![Quicken Home & Business 2009](http://www.bluemaumau.org/ads/www/delivery/ck.php?oaparams=2__bannerid=49__zoneid=5__cb=78f5992746__maxdest=http://quicken.intuit.com/small-business-finance/home-business.jhtml?priorityCode=3969702399&kbid=8136&img=quickenaugbanners/9241-r1_q_hb_06_ws.jpg⊂=" "Quicken Home & Business 2009")
Wisconsin Court Reverses Quiznos Judgment, Franchisees Claims Granted
MILWAUKEE (Blue MauMau) – Federal Judge William Griesbach of the U.S. Eastern District Court of Wisconsin announced yesterday that he has granted the franchisees' motion to amend, and that the previous judgment entered on November 5, 2007, be vacated. The lawsuit was filed under Westerfield, et al. v. The Quiznos Franchise Company LLC, et al. The judge stated, "Plaintiff's civil RICO and fraud claims are reinstated, but since plaintiff's have not challenged the dismissal of their anti-trust claims, that part of the court's original decision and order remains in effect."
Judge Griesbach previously ruled dismissing the franchisees' claims without prejudice to allow them to pursue their allegations in state court. Based on their latest motion, he reviews three separate arguments that they claimed warranted reconsideration of his decision. The first claim showed that they acquired new evidence from another case which demonstrated that for at least three years Quiznos had a written corporate policy instructing its field reps that there was only one answer, "None", in the Acknowledgment form they were required to sign in becoming a franchisee. The question was whether they had received any information outside the disclosures contained in the UFOC disclosure information. Franchisees stated with new evidence they were instructed to write "none" even though they had relied on outside information.
The second claim was that the court misapplied clear Wisconsin law in resolving issues as to whether the Franchise Agreement was unconscionable. And third, was that the franchisees argued that their claim of RICO charges were not based on Quiznos' failure to disclose the fact that it was entitled to receive payments from the suppliers of goods and services they were required to purchase, or the amount they would receive. The franchisees argued that the fraud consisted of Quiznos' statement: "we and our affiliates negotiate purchase agreements with suppliers for the benefit of Franchisees." They argued that they falsely promised to negotiate for their benefit when it really used the agreements to extract exorbitant payments from them to the detriment of the franchisees.
Judge Griesbach also granted the franchisees motion to file an amended complaint, and stated that Quiznos shall file their responses within twenty days. Franchisees' motion for oral argument was denied.
Justin Klein, Marks & Klein, attorney for the franchisee plaintiffs said, "We are obviously very pleased with the decision. It is a rare occasion when a federal judge grants reconsideration. We look forward to presenting evidence to the Judge and proving our claims."
But on the other side, Rich Emmett, Chief Legal Officer of Quiznos, issued this statement, "We have tremendous respect for Judge Griesbach and his desire to be thorough in his review. This is not a decision on the merits. We remain confident, just as in Canada, when the Court views the facts in addition to the pleadings, it will conclude that Quiznos acted appropriately and that the claims brought against us lack any merit."
--
Related reading:
- Quiznos Operators File Class Action in Wisconsin State Court
- Judge Dismisses Federal Lawsuit against Quiznos
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Judge Griesbach's Decision Granting Mot to Amd or Alter Judg (LAG0474).PDF | 1.08 MB |
Quiznos
Good, it is about time that a judge reconsiders, and hears the truth. Quiznos are closing all over the country, not because the product is bad, not because they are run wrong, but because of the schemes, and the practices of the corporate leaders. Their arrogance, and their irresponsibilities to their franchisees are abusive, and it looks like it and will be finally catching up with them, I hope their civil suits and "internal mitigation" is and will catch up with them, it is always funny when a scheme becomes present, people become beware, it is also funny when it comes to the attention of regulators, then it becomes a felony. I love the FTC, and attorney generals, they are slow, but they'll catch on, ding dong the toasted subs will be gone. And those greedy pricks will go to jail.
"Wisconsin Court Reverses Quiznos Judgment"..Any Updates?
"Wisconsin Court Reverses Quiznos Judgment, Franchisees Claims Granted"
Does anyone know when this case is going to be heard?
