Quiznos Class Actions Near Settlement
CHICAGO – Attorneys for Quiznos franchisees will appear before Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer in Illinois federal court on Friday at 10 a.m. to ask for preliminary approval for a class action settlement of all class lawsuits. Last September, plaintiffs in this case, Ilene Siemer v. The Quiznos Franchise Company, amended their complaint to bring all four actions suits before the court.
Quiznos defendants have authorized franchisees’ counsel to state that they, Quiznos, do not oppose the relief their clients are seeking. Franchisees are asking for monetary compensation of approximately $42 million for approximately 10,000 franchisees, for current franchise operators to be released from significant potential claims that Quiznos asserted against them, and for significant changes in certain company business practices.
In the past litigation, franchisees have accused the Denver-based company of operating a prolonged deceptive business practice that has been carried out since 2000. Operators allege that the franchisor induces unwitting prospects to purchase and operate Quiznos sandwich shops and pay franchise-related fees. They depict it as Quiznos' way to exploit its control and power "in order to extract exorbitant and unjustifiable payments from franchisees." In perpetrating their plan, Quiznos is accused of implementing slick sales tactics and marketing the American dream of business ownership in what was referred to as the fastest growing franchise in the United States.
One class action suit, SNO Class Action, represents buyers who had purchased a Quiznos franchise but never opened their restaurant, referred to as “sold but not opened.” The other three cases brought claims on behalf of all Quiznos franchisees that had opened and operated stores, and is now under “Franchise Operator Class Action.” In the proposed settlement, franchisees are seeking the following:
- An order granting preliminary approval of the settlement reached;
- Conditionally certifying settlement classes for the SNO Class Action and the Franchise Operator Class Action;
- Appointing plaintiffs as class representatives and plaintiff's’ counsel as class counsel for both class actions;
- Approving, disseminating, and authorizing the mailing of the proposed class notice, including claim, opt out and appeal forms;
- Appointing a class action administrator for the settlement agreement;
- Setting a final fairness hearing that will resolve the issues for both class actions
The settlement agreements outline the compensation for the class members, depending on their status in the lawsuits. As part of the breakdown, the SNO Class Action gives plaintiffs two choices. One is remaining in the system and receiving a credit in the amount of the franchise fee, approximately $25,000, toward the purchase of equipment and supplies needed to open and run their restaurant. The second is to leave the system and receive a refund between 32.7 and 5 percent of their initial franchise fee, depending upon when they purchased their franchise. Even if they have previously settled with Quiznos they will receive some compensation. And they will benefit from a release from Quiznos of all claims against them, including claims seeking lost future profits caused by failure to open restaurants.
The Franchise Operator Class Members will receive monetary benefits, depending on whether a particular class member remains in the Quiznos system operating a restaurant or has exited the system as of the preliminary approval date. Members still in the system will receive $3,150 in credits on food purchases over a three-year period. Those who have transferred their shops to other owners will receive $475, and those who have ceased operations as of the preliminary approval date will receive $1,700. The total value of these payments will be $17,850,000 if there are no opt-outs and if all eligible class members submit claims.
Quiznos will also release current and former operators from claims for unpaid royalties and marketing and advertising fees, including SNO members. The estimated benefit to the class members of this release is approximately $5.71 million, according to the brief.
But the proposed settlement agreement provides significant benefits over and above direct financial benefits to franchisees who continue to operate Quiznos restaurants, including $19.4 million to its advertising and marketing trust funds between January 2009 and the end of 2012, $10 million of which must be spent on local advertising.
Other Proposed Benefits
Quiznos will also recognize an independent association of franchisees (IAOF), and will provide funding to incorporate the organization and its initial operation. The current Toasted Subs Franchisee Association (TSFA) is not mentioned.
Some of the other benefits include the creation of an advertising advisory council, an annual review by an independent third-party auditor of Quiznos’ food and supplies prices charged to franchisees, a formal dispute resolution program addressing franchise operators’ grievances, and a formal program to assist franchisees who want to sell their stores and to assist those who want to purchase additional franchises.
The settlement will also include that Quiznos will make changes in its franchise disclosure document to clarify the role of Quiznos-owned entities in the supply chain. And if Quiznos adapts a national delivery requirement, financial assistance will be given to franchisees to help cover the cost of materials needed for them to participate in delivery.
