June 2014 Archives

Restaurant operators who think they are vigilant about the security of their customers' credit cards may want to do some double-checking in the wake of P.F. Chang's China Bistro Inc.'s reported data breach."

If there is one issue which causes sleepless nights for business executives, it has to be data privacy and security. While the laws are still being updated and drafted for new technologies and new threats, businesses need to address these issues now.

Financial, healthcare, and retail brands all have legal requirements to protect consumer data.

These have been in place for many years but federal and state agencies are increasing regulation and enforcement actions. Data breach and customer notification laws are in place in every state. A federal uniform standard has not been enacted.

Plaintiff's Bar is Prepared

The plaintiffs' bar is quickly latching onto class actions and other private enforcement actions to seek redress for consumers who have suffered privacy invasions. With new technologies and new ways to capture and use personal information, the risks are increasing and lawmakers will be forced to respond by passing more legal strictures and regulations around such data.

In the big picture, companies face three basic types of risks: (1) external; (2) internal; and (3) human error.

1. External Risks

External risks for data breaches occur when someone outside the organization "breaks into" the organization's information network to try to secure items of value - such as financial information, credit card numbers, personal codes and other information of value.

External actors obtain the information to sell to others in the "information black market" or use the information themselves to carry out fraud schemes. For example, one of the important tools for healthcare fraud is Medicare and Medicaid identification numbers which are commonly sold in the information black market.

2. Internal Risks

Internal risks for data security focus on when an organization's employees or authorized users access the information network to secure personal information for their own benefit. The employees or authorized third parties will steal the personal information for their own benefit to sell to other criminals or carry out their own schemes.

3. Human Error

The third, and perhaps most overlooked risk, is human error. Many times a security breach is the result of human error or security lapses. An information security network may be improperly designed or implemented leaving some employees at risk for error and causing harm to the organization. Even if network security controls are in place, employees or authorized affiliates or third parties can make mistakes.

It is obvious to point out that not all data breaches are alike. Whatever the cause, poor planning and security steps can have a devastating impact on an organization. The cleanup process, the notifications and remedial steps can hinder an organization for years. Civil lawsuits and possible state and federal enforcement actions are increasing and can result in fines and penalties.

Even aside from these obvious consequences, organizations can suffer serious reputational harm. Public disclosure of data breaches is more common today. Consumers, however, are taking greater account of these infractions because of increased sensitivity to the protection of personal information.

Information security does not mean adoption of a boilerplate policy with no change in network security protocols or systems. As usual, information security starts with an assessment of existing security and identification of deficiencies and risks.

Once that is done, organizations need to determine what information needs to be secured and what types of rules and protections are needed to protect that information.

A holistic approach enables an organization to allocate information security resources to areas of greatest need based on a ranking of deficiencies and risks.

For the 5 Most Fascinating Stories in Franchising, a weekly report, click here & sign up.

Trouble hides in the weeds for a while before it actually strikes out and bites.

There is little difference between finding out where and what it is and snake hunting.

In the corporate world, the two most probable snake hunters will be the General Counsel and the Chief Financial Officer.

The CEO/Chairman may liminally sense it but people in that role tend to deny it for as long as possible.

They don't want to be distracted or confronted by it and they don't want to think about the expense of dealing with it. That allows it to fester a bit.

Eventually someone with awareness of the situation will walk into the General Counsel's or CFO"s office and start a conversation that leads to revealing what is hiding in the weeds..

The GC or CFO will be the person who brings it to the attention of the CEO, at which point the CEO recognizes as the result of that conversation that this must be dealt with or the costs associated with dealing with it will get out of control.

Real trouble can't be dealt with via publicity or advertising.

General Motors has been advertising for years that its management are all "professional grade" and they are going to take at least a $ 750,000,000 hit for shoving its faulty ignition switch issue under the rug for several years and for power steering malfunctions of several year's standing - about 3.5 million cars.

Toyota is about to take a similar hit.

Johnson & Johnson has been doing this for decades.

Someone in the past knew of the problem and decided to try to conceal it and fix the aboveground part of it on the cheap. That almost never works. The company is just deluding itself.

Scores of other companies do this every year.

They never seem to learn.

Denial is a very strong impulse.