I'm a current Quiznos Franchise owner and all of the allegations are nothing but true! We are being dragged through the mud by Quiznos. We are days away from shutting down our store and filing bankruptcy. My husband in restaurant management for 20 plus years, I'm experienced in sales, marketing, banking and finance for 30 plus years. The perfect formula for owning a Quiznos. WRONG!!!. We have been sucked dry by Quiznos. We have lost our entire life savings. Our perfect credit is no longer perfect. This experience with Quiznos will haunt us for the rest of our lives.
I believe justice will prevail! !
Why not contact the attorneys?
If you are interested in the case, contact the attorneys representing the franchisees directly. I think it is Marks and Klein out of NJ.
Your story is the same as ours
and many thousands out there.
Justice will prevail?
Guest writes; "I believe justice will prevail!", and Do writes; "and many thousands out there" didn't get a damn good lawyer or they didn't have a case or they are still waiting for Santa.
In this action there is a determination but for most every one else ... hey guys/gals .. if you want some justice .. you have to dig in/dig deep and go after it. If you are in franchising siht you either fight or walk ... and neither is cheap. Know what you are up against - read BMM.
Ray it is hard to find excellent lawyers
Do you think they grow Solomon on every tree? Wish we could clone him and all the lawyers on BMM.
People should know that their lawyers can bring Webster,
Steinberg andf me in as consultants, to work with them; help them with analysis and tactics; negotiating points; dealing with priorities and probabilities; and any other of a number of important issues. We don't have to be licensed everywhere to be able to assist local attorneys.
--
Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com, has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School
Do; you obviously haven't seen their photos?
You are right; it is extremely difficult for the everage lay-person to research who is really capable to represent you in franchising ... unless of course you ask the questions suggested by Richard.
You are in the poo
If you don't discover BMM before franchising.
Lawsuit Updates
Not sure of an actual court date yet but we are in the trenches in the discovery phase. Very interesting information has been found in discovery and as much as I would love to 'spill the beans', at this point I can't. To say you have been 'sucked dry by Quiznos' is an accurate use of words.
Re: Lawsuit Updates
Thanks! I just can't wait for the outcome. I strongly believe in KARMA... Justice WILL PREVAIL! Q is doomed.
I wish the best to all the Q zees
Remember I was a part of a franchise that many Q has beens started. Same business practices. How can they sleep at night? Many people hurt financially, emotionally and who knows how many divorces. Not to mention suicides. Very sad.
I hope it is soon
I hope we go to court soon. I had to file bankruptcy AND I still get to py the $250,000.00 loan I took out to set up my Quiznos and Try to keep it running for 8 months. We opened and went straight to the poor house!
In my area ther have been 4 stores close since July. I am wondering if anyone knows just how many stores have closed in that last 6 months? If our area is any indication stores must be closing right and left!!
Quiznos Closure Rate
In my area the closure rate is hovering around the 20%+ rate. It is very difficult to keep track of the actual rate since some stores have been churned and end up closing for the second and third time. I do not understand why people will continue to buy these.
I was able to close without filing bankruptcy, however I will be paying my remaining debt down for the next 15 years.
Why do people keep buying failed concepts?
Here's why: http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/due-diligence/the-10-most-surprising-element.html
Pay special attention to "cognitive dissonance"
Cheers
People are buying bozo franchises because they are lazy.
ignorant and cheap. They are also arrogant in that they think they are smart emough to spot the thieves selling bankruptcy traps disguised as franchises.
There is so much important educational information about how to avoid those traps that is now on the Internet FOR FREE. that only really ignorant, lazy and cheap people end up getting fleeced.
There is no longer an excuse for being a franchise fraud vicitim. If you get taken today, it is your fault.
--
Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com, has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School
No Richard
I disagree. If I had known about BMM and read all your blogs before signing, the outcome would be different. I know I would of done the smart thing and call you for due diligence services. When we signed our agreement it was May of 2006. The problem is everyone needs to get the word out about BMM so people will know about the lawyers on BMM who know how to vett a franchise and tear apart a FDD.
I assure you I have never been lazy in my life. People have to have something going for them to be able to buy a franchise.
Anyone reading here on BMM should pay for killer due diligence service. Easier to pay $3600 than go through bankruptcy and loose all you worked for. Doing business with a bad zor can destroy you. The key is get the best advice from professionals or kick ass lawyers like Solomon that will stop you before you go into a one sided relationship and get hurt.