Settlement Finalized after Mediation
The franchisees’ brief for the proposed agreement gives the history of the litigation and the mediation efforts in adopting the settlement. The parties first began discussing settlement in earnest in April 2008. In August 2008, attorneys and client representatives for both sides met in Los Angeles for mediation sessions, with no results. After nearly a year of additional discovery and notion practice in all four cases, the parties again resorted to mediation, this time on July 2, 2009 in Denver with Michael O’Donnell of Wheeler Trigg & O’Donnell LLP. The final execution of the settlement agreement was on October 27, 2009.
What the Settlement Accomplishes
The Quiznos franchisees’ brief states that the settlement should receive preliminary approval because it accomplishes several significant objectives. First, it provides some type of monetary compensation to every person who has owned a Quiznos franchise in the past, whether or not the franchise ever opened for business or continues to operate today. Second, current franchisees are released from significant potential claims that Quiznos had the right to assert against them. And third, the settlement creates “significant business changes likely to benefit franchisees on a going-forward basis, including the “creation of an independent but Quiznos-recognized franchisee association, which has never existed in the Quiznos system before.”
According to the brief, the settlement agreement provides that the overall value of the deal will be appraised, and that the appraised value will be presented at the final fairness hearing, proposed for June 30, 2010. And it states, “The maximum agreed payments by Quiznos to franchise operators, the contributions to the advertising trust fund, and the known dollar value of releases, yield a total of $42.96 million.
--
Related Articles:
- Class Action Alleges 3000 Quiznos Sold but Not Opened
- Franchisees Strengthen Charges against Quiznos on Deceptive ...
- Judge Dismisses Federal Lawsuit against Quizno
- National Class Action Filed Against Quiznoss
- Quiznos Operators File Class Action in Wisconsin State Court
- Quiznos' Chief Counsel Speaks Out on Issues
- Quiznos: A Tragic Ending to a Franchisee's Plight
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| QuiznosSettlement.pdf | 50.64 KB |
| QuiznosSettlement2.pdf | 319.19 KB |
- Franchise topic:
- Enter Your Own Tag:
As a former Q zee with one failed store and one SNO, I am disgusted at this settlement. It is yet another dirty win for Quiznos, and gives them a relatively cheap way to shed all of thier baggage. Will I participate in the settlement? Yes. Why? Because the strategy of Big Q has always been to divide and conquer. There is no way to beat them in a lawsuit as an individual, and this shattered group of ex-franchisees has no strength left to fight them. So better to take something than nothing.
But I will write a letter to Judge Pallmeyer expressing my disgust at this tidy arrangement to release Q of all claims and make a handful of attorneys $10 million dollars. Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, huh? She can still refuse this settlement, so hopefully I won't be the only one sending her a letter.
Meanwhile, I handed over $15,000 for absolutely nothing for my SNO, while Q told me "don't call us, we'll call you when a site is avialable." And they are now paying me back $750? That's a $14,250 profit to them for getting me to sign that agreement. Nice deal! And forget about EVER being made whole on the store I actually ran. That $1700 settlelemt payment equals about 1/2 of what my weekly overpriced food bill was. I bet I paid more than that in price premiums to Sarah Lee and Coke so they could pay Big Q thier "rebates", which came to about $40 million a year if I recall correctly.
This settlement is a sham. The attorneys were paid to initiate this by the franchisee group. If there was no settlement, the attorneys still collected their full fees. That is why the rep franchisees are requesting $50k each - to recoup the money they already paid the attorneys. So the $10 mil is just a bribe from Quiznos to make this go away.
This proposed settlement is obviously for the benefit of the lawyers and a handpicked small group of plaintiffs while ripping off the bulk of the plaintiffs. This proposed settlement is also in clear violation of the spirit / terms and conditions of the agreement(s) between counsul and their supposed represented clients. I can say this as I am one of the litigants. We were had by our own lawyers (no surprise). I WILL FIGHT THIS!
but any time that you have a class action on a contingency fee, and the attorneys are offered $10MM in fees they are going to convince the lead plaintiffs that it's a good deal (especially if the lead plaintiffs are getting 30x more than other store owners). Between the two plaintiff law firms you are talking 14 total attorneys. I'm guessing that there will be some nice bonuses paid out this year.
Thats right you are taking a guess. There is an agreement in how any settlement is to be divided (if any award) and who determines who gets what (and that person(s) are not the lawyers). In this case the lawyers went rogue on the plaintiffs to assure their payday!
