Commercial Law

The New Franchise Rule deletes the four exclusions in the existing Rule for employer-employees and general partnerships, cooperative organizations, testing or certification services, and single trademark licenses, since a revised definition of 'franchise' in the Rule obviates the need for these exclusions. The New Rule retains the exemption for franchise sales under $500, fractional franchises, and leased departments, while adding an exemption for petroleum marketers governed by the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, as well as for three categories of 'sophisticated investor.'

With optional use of the updated Franchise Rule coming on July 1, 2007, and mandatory use beginning on July 1, 2008, the broad outlines of the Rule are well understood in the franchise industry even at this early point. Yet, as franchise attorneys work with individual clients, they are finding unique circumstances under which the Rule's guidance is confusing or even contradictory, particularly during the one-year transition period. Thus, two panel discussions at the International Franchise Association ('IFA') Legal Symposium on May 6-8 in Washington, DC, were the ideal opportunities for attorneys to raise what-if questions with regulators and their fellow franchise attorneys.

The new franchise regulations recently issued by China's State Council became effective on May 1, 2007. Shortly after their promulgation, MOFCOM, the ministry that has authority to interpret and implement the regulations, issued two implementation guidelines, namely the Administration Rules on Commercial Franchise Filing and the Administration Rules on Commercial Franchise Information Disclosure. The regulations are intended not only to provide presale disclosure to prospective franchisees, but also to restrict use of franchising to legitimate business operators. Moreover, the regulations seek to gather statistical data on the scope of franchise activities in China through a franchise registration process.

Part One of this series discussed security breach notification laws. The conclusion addresses security procedures laws.

The assessment of replacement compensation should not be undertaken without careful consideration. The valuation expert must be able to demonstrate that the analysis has been conducted using the best available data, that it was properly researched for reliability, that the components of actual compensation and replacement compensation are similar in nature and that the resulting determination is not biased and does not advocate for any position.

Since mid-2006, several extraordinary changes have taken place with regard to 'raising the bar' of valuation practitioners. Family law attorneys need to recognize these changes and be prepared to demand better expert appraisal services. Not only will you be more able to challenge the unprepared novice, but you should expect that your expert appraiser may well be challenged by competent opposing counsel.

While all states have rules addressing attorney practices, New York appears to stand alone in singling out the matrimonial practice for special attention. New York matrimonial and family law practitioners are highly regulated. We are governed, not only by general disciplinary rules and the code of professional conduct applicable to all attorneys, but we are also regulated by what is commonly known as the 'Matrimonial Rules,' set forth in the New York Code of Rules and Regulations. In addition, the disciplinary rules also contain provisions, exclusive to family law practitioners, prohibiting contingency fee retainers and restricting sexual relationships between attorney and client.

Nearly 30 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (433 U.S. 350 (1977; holding that 'blanket suppression' of attorney advertisements was an unconstitutional interference with First Amendment rights. However, the Court also recognized that some regulation of attorney advertising was necessary to protect consumers who lacked legal sophistication. Thus, the Court ruled that statements in lawyer ads that might pass muster in other industries could be misleading and were subject to reasonable regulation as to time, place and manner. The conflict between the First Amendment right to speech and the necessity and reasonableness of regulation of attorney advertising has continued to evolve since Bates, responding not just to changing mores regarding professional conduct, but to the challenges of new technology media.