Richard I never heard of BMM until Nov. 2007. Almost a year after Bob Baber's suicide. I was reading on BMM in the second week of Nov. 2007. We were in business then. After we closed I couldn't get off of BMM because of all the knowledge about franchising. I read every blog and got to know many of the cast by their writing. The bad zors hate BMM and the good zors love it. Hopefully the bad zors will change their ways. They will have to if they want to stay in business.
Look what's happening with Quiznos. A good name is more valuble than gold. Quiznos in the franchising world does not have a good name and anything associated with Quiznos.
Did my research
When we were considering Quiznos, I did my research! I googled Quiznos, all I got that Quiznos was rate the #2 franchise in the US! Found nothing else! Soon after, when we realized we were fraudulently suckered into this Q scam, stuff about Q started coming out.
156 million blogs & websites
Richard,
You are absolutely correct that there are many fine, no-BS websites among these zeros and ones, with yours being one of the finest.
One out of 156,000,000 or 0.00000065%
The industry certainly reaps what it cynically sows by ignoring all independently verifiable quality measurements such as ISO9001.
Les Stewart MBA
Understanding Franchising
I understand your point, Les - that there are so many that it
can be confusing.
On the other hand, if you have upwards of a half million dollars to invest, you have to have some smarts or you will get skinned.
You have to know how to go online and Google up such things as Franchise Investment Due Diligence; Frachise Fraud.
If you're too dumb to narrow the search by using such obvious search words, either you shouldn't be thinking of investing in a franchise at all, or you ought to go out and get some Boudreaux's Butt Paste for when they stick it to you hard - you know where.
I posted a blog article here this morning that hasn't yet made it to prime time, but - against Belinda's wishes - I decided to give a free peek at how franchise investment risk really ought to be thought about.
--
Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com, has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School
Past the Tipping Point?
Richard,
I agree with you when it comes to those who are potential franchisees. At this time in point.
My experience is that the smart money has long since decided to stay on the sidelines. They believe all franchise waters are too dangerous.
What is that old sales chestnut: one person knows 250 people? Percentage of exiting franchisees per year, number of years, etc. Those numbers add up especially how memorable the experience of losing your life savings tends to be.
Top marks to the industry for consistency: there's a sucker born [imported?] every minute. Oddly enough, there are limits to everything
Main street is way ahead of the punditry on this and credibility once lost is often never redeemable.
Like a lot of things: Little things add up very slowly but then they reach a point where, literally and figuratively, all hell breaks loose.
Les Stewart MBA
Understanding Franchising
Re: Because they are lazy
and cheap etc. Cannot disagree in most cases.
Richard said; "There is no longer an excuse for being a franchise fraud vicitim. If you get taken today, it is your fault." Cannot disagree in most cases.
Then there are the cases where a sound franchise gets sold or a new senior exec decides to make his mark [as a dog would against a defenceless tree].
But let's face it - how much media coverage of rogue franchising is there to prompt people. People are gullible and they know that there are good franchises - many make the mistake of thinking their soon to be disaster would fit the "good" category because it wasn't in the media and most shonky systems don't find there way to the web and a salesman told lies.
We live in this franchising world and most of those looking for the structure that franchising is supposed to deliver are first time business people. Mostly gullible! Richard, do you remember your first time? Like franchising; without some experience it was probably over before you knew it.
The shonks are too effective and the victims can't fight back becasue once they are screwed their state of mind precludes it or because they have been screwed financially. If it were different then the web, and BMM, would be inundated.
Those at BMM all live in a world where using computers is as certain as making coffee in the morning. Some don't drink coffee and some people don't use computers and some people are stupid or gullible or arrogant and most are cheap. Most in setup are told to be cheap.
They should do their due diligence and they should pay for someone that knows what they are doing and some are lazy and some are stupid. Experience tells us that. But franchising shonks don't target people who are not stupid and lazy and they are good at the con.
Sure they should have done their homework. If they ever noticed something negative at all about franchising they should have. If they had ever been in business before and they got screwed in a franchise because they didn't perform effective due diligence then they are fools.
But the issue isn't the stupid or the lazy; the issue is rogue, bad, scam, shonky, con franchising. Even the stupid and gullible are entitled to effective protection. The lazy pay their dues ... always have .. always will.
NO! The issue is stupid and lazy and cheap.
There is a level of activity in which you cannot excuse incompetence with the "it's my first time" foolishness.
You don't risk everything you own blindly because it's the first time you risked everything you own. That is stupidity and laziness.