Keep fighting, would the Hurt Zees be satisfied with, say, $100,000 per Hurt Zee? Would that be enough or do you want $200,000 or $300,000 each? For each of about 5,000 Zees (current and closed and SNO) what does that come to? Uhh, do you really think Q is gonna come up with $500 million? Schaden?
So hurray hurray, you drive them out of business and collect 10 cents on each dollar of your judgment. Gee what a win for the existing Zees! Do you eally think that Schaden and Q would agree to settle for terms that would put them out of business? Why would they?
The ONLY way that Schaden & Q would AGREE to settle is if the settlement (1) leaves them in business and in cfharge; and (2) leaves them profitable. Otherwise WHY would they SETTLE??? THEY would rather go down with the ship than "settle" for something that takes their business away from them.
Is it really a "win" for EXISTING (and open) Zees if Q folds? I hear a lot of them think their problems would be solved if they could de-brand. Well okay that gets you out of royalties and you can scrounge any cheap food you can. BUT - then you're just another no-name Mom & Pop sub shop.
On my wish list would instead be a strong brand with better supply chain and more Zee influence on advertising budget. Ya opened a Quiznos to be part of a national brand. If you just wanted a Mom & Pop no-brand shop you didn't need to buy a Q to begin with. Me, Iif I was a Zee, I'd like to settle quickly and try to leverage that settlement to negotiate some changes going forward, with the Zor's incentive being to avoid future suits now that they've seen they can lose.
As a customer, I like the Q products, just found them pricey for what to me is just another kind of "fast food". So the critical factors seem to be supply chain, go to Zee co-ops buying Zor APPROVED food, and more Zee influence on co-op advertising. If it was me, I'd work on those things, not hold out for a settlement that could never be. There is just no way Q or Schaden can come up with the billion that would be needed to make the Hurt Zees feel whole. And if they were that kind of $ available, wanna bet that instead teh Hurt Zees would now want 2 billion?
So existing Zees, do you want to go forward and try to settle and save the brand, or is it doomed so you put all your hopes into a lawsuit? Former Zees and SNOs have a divergent interest. Since they are already out, all they want is as much as they can get from litigation. They are already out so what do they care if they also drove existing Zees under by also killing the Zor?
Intersting. Already I can't get a Q sub in my county (no Qs left), so not like I have any more than a theoretical interest in this.
No matter what, you will be robbed and continue to be robbed by these crooks, cut your losses, close your doors and run. You'll have to start over, it's worth it, look at it as a life's lesson.
Rick Schaden is the Bernie Madoff of the franchise world. It would nice to see him and Bernie sharing a cell together.
and once again no thank you and no kiss.
Former franchisees who lost hundreds of thousands of dollars each get, in reality, nothing. $475? And a tax form that will cut that amount by as much as 39%. Sorry. There's no joy in Mudville. Former franchisees have struck out again.
Those who plunked down 20k and never were able to open due to corporate negligence get a few thousand dollars back. Q keeps the rest. Sounds fair to me. Q should be compensated for having to hold the money all these years.
Current franchisees get what amounts to $20 a week in a food rebate for three years and a franchisee association bought and paid for by Q corporate. No food co-op and AFD remains alive and well. Of course the auditing firm hired by Q will make sure franchisees are taken care of...hahahahahahaha.
Finally, in what is probably the biggest slap in the face our pal Dick, the guy who has stolen million while single handedly bringing this system to its knees remains in charge. All because of a judge who doesn't want justice, just a settlement, and OUR corrupt lawyers who took what amounts to a multi-million dollar bribe to end the lawsuit.
That's not justice, that's a travesty.
Screw him,and close your store, cut your losses NOW!
and everyone will be getting the $475. 3800 Quiznos Restaurants now open as of 12-05-09
3750 and falling. Apparently Dick E Schaden has figured out that paying former franchisees $475 and churning their stores is a lot more lucrative than rebating food costs to them.
I will take my $475 eat at Subway!
If there is one Q's, that is too many.
And q franchisees get poorer. It's a bad deal that should be rejected by those paying for the class action lawsuit.
By the way, the current ads Q is running to convince people to buy closed stores for pennies on the dollar includes a guy, identified as a franchisee, who was working at Q when I went to Q University for training. He spent his days trying to convince new franchisees that big discounts would make franchisees big "penny" profits.
That means the guy knew first hand how franchisees were getting taken by Schaden and Quiznos. That also means the guy is a plant or the biggest moron to ever come down the pike. Either way he's someone who should be ignored, just like the ad.
