Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
News Briefs
Trademark Violation Alleged in Franchisor vs. Franchisor Litigation
In October, Model A Fitness sued health club competitor Retrofitness Enterprises and Retrofitness Corp. for fraud, consumer fraud, breach of contract, and violations of New Jersey's Franchise Practices Act. The lawsuit has been filed in New Jersey Superior Court.
Retrofitness is the franchisor of health clubs under the “Retrofitness” trademark. In November 2005, Retrofitness entered into a license agreement with Model A's owners for the development of a facility in Boonton, NJ. But Model A alleged in its complaint that Retrofitness Principal Eric Casaburi enticed it into the license agreement through a series of false promises and misrepresentations, and then attempted to coerce it into signing a franchise agreement on far less favorable terms for the owners. When the owners refused, Retrofitness terminated the license agreement. According to the complaint, Retrofitness opened a new location up the street to compete with Model A.
“The case is being watched because it raises significant issues under the Franchise Practices Act, and also because it will test the applicability of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act generally to franchises,” said Craig S. Hilliard, shareholder, Stark & Stark (Lawrenceville, NJ). Stark & Stark is not counsel of record for either party in the case.
FRANdata Compensation Survey Finds General Counsel Remain Near the Top
FRANdata's “Franchise Compensation Report for 2010,” released in October, has found that franchisor general counsel positions again were more highly compensated than any other equivalent-level positions in franchise companies. Only “C-level” positions such as CEO and CFO were more highly compensated.
Median compensation for general counsels was $211,000 in the survey. That level marked a large increase over general counsel compensation in 2008, which was $146,000. However, that difference does not necessarily reflect that franchise general counsel compensation increased across the industry in the last year because the sample sizes were too small to allow valid comparisons from year-to-year, said FRANdata President and CEO Darrell Johnson.
Nonetheless, Johnson said that the data are building a better picture of compensation within key positions in franchising. “This report is timely, given the new trend in the marketplace to make decisions based on empirical performance,” explained Johnson. “Management needs to know that salaries for new and existing employees are in line with industry standards.”
One hundred and fifty-eight franchisors responded to the survey, which was being conducted for the second time. Indicative of the growing interest in this type of information, Johnson noted that 87 firms responded in the first year of the survey, and he said that the survey will continue annually. The survey that led to the 2010 report was conducted from early June until early August 2009.
In the survey, average overall compensation for CEOs topped the list at just over $348,000. At the department head level, compensation for general counsel was followed by vice president of franchise development (although development executives received more than one-third of their incomes from commissions, on average).
Other department heads and professional staff positions in which legal issues are an important component included compliance, franchise development, and marketing. Median compensation for compliance managers was about $81,000. Compliance professionals and paralegals earned about $52,000 to $55,000, on average, which was below compensation to marketing managers.
The size of franchisors responding to the survey was spread fairly evenly: 32% reported revenues of less than $1 million; 29% reported revenues of $1 million to $5 million; and 39% reported revenues of $5 million or more. Fast-food chains, maintenance services, general services, and automotive franchisors were the only four industry groups to represent more than 10% of the survey respondents.
The Compensation Report can be purchased by contacting FRANdata at www.frandata.com. The report costs $850, but a two-thirds discount is offered for firms that participated in the survey.
Trademark Violation Alleged in Franchisor vs. Franchisor Litigation
In October, Model A Fitness sued health club competitor Retrofitness Enterprises and Retrofitness Corp. for fraud, consumer fraud, breach of contract, and violations of New Jersey's Franchise Practices Act. The lawsuit has been filed in New Jersey Superior Court.
Retrofitness is the franchisor of health clubs under the “Retrofitness” trademark. In November 2005, Retrofitness entered into a license agreement with Model A's owners for the development of a facility in Boonton, NJ. But Model A alleged in its complaint that Retrofitness Principal Eric Casaburi enticed it into the license agreement through a series of false promises and misrepresentations, and then attempted to coerce it into signing a franchise agreement on far less favorable terms for the owners. When the owners refused, Retrofitness terminated the license agreement. According to the complaint, Retrofitness opened a new location up the street to compete with Model A.
“The case is being watched because it raises significant issues under the Franchise Practices Act, and also because it will test the applicability of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act generally to franchises,” said Craig S. Hilliard, shareholder,
FRANdata Compensation Survey Finds General Counsel Remain Near the Top
FRANdata's “Franchise Compensation Report for 2010,” released in October, has found that franchisor general counsel positions again were more highly compensated than any other equivalent-level positions in franchise companies. Only “C-level” positions such as CEO and CFO were more highly compensated.
Median compensation for general counsels was $211,000 in the survey. That level marked a large increase over general counsel compensation in 2008, which was $146,000. However, that difference does not necessarily reflect that franchise general counsel compensation increased across the industry in the last year because the sample sizes were too small to allow valid comparisons from year-to-year, said FRANdata President and CEO Darrell Johnson.
Nonetheless, Johnson said that the data are building a better picture of compensation within key positions in franchising. “This report is timely, given the new trend in the marketplace to make decisions based on empirical performance,” explained Johnson. “Management needs to know that salaries for new and existing employees are in line with industry standards.”
One hundred and fifty-eight franchisors responded to the survey, which was being conducted for the second time. Indicative of the growing interest in this type of information, Johnson noted that 87 firms responded in the first year of the survey, and he said that the survey will continue annually. The survey that led to the 2010 report was conducted from early June until early August 2009.
In the survey, average overall compensation for CEOs topped the list at just over $348,000. At the department head level, compensation for general counsel was followed by vice president of franchise development (although development executives received more than one-third of their incomes from commissions, on average).
Other department heads and professional staff positions in which legal issues are an important component included compliance, franchise development, and marketing. Median compensation for compliance managers was about $81,000. Compliance professionals and paralegals earned about $52,000 to $55,000, on average, which was below compensation to marketing managers.
The size of franchisors responding to the survey was spread fairly evenly: 32% reported revenues of less than $1 million; 29% reported revenues of $1 million to $5 million; and 39% reported revenues of $5 million or more. Fast-food chains, maintenance services, general services, and automotive franchisors were the only four industry groups to represent more than 10% of the survey respondents.
The Compensation Report can be purchased by contacting FRANdata at www.frandata.com. The report costs $850, but a two-thirds discount is offered for firms that participated in the survey.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.