When you lose everything you own, there is often no second time. The rest of your life is spent trying to rebuild your resources and trying to overcome the emotional consequences of losing everything when you clearly didn't have to lose it. Even your wife loses respect for you when you blow the whole family asset pool - don't expect any Po Baby sex for a long time - expect to have to go out and buy sex when you can find some money to do so. Your life becomes a living hell, and your family may very well not even hold together from the economic tragedy. I know this from the experience of people who came around too late - who put themselves through it when it wasn't necessary because they thought that having some lawyer "read the documents" for a few quid would suffice as due diligence.
You are far to glib. It is no one's fault but yours if you get fleeced. If you are too ignorant to get the resources needed, fewer and fewer courts will even hear your case. If you now and in the future sign documents in which you confess that what caused your downfall never happened, the fact that you are an adult who has access to competent help WILL mmore and more be held against you. You won't any longer be allowed to blame others for being crooked when you could have protected yourself and didn't.
The law of every commercial nation recognizes your own participation in your downfall as contrbutory negligence. You don't have your dentist do your brain surgery, and you don't risk everything in franchising when you could have purchased competent due diligence but chose not to do so. You have to be current in using the availavble resources for self protection. The Babe in the woods defense to stupidity won't work any longer.
The legal system isn't there to protect you against yourself. You have to protect you against your own inexperience if competent resources are there for that purpose. If you didn't choose to do so for reasons of laziness, stupidity or stinginess, so be it! The BlueMauMau crying towel will become your only recourse. You can still come in here and whine.
All you have to do is go on to any search engine using the search words "franchise lawyer". Then you call every one on the first two pages of results and ask two questions. They are: (1) Do you focus on franchise pre investment due diligence? and (2) Do you vet the financial and business risks as well as the legal risks? Do't hire anyone who does not answer YES to thoose two questions.
It's that bloody easy!
Get real!
--
Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com, has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School
The image promoted
of franchising is all sweet and sweet. And not just by franchisors and their representative bodies – in the majority of media referring to franchising and by existing franchisees. There is a popular and promoted image of franchising as the “means to print money”. A prospective franchisee believes he is investing, say $300,000, and has no clue that he is about to put everything on the line. Let me repeat that; has no clue that he is about to put everything on the line.
I agree with almost everything that Richard has to say. He is right “in most cases”. But he is not the only one out there dealing with franchisees deep in this crap where I hear of many an experience where the franchisee could not have done more. I have no time for those that in a variety of ways were their own worst enemy. No really – I just don’t have the bloody time.
We are hearing more and more of franchisees being sucked into the blender without warning when their franchisor became bankrupt. Everything is for sale and sound franchises sell to mad-men to then create waves of horror stories. There are some systems where they had a history of success and then for some unknown reason the franchisor went mad. Was it influenced by outside financial pressures, a sudden lapse into schizophrenia or just plain greed as they saw retirement looming?
There are literally tens of thousands of lawyers out there telling people they are "qualified" but when it comes to franchising there are very few who can interpret the contract against the behaviour of the franchisor against available performance data against risk. If they were asked Richard’s questions they would answer in a smoke and mirrors affirmative. But when it comes down to their approach to appraising an offering it is all too hard and the typical response is; “but that’s franchising”. Due diligence begins with an assessment of their legal and financial advisor – but who tells franchisees that?? Is that where contributory negligence starts?
It is convenient to label all franchisees as lazy and stupid. With great respect; that is an “easy” out. I’m not suggesting that most are not lazy and stupid but if you think BMM target market is limited to those suckers you are wrong. That is a blinkered view and not dissimilar to most lazy franchisees that walk into a disaster.
It is 3.00am and I have to travel 4,000 miles today to bash heads with a council for a franchisee so I’ll be off .... can I borrow your cape Richard? Me glib? ... you nasty .... and stop talking to my wife ...
If I thought only losers were on BMM I wouldn't bother.
I view this blog forum as a potential bully pulpit for preaching the gospel of really attack mode due diligence. Some will "get it" and many won't.
No one can prevent downstream calamity that is not specifically permitted in the documents. Any system can go under from any of a number of causes. Even the best business has business risks. I was on the GM law staff in the early 60s when we thought GM was God's own automobile company.
But ultimate universal industry wide calamity isn't what I am talking about. I'm talking about evaluating the risk profiles that can be evaluated before you sign a franchise agreement. The best franchisee candidate can turn out not to be able to handle the challenge, or to be able to handle it but then not be able to handle the success. That also isn't what I am talking about.
