminates uncertainties surrounding patent purchase and licensing activities by expressly recognizing that certain alternatives still remain which allow parties to contract around the established rule prohibiting post-expiration royalties. Further, the court specifically limited Brullotte’s application to patent royalties.

    Read More  
  • Developing an IP Strategy for Your Startup

    09/28/2015 / Todd R. Fronek

    Starting a business, as well as brewing quality beer, are not easy tasks. There are several factors to consider when developing your business plan such as defining startup costs, hiring key employees, attracting investment, crafting a marketing plan and building an advisory team. In brewing beer, adherence to process and formula is critical. Too often, companies fail to recognize the importance of an intellectual property (IP) strategy and how crucial obtaining the proper protection for ideas is to their success.

    Read More  
  • Be Like Mike? Not Unless you Have his Permission

    09/28/2015 / Ryan E. Strom

    Michael Jordan is arguably the greatest basketball player of all time, winning six NBA championships, five MVP awards, two Olympic gold medals, and one NCAA national championship. In addition to his on-court dominance, his in-court success is notable as well. Just recently (August 2015), for example, he scored an $8.9 million verdict stemming from the unauthorized use of publicity rights. The size of the judgment underscores the risks associated using individuals’ names and personas in communicating or marketing to the public, especially when these activities involve well-known figures.

    Read More  
  • Protecting Your IP at the Border: Using the CBP Trademark Recordation System to Stop the Importation of Infringing Products

    09/28/2015 / Ryan E. Strom

    Every day, thousands of infringing products – everything from counterfeit Viagra, to pirated copies of Star Wars, to fake Marlboros – are smuggled into the United States, often through one of the 328 ports of entry. Products like these are frequently sold on the black market, or they can find their way onto the shelves of legitimate retail establishments. They pose a threat to the health and safety of American consumers, as well as to the legitimate business interests of companies whose products are being imitated.

    Read More  
  • NLRB Decision Will Impact Staffing Agency Relationships

    09/09/2015 / Phyllis Karasov

    On August 27, 2015, the NLRB issued a long-awaited decision regarding Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. (BFI). In this case the NLRB reversed a longstanding standard defining joint employer status. BFI contracted with Leadpoint to provide certain workers involved in its recycling operation and to clean its facility. Leadpoint recruited, interviewed, tested, selected and hired the employees who performed work for BFI. The agreement between BFI and Leadpoint included provisions which, among other things, required Leadpoint to ensure that its personnel had the appropriate qualifications, including certification and training to perform the general duties of the assigned position, and required Leadpoint to make reasonable efforts not to refer workers who were previously employed by BFI and were deemed ineligible for rehire. BFI had the right to reject any Leadpoint employee or to request the removal of any Leadpoint employee, and to approve all hours worked by Leadpoint employees.

    Read More  

Showing Results 61 - 80 of 601