Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
If there's one group that may be unhappy about the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Staff Report's proposed revisions to the FTC Franchise Rule, it's got to be the parents of franchisors (or maybe franchisors who have parents). The FTC really zapped it to parents, increasing the franchisor's disclosure burden with respect to its parent.
The current UFOC Guidelines do not define “parent,” although the Item 21 Instructions say that a company owning 80% or more of a franchisor may be required to include its financial statements. The FTC Staff Report recommends adding a definition of parent: “an entity that controls the franchisor directly, or indirectly through one or more subsidiaries.” (Proposed Section 436.2(m).) This definition is broad and at first blush seems appropriate, until we understand the impact the definition will have on franchisors and their parents. This definition affects Items 1, 3, 4 and 21. While the FTC Franchise Rule currently requires disclosure of certain information about the parent, most franchisors comply with the UFOC Guidelines, which do not directly reference the parent. Let's review the impact of the FTC Staff Report.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
A federal district court in Miami, FL, has ruled that former National Basketball Association star Shaquille O'Neal will have to face a lawsuit over his promotion of unregistered securities in the form of cryptocurrency tokens and that he was a "seller" of these unregistered securities.
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.
This article reviews the fundamental underpinnings of the concept of insurable interest, and certain recent cases that have grappled with the scope of insurable interest and have articulated a more meaningful application of the concept to claims under first-party property policies.