You can't tell me Q's doesn't know what their doing. They are into selling franchises to anyone. They obviously have never shown they have cared for their zees.
The Quiznos telephone number is 1-800-4-TOASTED. That should send an investor running for the hills. :)
This Christmas franchisees should chip in to buy Quiznos Canada a dedicated line with this Montreal number:
1-GET-TOASTED (1-438-862-7833)
Can't get clearer than that.
over the past 10 days. 3835 open restaurants according to Q. How many more are really closed? Only Q knows for sure. Of course it's so poorly run maybe Q doesn't know. And this settlement is going to help franchisees how?
so a Quiznos story with 60 comments gets replaced with a "Blog it on BMM" story. That makes sense.
just lose an off topic thread?
The more things change; the more they stay the same.
As a current FO I have to say Im very disappointed in this settlement.
1st. FO’s got almost no real monetary compensation.
2nd If Im not mistaken Q is still profiting through AFD.
3rd. I did not see if FOs get to elect there own representative with out any approval for Q.
So how is this a good settlement!
We have to ask ourselves how any settlement will improve our situation.
Are we getting a real monetary compensation or are we getting real change with Q?
The answers are NO and NO!
is in big trouble. 3846 restaurants remain open ACCORDING TO Q. That means 2,000 restaruants have closed in two years. We have them by the short hairs. This is NOT the time to do a bad settlement deal, this is the time to get a GOOD agreement from Q; one that includes ad and food co-ops, a STRONG, INDEPENDANT franchisee association setup with Q money, repayment to current and former Q owners for the thousands stolen by Q in predatory pricing and lost because of mismanagement, open books for FA lawyers and accountants, and the removial of (p)Rick from ANY role at Quiznos. Anything less is a loss for franchisees.
"That means 2,000 restaruants have closed in two years. We have them by the short hairs."
How do YOU have THEM by the short hairs if they are failing all by themselves? Yeah, if ALL the stores closed, wouldn't you be showing them! If they are going down, get what you can as soon as you can get it. Hold out for that big big pie in the sky by and by, and they might disappear from under you before you can collect a dime.
Dream on. You'll be the next hurt zee like "oldsword" or BJ crying in your beer about how you were robbed, and with not a penny to show for it. The settlement doesn't look very tasty, but what are your actual chances of doing much better if you stretch it out for years longer with further litigation???
I agree with other the experts on this site who say this deal is a loser for franchisees and a big win for Q corporate. Like the poster above I believe we can do better. If we take this deal it won't change the failed business model we currently operate under and it won't stop the closings, The only one who benefits is Rick Schaden.
The Subway model is the only way we'll survive long-term. Their franchisees fought and got the co-ops that are an absolute NECESSITY for survival. Food and Ad co-ops would end the bogo's, end the excessively high food and supply prices we pay, and make us competitive again. Bringing back Chef Jimmy or bringing in someone like him to develop new, innovative offerings would be a major step forward and getting rid of Rick Schaden, as another poster advocates, would be icing on the cake.
Finally, what makes you such an expert about Quiznos and our situation? Your rant is unprofessional and childish. You should take it elsewhere.
As a former franchise owner; robbed by the criminals at Quiznos, I view this settlement as an insult. We have lost my entire life savings, my husband and I worked as slaves for almost three years allowing these criminals to rob us...We are still paying for what these criminals have done to us...I work 7 days a week, with pay I might add... and barely make ends meet as I try to recover from these robbers. What will this settlement do for me, I ask? It will not give me back all the advertising fees I paid where there is no accounting of where the money went...It will not pay me back for all the severely overpriced food and paper supplies I was forced to purchase from the Quizno's Suppliers. It will not pay me back for all the long hours slaving without pay. I plan to be in the courtroom in Chicago on June 30, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.
Is that why Subway survives? Every time I order a sub there I have to take out a magnifying glass to confirm the meat I ordered is right. 1 pickle, 1 lettuce shred, and they use a ruler to round down the 6 inch sub to 5.5 inches.
When Q told you what a great system it was, how fast it was growing, and implied how well you would do, that's what you wanted to hear? And so you bought into this crappy system. Purchasing co-ops are not new in the industry. Advertising co-ops are not new in the industry. So WHY (if you know so much) did you buy into a system that didn't have these critical features?