I know something of your history from your postings in here, and I won't go into that. But your experience does not have to be the experience of others. Neither should you - in my opinion - discourage others from availing themselves of resources that might not have been around when you were making your own investment decision.
--
Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com, has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School
Not at all where I am coming from
I apologise to anyone who considers my blogs as suggesting they should not do “attack mode” due diligence. That is definitely not my intention – far, far from it. I look at BMM as an educational tool that tries but sadly it doesn’t reach everyone.
I prod here at times to add to the dimension of people’s understanding that everything about franchising requires an open mind to all possibilities. That is often BMM; someone prods and someone kicks and people learn. Look at this thread and tell me that those that have contributed haven’t added or reinforced “The” message; your message Richard, BMM’s message.
No easy way out
Solomon writes, "Do you focus on franchise pre investment due diligence? and (2) Do you vet the financial and business risks as well as the legal risks?"
So many people are looking for money nowadays, even attorneys.
You say to call a franchise attorney that can vet financial and business risk, eh? That makes as much sense as calling my dentist to file my tax returns.
Frankly, attorneys wouldn't recognize a good business opportunity if it hit them in the face. Their expertise is in the legal world, working in a practice or as an employee to a law firm.
Attorneys are helpful during the due diligence phase in explain legal documents and the ramifications of its clauses. They can also look up legal cases that may not be listed in a franchise system's FDD.
Franchise due diligence is not bloody easy.
If a lawyer somehow developed the ability to spot a great money-making franchise opportunity miles away, they'd be doing it. They like money just as much as the next guy.
Legal v. bsns judgment
Not necessarily. I have owned several businesses, including a franchise. And some attorneys own franchises (notably, Mr. Zarco owns a Johnny Rockets). My understanding is that Solomon has some background as a business owner as well. Moreover, law is a business and indeed some law firms have partners who focus exclusively on the business aspects of running the firm and don't actually practice law.
But your point is well taken as a cautionary observation, and Solomon and I have disagreed on this point; I tend to lean more towards your point of view than Solomon's.
The role of the attorney is to give an assessment of certain risks and how to mitigate them. The practice of law is inherently risk averse (even in transactional work involving business purchase) but the nature of business is to accept risk commensurate with potential reward.
I generally do not pass on the economic merits of a particular asset purchase, be it a business or a piece of real property. On those occasions when I do opine on business-related matters, I make it clear that there is a distinction between legal judgment and business judgment.
Again, not always true. The best lawyers I know are much like the best franchisees I know: they have a passion for their work and are doing what they love. I prefer what I do now, but several of my clients are puzzled by why one would prefer to practice law than be a business owner--different strokes for different folks.
One of the biggest mistakes made by franchisees and law students is choosing a career because they believe it to be a path to wealth.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
So true
While I do give business and financial advice when vetting franchise opportunities, I recognize the risks, but I do it anyway.
The reason I do it anyway is that I believe I have developed a very astute capability of spotting business risks peculiar to franchise opportunities - there are those, you know. If I have that ability and I take a small fee and don't provide a client with what I am able to provide, then I'm wasting my abilities. Moreover, I have this belief that if I did sell a client short on what I am able to provide - even tho the client didn't want to pay extra for it - the client would claim that, as part of my fiduciary duty to him, I should have provided it anyway. I think that a disiciplinary committee/jury might agree with that. The rationale would be that if you hold yourself out as an expert, you have to really be an expert. Theoretically you can draft your way around that in a retainer agreement, but retainer agreements have a bad habit of being ignored in disputes between lawyers and clients. Since I represent clients from everywhere, I have to consider that I may be at risk everywhere. (I know, Paul - I shouldn't be saying this - for my own good). Therefore, I am significantly more expensive than a lawyer who only vets legal risks. I insist upon beng compensated for the added dimension of what I provide.
This has served me well over many years - no bar complaints - except one for being too rough on someone and one for taking a case against the interests of a former client - I won that one. I was too rough on the first SOB, so I took a slap on the wrist and prayed for grace next time.) But no one has ever complained about the quality of my service, and I wear that as a matter of pride - a badge of quality.
Paul would certainly never get a comfortable night's sleep if we were partners, but we are different people in that respect. I will stick my neck farther out for the appropriate fee. He has better sense.