Waiting to deal with it until after your potential adversaries have already lawyered up is a very wasteful approach. You can make a much better arrangement for your company if you lead the way. The humiliation and injury to sense of integrity associated with GM's head engineer on this particular matter testifying under oath at his deposition that he does not recall the matter; when it came up; making any decision not to fix the defective cars that already went out to the market, but just to correct it going forward are simply tragic.

When those who know are so afraid to tell the truth for fear of being fired, your company had made a terrible blunder.

Even if GM can afford $300,000,000. In addition GM has now taken the Chevrolet Cruze off the market and Edsels itself beyond anything in history. Professional grade? Yeah right! This is what comes from head in the sand techniques of dealing with impending crises. These were known long ago and nothing helpful was done.

Your company may not have the financial depth to take these hits periodically.

My belief regarding who are the first to begin to register impending trouble is based on the fact that it is always the General Counsel or the CFO who is the first to call me and suggest we visit.

They are the two most likely places that management go to for consolation and direction when bad things are on the horizon. They are usually the people in whom most managers have the most confidence.

Those are the guys to talk to if you are a crisis avoidance specialist.

Sometimes it is their outside law firm if company management does not want it known that they have brought in a crisis specialist,

If potential crisis is perceived it should never be taken by a company's regular law firm.

The reason for that is that they have an inherent conflict. Their first concern is always going to be for self preservation. Either they may have had a hand in the trouble - think Enron - or they tend generally to be ultra possessive about other lawyers being allowed to get close to their clients. If you have ever watched them at a convention with a client person, it is fun to watch them cling to these folks constantly to avoid any other lawyer getting a chance to be alone with them, even for a second. If you know what to watch for, it is hilarious.

Many a crisis situation has been mishandled for just that reason. Confidentiality obligations keep me from telling some horror stories.

They tend to call who they know. The worse the matter is perceived to be, the more likely it should and will go to a specialist rather than to their usual law firm.

There may be liaison with both groups for a short period, but the crisis specialist has a different perception of how potential bet the company situations should be handled. For one thing, putting a lid on the PR folks is an immediate must. What goes out of a company has to be carefully and centrally controlled, and PR template denials are usually the worst opening gambit. If you are being compelled to say something by a stock exchange you are very late in knowing about the issues arising.

But even then the PR auto deny gambit is usually a wrong move. In this day of people tweeting their bloody lives away, control over unvetted public statements by the company itself must be as tight as possible.

Sometimes it isn't a business dispute, but a problem of some key person or group being involved in improper and potentially embarrassing conduct, the scope of which is limited only by the human imagination. Corporate board room types are not well versed in how to manage this kind of damage control, but the first place the news will go is to the GC or the CFO in all likelihood. That is the moment when (after the CEO is advised) the potential crisis management specialist needs to be called.

Misconduct by a key person may be exploited for economic advantage and it may have been engineered deliberately just for that purpose.

Anywhere in the world. Any kind of matter at all.

The difference between the normal course difficult situation and the impending potential crisis is that the latter cannot be dealt with using template approaches.

Template approaches are taught in every law and business school and is practiced by every medium/large law firm and PR group.

Why that is inappropriate and why it usually leads to a terrible result is another story, but it usually does not get you where you want to be. In a really terrible situation, a bet the company problem template approaches are regularly disastrous.

Finally, another nice attribute of the crisis specialist is that, since he won't be anything like the people you socialize with, you are done with him after the conclusion of this one situation.

You can then go back to the golf pals with no bad blood hanging over those relationships.

For the 5 Most Fascinating Stories, a weekly report, click here & sign up.

As always, you can call me, RIchard Solomon, at 281-584-0519.

Special Disclosure Situations

| 0 Comments

The special situations described below may excuse you from following, or may modify how you follow, the basic franchise sales steps described earlier in this handbook. As to each prospect, you must determine whether a special situation applies and how that affects your disclosure obligations.

If you think a special situation is involved, check with the franchisor's lawyer or compliance manager before making a decision not to follow the basic franchise sales steps.

Situation 1: Transfer of Franchise

FTC Franchise Rule. Under the FTC franchise rule, if an existing franchisee is transferring a franchise to a new owner, you must follow the basic franchise sales steps for the new owner if the terms of the new owner's agreements will be materially different from the terms of the existing franchisee's agreements, or if the franchisor has had or will have significant involvement with the new owner during the transfer process.