Gee, what do I know, Zees for 15 years, in a system where our supply chain is a big ADVANTAGE, we buy NO food from the Zor. We have regional and national co-op advertising. That's what we bought into, yeah what do I know?
And now you only want to hear what you want to hear, that you were swindled and to hold out to be made whole, hundreds of thousands of dollars to each of you, cut Schaden right out of the business model. You really think you;d ever get that? Dream on. You might be able to do a bit better if you keep fighting, but at what cost? And you might not.
I know a retired judge who, as a young lawyer, was charged with malpractice by one of his clients. The case was a suit over a will. Brother "P" (Plaintiff) sued Brother "D" (Defendant) claiming that D had swindled him out of his fair share of their father's estate. The Yong Laywer WON THE CASE for P. On the morning of trial D capitulated and gave P every cent claimed. So why did P claim malpractice? Because Young Lawyer didn't obtain an ADMISSION from D that D was a swindler and criminal and crook etc etc.
Seems like something similar in concept here: The Hurt Zees would only be satisfied with what they could never get. So they will go down with the ship, secure in the moral superiority of their martyrdom. I hope for their sake that I'm wrong and they do get more, but as a betting man, I wouldn't take that bet....
Love it!
Wisdom of a successful franchisee.
This general comment thread is off the topic of the article. It has been moved here.
go for it and I really do wish you the best. I have not lived Q but I have read more than a little about Q and I have been there on the sticky brown end of the stick.
My comment probably reflects a general overview of the typical strength of franchisee position v franchisor financial strength and therefore in this instance you may be absolutley correct. I apologise. But it will always come down to the 'will' and the 'if' there is money. I want all Q zees to get a hell of a lot more. I just lack faith based on F history and Q seems to be heading down the toilet.
Right or wrong I I prefer to advise people to cut their losses in most instances, and in doing so I feel sick. I really do wish Q zees the best.
The more things change; the more they stay the same.
Everyone is complaining about Rick Schaden. Franchisees complain he's stealing, suppliers complain he's squeezing them, employees complain they're unfairly blamed for poor corporate performance, and his mother still complains that the best part of Rick was left on the bed sheets as a stain.
The model cannot be fixed.
I just have to agree and while I don’t like that option your description of the alternative is very often [at least very often] the outcome.
When you are in a dog fight you need to be able to bite. When the other dog has a bigger bite and you get a way out with some pride and most of everything else intact considering the potential of a deliberately drawn battle where only the lawyers really win then too often it is best to learn from the experience. That’s franchising; that’s a fact. Why didn’t someone tell me that 7 years ago … ?
Having to walk away just isn’t right when clear franchising fraud and/or abuse is just so wrong .. but sometimes you have to realize that is the best outcome in a rigged game. That’s bad franchising but that’s a bloody fact.
Or .... hang in there and find out just how really lucky the last are ....
The greater issue for Q and zees is in the confidence to move forward. ?????????? Good luck with that one.
The more things change; the more they stay the same.
when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. This Q franchisee folded and walked away. Much as I hated to do it I finally realized Q had the game rigged right from the start and would always hold the winning hand.
As a former Quiznos franchisee I had wanted to be a part of the lawsuit from the beginning but couldn't because the policies that Q implemented to steal, that's right, steal from franchisees left me with no extra money. Despite my non-participation and eventual departure from the system I always hoped that the lawsuit would succeed and franchisees would get back part of what was lost. This proposed settlement does nothing to help current or former franchisees and I can honestly say that not participating turned out to be for the best.
Today bad means good.
I'm reading a lot of posts from people that have absolutely no idea what the facts are.
There is no justice in this potential "settlement". The lawyers get paid, (p)Rick keeps millions of dollars stolen from franchisees, and current and former franchisees get little to nothing.
What are the facts, in your opinion, guest.
A part of the settlement includes Q having to disclose its practices more clearly in their Disclosure Statement. It is now up to, and always has been, the zee to read it! ANY settlement was a good result as opposed to a complete dismissal of the complaint. Q got spanked here, they have to come out of pocket, they've been embarrassed. Would it have been fulfilling if the zee were made whole again, of course, but this was a complex area of law and the you never know how certain judges are going to come down in their interpretation of the law.
Q did not get spanked here.
There will be nothing disclosed in their FDD that is not common knowledge.
If a Q does not hand pick a franchisee counsel to form the indy franchise association you may be able to get more concessions out of this horrible situation.
Since franchisees have not been smart enough to go this route yet I have serious doubts that they will see this as the only victory they received.