--
Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com, has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School
Bar complaints
This may in part be a function of geography. In my neck of the woods, it has become so common to make complaints against attorneys (your own or even your counter-party's) that I was at a CLE last year where the speaker (who was employed by the body which disciplines lawyers in my jurisdiction) bemoaned the huge volume of unfounded complaints filed by disgruntled members of the public; one recent trend I have seen is attorneys filing complaints about their adversaries, something which used to be resolved by going to your judge and having the judge smack the appropriate party upside the head.
As to your law partners' comfort level, I suspect that their lack thereof is more due to a fear that the firm profits will go to support your high-end epicurean standards than any prospective malpractice claims... ;)
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
My God, Paul! How much money do you really need?
After you pay your bills, what are you going to do with the rest of the money? Save it? For what?
My daughter is now out and successfully on her own. She doesn't need me to leave her anything. My girl friend is far wealthier than I am. She doesn't need me to leave her anythng. I intend to work to the last breath - I love it that much. I owe very little. I have excellent medical insurance.
With that profile I would be a bloody fool not to live well and enjoy everything - well almost everything - to excess.
--
Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com, has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School
Business vs. Legal advice
Most clients ask what you would do if you were faced with the same decisions they are faced with. Then they ask why you answered as you did. It seems to me you almost necessarily end up talking economics at some point.
In addition, the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC 2.1 in WA) require that the lawyer offer candid advice and provide: "In rendering advice, a lawyer may refer not only to law but to other considerations such as moral, economic, social and political factors, that may be relevant to the client's situation."
Due Diligence by Attorneys
Guest writes: "If a lawyer somehow developed the ability to spot a great money-making franchise opportunity miles away, they'd be doing it. They like money just as much as the next guy."
I do not read Richard as providing advice about how to spot the best opportunity, only as how to avoid some of the worst traps out there. Traps that look superficially like real franchise systems, but which in fact are frauds.
As I understand Richard's top flight program, it is not a review of the legal documents but rather a long process to prepare you and alert you to red flags at the discovery day, for example. Red lights that you might otherwise drive through.
Michael Webster, a franchisee attorney in Toronto, Ontario, who publishes a website on business opportunities and franchises, called "The BizOp News"
The important point for me is that my clients don't get
ripped off. If that isn't worth anything to you, that's your opinion and I take it for what it's worth.
Anyone who fails to see the value in what I do is welcome to go elsewhere. I'm not in a popularity contest. I sell extremely cynical analysis of franchise opportunities. Pie in the sky afficionados are not in my client profile.
--
Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com, has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School
Legal vs Biz advice
RIchard is correct--he is telling you up front what he does. The problems that I have encountered as a recovering attorney (now business owner) were people who had their minds made up and really did not want good advice. They wanted you to tell them what they wanted to hear: that this was a great opportunity and they were "protected."
Well, every single franchise agreement that iever read says exactly the opposite. It SAYS in plain English that you are on your own and that you are NOT protected and can be competed against by the franchisor and other franchisees. Some folks just do not want to hear this or approach the franchisor for a change n the deal. It is irrational behavior. Sure, maybe if you buy a McDOnald's franchise it doesn't matter that the franchise agreement says that because the franchisor really does help out and does not routinely enforce the letter of the contract at every opportunity or try to steal your business investment.
There are chains that do litigate the crap out of their franchisees and investigate them and file complaints with government agencies to see if they can turn up the heat on theoir own franchisees so they can pry their investments out of their hands. Of course, that effort is worth t onky after the franchisee DOES succeed. You can even show the client these cases and news articles but they still want to continue. I guess that's how these Zors pay their litigation and private investigator bills.
There are answers to these issues. Here are a few.
Franchisees could take my advice and early on set up an independent franchisee association and have it porofessionally managed so that it does not become simply a whining room. Issues become refined and professionally dealt with so that the association acquires credibility.
Franchisees tell every new franchisee how critically important it is to belong to the group - you want as close to 100 % membership as you can get.
When the franchisees are a coherent and properly lead group, they can get things accomplished in spite of contract language - just by the weight of their mass. No franchisor wants to take on the whole group on important issues. If the Assn isn't started early and properly managed, it doesn't achieve that kind of credibility.
Franchisees don't do that. They wait until the shaft has been forcefully inserted - you know where - and then they start to whine and beg and write nasty emails and disparage the franchisor, and do other things that are counterproductive.