If the new owner will be signing the franchisor's current agreements, as opposed to the agreements previously signed by the existing franchisee, it is likely that the current agreements contain materially different terms and that you must follow the basic franchise sales steps. Or, if you or the franchisor located the new owner for the existing franchisee, or have or will become involved in "selling" the new owner on the benefits of becoming a franchisee, it is likely that you are required to follow the basic franchise sales steps.

If the new owner will be assuming the agreements previously signed by the existing franchisee, and if you and the franchisor have been or will be involved with the new owner during the transfer process only to determine whether to approve the transfer and to negotiate the terms of the franchisor's consent to the transfer, it is likely that you are not required to follow the basic franchise sales steps. This will be very advantageous if the transfer is occurring in a regulatory state and the franchisor is not currently registered or on file with the state, because you may proceed without following the basic franchise sales steps.

However, even if you are not required to follow the basic franchise sales steps, the franchisor may have a policy of requiring you to provide the new owner with an updated FDD "for informational purposes" before the transfer occurs. Check with the franchisor's lawyer or compliance manager before making a decision not to follow the basic franchise sales steps.

State Laws: The laws of the regulatory states  generally are consistent with the FTC franchise rule, but they contain some anomalies.

For example, the New York law requires the existing franchisee (seller) to furnish to the prospective franchisee (buyer) a copy of the franchisor's FDD currently registered with the New York Department of Law, at least 7 calendar days before the earlier of payment by the buyer to the seller, or the execution of any binding purchase agreement.

Most of the state laws excuse an existing franchisee from registering or filing a notice before dealing with a prospective new owner, as long as the transfer involves an entire franchise. Special rules may apply if the transfer involves just part of a franchise, such as part of a territory. Some state laws are silent on how transfers should be handled, but generally are enforced consistent with the approach under the FTC franchise rule. If you think a state law might apply, check with the franchisor's lawyer or compliance manager about any special requirements. 

If you would like all these tips, the The Franchise Sellers Handbook 2010 , just sign up below. 

Yes, Send the Franchise Seller's Handbook to Me

* indicates required
Email Format

Powered by MailChimp

The top story in franchising this week -- which has dominated the headlines -- is the minimum wage battle in Seattle.

The story, in brief: the Seattle City Council has voted to require Seattle's small businesses to raise the minimum wage of their workers from the current level to $15 an hour.

Under this new ordinance, businesses with more than 500 employees have 3 to 4 years to increase the minimum wage to the new $15/hour level, while "small businesses," defined as businesses with fewer than 500 employees, have up to 7 years to reach the new level.

The problem? For the purpose of calculating the "500 employees" number, all franchises in the same system are counted together. 

The net result of this is that these locally-owned small businesses with a few employees, which also happen to be franchises, are being discriminated against as compared to their non-franchised counterparts.

Unsurprisingly, this is a hugely unpopular move in the franchising industry and an issue that has united both franchisors and franchisees. The International Franchise Association has announced that it will be filing a lawsuit against Seattle to protect franchisees and franchising in the city.

Here are this week's most interesting stories in franchising:

And the non-Seattle related story:

Finally, if you haven't already done so, please read my two recent posts in a new series about common mistakes made by franchisors in their Franchise Disclosure Documents. 

Did You Make this Mistake When Signing Your Commercial Lease?

| 0 Comments

The call came just when Kevin was about to drain the last of his scotch. The muffled ring startled him a little as he gazed lazily across the soft white sands to the calm ocean waters gently caressing the beach.

He hardly ever received phone calls anymore, not since buying a condo in an exclusive St. Lucia's resort - aptly named Sugar Beach - almost five years ago.

Unless, of course, it was the concierge informing him about the dinner reservations he had made for him at yet another five star restaurant, or his masseuse confirming his weekly appointment.

His mind briefly flashed back to former times - another place in another time, when he had managed his own franchise retail stores in Virginia and Maryland, working relentlessly to make his dream come true - to be his own boss and to prove his business acumen by the only true scorecard that has ever been used for centuries - a healthy financial statement.

And a very healthy financial statement it had turned out to be after eight years running his "Pause for Paws" franchise units.

Who knew that pet pedicures would be so popular? Talk about the golden dog laying the golden.... Well, anyway, he was very well off, and he had developed a warm spot in his heart - and wallet - and for those canines, felines, and other pampered pets.