A part of the settlement includes Q having to disclose its practices more clearly in their Disclosure Statement. It is now up to, and always has been, the zee to read it! ANY settlement was a good result as opposed to a complete dismissal of the complaint. Q got spanked here, they have to come out of pocket, they've been embarrassed. Would it have been fulfilling if the zee were made whole again, of course, but this was a complex area of law and the you never know how certain judges are going to come down in their interpretation of the law.
What I read however gives no benefit to the zees who were taken. Where is the logic in all this?
Sadly, for those who truly understand this settlement, it is not what it appears to be. For the core franchisees who brought this action (to include the TSFA) it does not represent the depth of the settlement sought. Virtually $20M of this settlement can be classified as "no sum benefit to frnachisees or "fluff". The $19M that Quiznos pedges towards the advertising fund over a three years period represents a fraction of the amount they have allegedly, voluntarily contributed to "advertising" in past years, without any agreement. This clause represents a net-sum-gain of zero to current franchisees. Since Quiznos wholly controls these advertsing funds and will continue to do so, there is no way to accurately verify the expenditure goes directly to advertising, and even if it did, this amount is less than or equal to any amount they have voluntarily contributed in 2 prior years. Regarding the relief of claims for $5M (+), these claims are generally spread out so diversly among so many franchisees, (many who have left the chain), that it is financially impratical for Quiznos to collect these overdue amounts, if even entitled. The settlement provides them a convenient way to sum up these losses and recoup these losses in one swoop. The actual benefit to franchisees is neglible. The remainder of the settlement is very weak regarding current franchisee benefits, and will be difficult to enforce. This story fails to mention the signifcant portions of the settlement to include plaintiffs counsel awards.
Here is the summary of the Settlement Document, see Exhibit D.
In short, the non monetary goals of control of advertising and the formation of a real independent franchisee organization are pretty much shot. Except if you are an Executive Director looking for a job.
The monetary recompense isn't going to make much of a difference to any Q operator.
Counsel settlement is in the range of 10-11 million, which is about 25% of the award's nominal value.
I think that Q still has a very long way to go to achieve any real profitability.
Michael Webster, a franchisee attorney in Toronto, Ontario, publishes a website on business opportunities and franchises called "The BizOp News"
Which GC of Quiznos will be given credit for this settlement?
I am surprised that since a co-op was not possible they did not insist on transparency with regard to the actual mark up by AFD.
This at least would have helped with zor/zee relations....assuming that they intend to stop their heavy handed ways.
Schaden is the Madoff of the franchise world. What he is paying out is peanuts to what he should do. People's lives destroyed and suicides will not pay for the pain and suffering he has caused thousands of Quiznos and 123 fit people. I am hoping he will not destroy SmashBurger's zees. Time will tell.
This case was very important to me because of what has happened to our family. (As many know we were involved with 123 Fit.) I really was hoping the zees would get some recourse. May you hurt zees become better people for all the pain and suffering Quiznos has caused you and your families. This is not good.
As a Quiznos franchise owner, I wonder if this admission would be grounds for terminating my agreement with them and re-branding to something else?
for the Q Zees could accept relief and terminate their agreements to go independent. But stranger things have happened.
You didn't think a small group of pissed-off, unorganized franchise owners could accomplish this victory. Boy were you wrong. Your wisdom about such matters has taken a hit!!!
If you think they are actually going to get paid you are as stupid as the people who bought quiznos franchises. Richard is 100% right.
This is a great victory!!!!!!!
FOR QUIZNOS!
$42mil DIVIDED BY 10,000 = $4200.00 YEAH QUIZNOS WON...NOT THE FRANCHISEES
You forgot about legal counsel
I look at lawyers as a necessary evil. (Is evil the right word?) On the other side it is lawyers who write the contracts that protect bad corporations. I am not talking about ANY of the lawyers on this site. Michael, Richard, Howard and Paul I respect. They at least have taken the time to educate the public about franchise agreements. In my mind lawyers who win big for taken zees desearve big bucks. Look at all the schooling they had to go to? If the taken zees knew what good counsel was before signing they would of never been hurt. (I am one of them. I am speaking from the heart.)
Barbara you are a very nice genuine person.
They did get nothing. If the settlement does not include a monetary benefit it should have include consessions that equal a very real benefit to zees.
If this meant a new era/start for Q then there could have been some substance in this settlement.