Will they ever learn that the cost of a good organization is part of the cost of survival? I'm starting to doubt it.
You think this is nonsense? You are welcome to any opinion you like. But before you get engaged, I suggest you go to www.FranchiseeAssociationManagement.com and read up on the subject.
--
Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com, has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School
Flogging a dead horse
Franchisee associations should not just be seen as valuable in dispute, or to minimize disputes; which they are and which they do.
Franchisee associations are enormously powerful and run properly should ensure the health of a franchise system. They give balance and quality franchisors should see them as a positive and not be fearful. Just one example; it is difficult for a franchisor to instigate new initiatives without the support of the network and this often brings about unnecessary expense and disharmony.
When a franchisor can sit down and present objectives to franchisee representatives this is usually a more intelligent forum where pros and cons can be discussed and details involving any conflict can be ironed out. Then the initiative, given it is beneficial to all, can be delivered to the network with support from the association.
There is no downside to a franchisee association that is run properly for anyone within a good system. And yet franchisors generally don’t get it. But some do and the franchising relationship gets stronger.
But franchisees are often like cattle and are hard work to organise and especially when the network has dispute. Franchisees in trouble tend to want to protect their butt and don’t see the value in protecting the network butt. They usually wait for everyone else to get involved and to make the effort on their behalf.
I am a great believer in franchisee associations and there are enough good ones out there producing better franchising and enhancing the value of everyone’s investment. They should exist in every network. But for most it is like flogging a dead horse so I try not to waste too much of my time after the first selfish, stupid question – from a franchisor or a franchisee.
Franchisee Associations
Anyone who wants to see the pros and cons of such asscoiations at work need only look at the various twists and turns that the Subway franchisees have taken with their NAASF. Sometimes everyone is working together, and at other times against each other. And the IPC, Subway co-op, would never have succeeded without the support from franchisees. It took a while for the franchisor to see the light and the result is an enormous boon for Subway franchisees for over 12 years
mrfranchiseman.com, your Subway specialist
IMDA
Midas franchisees had a brilliant association but then along came Fedlman and ushered his puppets into position. I don't know where it is now.
GR - Ex-Midas
"Wisconsin Court Reverses Quiznos Judgment, Franchisees Claims G
I too am a franchisee of Quiznos and I'm wondering if there is a lawsuit in California that I can join???
Quiznos Lawsuit
Contact the TSFA at www.toastedsubs.info they will steer you in the right direction. There is a national complaint you can join.
No one at Quizno's going to jail...
And it is a long shot that much will happen with any of the lawsuits.
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
Ignore stupid posts
TiF: when you respond to nonsense postings (and "Guest" ones in particular) it only encourages more such posting.
Just ignore them, and they find more receptive websites on which to rant.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Is this important?
It's been a week or so since i read this, but Quizno's and the class action lawsuits in WI, IL & CO are going into private mediation in June. I just figured someone else would mention it that had a little more 'inside' information than myself.
ANOTHER Quiznos Lawsuit - and Other News
A lawsuit has now been filed against Quiznos in Pennsylvania. Yes (p)Rick, Tricky Dick, Brennenman, and the rest of you modern day cattle thieves the noose is slowly tightening and your day of reckoning is fast approaching.
In other Quiznos news, Q recently went through another layoff at the corporate HQ and there's speculation that the Quiznos "brain trust" is looking at bankruptcy.
The facade of Quiznos working with franchisees is over. The Q goons are telling franchisees to follow the $5 giveaway and increase hours...or else. Meanwhile, hundreds of franchisees have been sucked dry and Q is bracing for a wave of closings over the next few months.
For those of you thinking of buying a Quiznos franchise...this system is withering on the vine. Save your money and your health - find another way to invest your hardearned money. A cd and a job at Walmart will leave you way ahead of a Q investment.
Re: Is this important?
I have not heard about that ......
If Q's management is smart, and I believe the current management is,
they will settle in mediation.
If they end up in court, and their business practises get exposed in front of a judge & jury, they will fry ........ !!!
Re: Is this important?
You would think that Janet Sparks would have reported on this development?
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
What crime did Q management commit?
Nothing has been proven yet but if you read the complaint, it should spell it out for you.
Re: What crime did Q management commit?
I have read the various complaints and I missed the part where they could end up going to prison as result of a civil penalty.
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
You know as well as I do
Civil cases can end up in criminal cases. If any criminal actions can be proven.