The rude, persistent ring tone refused to allow Kevin to reminisce. "All right, already," he bellowed as he rummaged through his beach bag in search of his I-phone. He could see as he picked up the device that it was his accountant back in the States.

"We have a problem," Harvey announced flatly. "The buyer of your P for P store has gone out of business, and now the landlord is demanding that you pay the back rent and damages. Some $353,000, or thereabouts."

The slight breeze suddenly felt very cold as Kevin tried to process this unexpected disaster. "Why is the landlord coming after me," he asked weakly, "I haven't been involved with the business for over six years now. How could this be happening!?"

Unfortunately for Kevin, he had been so focused upon the planning, learning, hiring, training and everything else that consumes a new franchisee starting a business that he gave too little thought to the commercial lease he had to sign for his new store.

"As long as I pay the rent on time, I'll be okay," he had reasoned back then.

"Besides, I will have such a poor negotiating position, it makes no sense to waste time and money having an attorney review my lease."

He had been too distracted with the pressing demands of an exciting new venture to focus on the fact that his entire business would depend upon the soundness of his lease, by far the biggest asset - and liability - of his nascent enterprise.

Too often franchisees like Kevin fail to appreciate the substantial financial obligations he or she is being straddled with: even modest space of between 1,500 - 3,000 sq. ft. can have cumulative minimum rent obligations in the $700,000 to $900,000 range for a typical ten year term, plus common area maintenance, real estate taxes and insurance charges that keep going up over time.

Moreover, if a purchaser of the business elects to exercise extension rights, those obligations will only continue even longer. The landlord does not have to try to get any money out of the existing tenant, either; he can come directly after the fat guy downing booze on the beach.

It's true that a newly established business needing only a few thousand square feet of retail space is not going to have the same leverage as an anchor tenant, but there are many important provisions in a lease where a landlord has significant flexibility - indeed, almost all retail developers have already drafted second and third level positions on many important lease issues they anticipate a tenant's experienced legal counsel will raise; low-hanging fruit that can even the smallest tenant can grab - but only if he knows what those issues are, how to articulate the winning arguments, and how far one can push.

As Kevin found out too late, most landlord retail lease forms insist that the initial tenant remains liable under the lease for the full duration of the term - even if the business is sold to another person in the meantime.

On top of that, the standard personal guaranty Kevin was also required to sign put all of his personal assets behind that commitment.

It doesn't need to be that way, though. Often a landlord will agree to a significant but manageable liquidated damage amount for tenant defaults occurring after a certain period of time, or to the termination of the personal guaranty after the initial term, or to a full release of the initial tenant and its guarantor if a replacement tenant, together with a replacement guarantor, has at least a certain minimum net worth.

The point is, there are many ways to avoid this open-ended nightmare: if, like Kevin, you worked hard and "hit a home run" in the business world, you should not have to worry about an ugly hand from the past snatching it all away in an instant.

On-going tenant liability is only one of many ways in which a standard retail lease form can destroy a franchisee's exit strategy from a successful business. No franchisee should have his winning business plan become a financial disaster because he sought to "go budget" on the most important legal document he would ever sign.

"Don't worry," offered Harvey, "my brother, Rich, is a litigator. He'll find a way to fight this and maybe cut your losses - if we give him enough time to look into it."

"Yeah," sighed Kevin, "and we give him a big enough retainer."

For the 5 Most Fascinating Stories in Franchising, a weekly report, click here & sign up.

(Gordon has been representing retail tenants around the country for nearly thirty years, including serving as corporate counsel for twenty-two years leading new store site acquisition teams for major corporations, such as Costco Wholesale Corporation. In 2013, he decided to apply the extensive experience he had gained going toe-to-toe with the major retail developers around the country to the representation of the underserved small to medium-sized business client seeking to rent retail space.

Inspired by Costco's model of high quality goods and services offered with a spartan cost structure, Gordon joined a virtual law firm, Fisher Broyles, LLP, that enables him to offer all of the benefits of a major law firm - a large group of experienced, partner-level only attorneys representing clients in a broad array of practice areas ,with offices in eleven major cities throughout the United States - with the responsiveness and economy only possible through the maximum utilization of available technologies.)

Follow Us

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from June 2014 listed from newest to oldest.

May 2014 is the previous archive.

July 2014 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Authors

Archives