While the purchase of a franchise affords a business owner many crucial advantages in the marketplace over a traditional, non-franchise business, a prospective franchisee’s failure to properly conduct its due diligence, both independently and with the assistance of experienced advisors, can prove fatal to the business’s success. There are four important areas of due diligence. Read more in this month’s newsletter.
Franchising is a popular avenue to entrepreneurship where the business owner is able to take advantage of the brand, systems and experience of a larger, more established enterprise. What makes franchising attractive to entrepreneurs is the ability to go into business for themselves but not by themselves. At its essence, franchising is a way to sell goods and services that involves a relationship between an entity that has an established brand and system (the franchisor) and an independent business owner (the franchisee).
Marc Laredo served as the program chair for a recent CLE at the Massachusetts Bar Association on January 25, 2017. The CLE was titled, “Disputes Among the Owners of Closely Held-Service Businesses.” It covered how disputes among the owners of closely-held service businesses threaten the daily operations and future viability of professional service firms. The distinguished panel discussed the duties of owners to each other and the entity, as well as the accounting perspective both for planning and breaking up service businesses. Finally, the panel discussed remedies for resolving disputes when they do arise, with a particular focus on the benefits of mediation.
Disputes Among Owners of Closely-Held Service Businesses
Massachusetts businesses and their owners are by now familiar with the rule that General Laws chapter 93A, a statute that bars unfair competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices and provides for the possibility of double or triple damages plus attorneys’ fees, is inapplicable to intra-corporate and employment disputes. But could a claim under chapter 93A be brought against an outsider who aids and abets an insider’s breach of fiduciary duties? Read our newsletter for more information.
Marc Laredo and Mark Smith have been named to the New England edition of the 2016 Super Lawyers listing again this year. Marc is recognized in the area of business litigation and Mark Smith has been recognized for his work with white collar crime. Both attorneys are long-standing Super Lawyers for New England and Massachusetts.
Laredo & Smith is pleased to announce that Marc Laredo, Mark Smith and Matthew Kane have been named to the 2016 Massachusetts Super Lawyers. Marc Laredo was named to the Business Litigation list, Mark Smith has been recognized for his work in the White Collar Crime category and Matt Kane was honored as a Rising Star in Business Litigation.
Super Lawyers is a rating service for lawyers from more than 70 practice areas. To be included in the list, attorneys must attain a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. Rising Stars are selected using the same criteria as Super Lawyers, but each attorney must be either 40 years old or younger, or in practice for 10 years or less. This recognition is awarded to no more than 5% of lawyers in the state.
Arbitration – the private means of resolving a dispute – is a well- accepted and often encouraged alternative to the court system. Whether arbitration is the right choice for your business contract, however, is a more nuanced question. As a starting point, all contracts should contain language regarding the resolution of disputes, including which state and/or country’s law will apply, where disputes will be resolved (a particularly important issue when parties are located in different states or countries) and whether arbitration or the court system will be used. It is this last choice that is the focus of this article.
A recent ruling of the Massachusetts Appeals Court, while reaching the fair and just result, serves as a cautionary tale of the importance of written agreements and a reminder of the adage that no good deed goes unpunished. Learn more about this case study: A couple lent money to their son-in-law’s business after the son-in-law promised to provide personal guarantees for the loans. Despite his promises, he never signed written personal guarantees and never repaid his in-laws. Was the promise enforceable? Barrie-Chivian v. Lepler, 87 Mass. App. Ct 683 (2015).
Following a sharp increase in mortgage foreclosures, in the wake of a steep decline in the housing market, growing numbers of defaulted mortgage borrowers (typically homeowners) and their attorneys seized on the so-called “try-title statute,” G.L. c. 240, §§1-5, as a simple and low-cost way of forestalling foreclosure.
While healthcare providers may have felt some relief after a recent U.S. Court of Appeals decision regarding “worthless services,” this ruling does not eliminate the risk associated with such claims. In United States ex rel. Absher, et al. v. Momence Meadows Nursing Center, Inc., 764 F. 3d 699 (7th Cir. 2014), the Court overturned a $9 million verditct awarded to two whistleblowers under the federal False Claims Act (FCA).
Laredo & Smith offers clients big-firm expertise with the client-centered, cost-effective strategy that only a small firm can offer.
Laredo & Smith, LLP
101 Federal Street
Suite 650
Boston, MA 02110
617.443.1100 (Tel)
617.443.1174 (Fax)