Than what did their lawyers do for the Q zees? And why would they be paid alot of money if the zees did not get any recourse? Now explain this. What good is a settlement if the zees get no recourse?
Please explain what you think zees gained.
The $475 for owners that are already closed?
The $3000+ over three years in food credits for existing zees?
The 20 million in advertising which they will use to dump bogo's on zees?
The SNO offer, is that good?
$500 for SNO'S. What a disgrace our judicial system is. If this is the result NO ONE should ever buy a franchise. If Schaden can get off easy in taking people, no one should go the franchise route. I cannot believe this settlement. I am thoroughly disgusted. The only people who make money is the courts and the lawyers. Citizens of our country should be pissed off to the max. People if you can't do your own business, don't do it at all.
This comment if off the topic of the article. It has been moved here.
They got $10M plus $1M in out of pocket expenses.
Let's see, the NSO article that Janet wrote about earlier stated that they received $75mil on franchise fees on Stores not Opened, so taking away the $43mil here (only $5.7mil goes to the NSO stores), leaves them with a nice profit of $32mil.
I'd be curious to know if the majority of franchisees are happy with this settlement, or how many of them will 'opt-out'.
I hope that it leads to meaningful changes and increased accountability by their corrupt franchisor. Hopefully future Quizno operators will be spared horrible consequences by having new found knowledge and bargaining power.
Questions
Is Quiznos admitting they did not properly spend the ad fund money with this settlement agreement?
Is Quiznos admitting they over-charged for food?
Finally, do no class members of Quiznos receive anything?
No. No. Not really, but I bet lawyers on all sides will be spending the holidays in Barbados to celebrate.
Interesting resolution to the overall complaints, especially the formation of and IndFa with funds from Quiznos.
Speculations about why Q preferred to end it now on these terms, anyone?
Michael Webster, a franchisee attorney in Toronto, Ontario, publishes a website on business opportunities and franchises called "The BizOp News"
to being the class rep?
I am wondering how Q got any franchisee signatures on this settlement?
Is it possible that they benefited in a different or better way by agreeing to this?
In this case, the attorneys are asking for $50,000 for each class representative.
Michael Webster, a franchisee attorney in Toronto, Ontario, publishes a website on business opportunities and franchises called "The BizOp News"
Is it possible for plaintiff's own counsel to add to that number?
I found that info which raises a new question.
When will the amount or incentive received by class reps be disclosed typically?
They have been unable to sell new franchise's.
They are losing 2-4 stores a day depending on who's counting.
They got away relatively scott free.
I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I wonder how the actual plus/minus of concessions went down before the mediator.
Michael Webster, a franchisee attorney in Toronto, Ontario, publishes a website on business opportunities and franchises called "The BizOp News"
Well Michael, I'm surprised that the attorneys didn't take it further considering that Cook County is considered a 'judicial hellhole' but then again the attorneys probably making a nice $10+mil fee on this case while the franchisees get store credit or maybe a little bit of cash. I guess this is why attorneys take contigent fees on class actions against companies that have deep pockets.
For those missing the reference, read this from ATRA.
Course ATRA is a bit biased against plaintiff trial lawyers!
Michael Webster, a franchisee attorney in Toronto, Ontario, publishes a website on business opportunities and franchises called "The BizOp News"
Michael, speaking of plaintiff trial lawyers, why don't attorneys 'self-regulate' like people want good franchisors to? People on here state that the good zors should want change to get the bad franchisors out of the industry, but I don't see that happening in the legal industry. Case in point, I was reading about a lawsuit filed (in a judicial hellhole watch list county) where they want a class action lawsuit against an auto store over $0.58, because the plaintiff bought something at one store and wasn't given back the difference between the sales tax between the two cities. To me, this gives attorneys (in general) a bad name, because it's obviously a frivilous lawsuit, where the lawyers are going to make the most money and will because they'll get a settlement out of the deal.
jd; The mechanism already exists in law, see this blog:
http://www.cafalawblog.com/-case-summaries-coupons-we-dont-want-your-stinkin-coupons-or-your-stinkin-air-purifier-says-judge-altonaga-in-this-cafa-settlement-decision.html
Michael Webster, a franchisee attorney in Toronto, Ontario, publishes a website on business opportunities and franchises called "The BizOp News"
gonna self regulate.
The $0.58 class action lawyer ought to get his license burned in front of his face - but it aint gonna happen. We are just as bad as the doctors and the franchisors.
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
Post new comment