BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair 2015-2016 Regular Session AB 525 (Holden) Version: July 2, 2015 Hearing Date: July 14, 2015 Fiscal: No Urgency: No RD SUBJECT Franchise relations: renewal and termination DESCRIPTION This bill would modify the California Franchise Relations Act (CFRA), which governs the relations between a franchisor, subfranchisor, and franchisee, to: specify that "good cause" (for purposes of a valid termination of a franchise under the CFRA) is limited to the failure of the franchisee to substantially comply with the franchise agreement after being given notice at least 60 days in advance of the termination and a reasonable opportunity, which in no event shall be less than 60 days and generally may not exceed 75 days from the date of the notice of noncompliance, to cure the failure; revise and expand the rights and duties of franchisees and franchisors in relation to any terminations and renewals of franchise agreements; compensation for inventory pursuant to a termination or nonrenewal of the franchise agreement; the sale, transfer or assignment of a franchise by the franchisee; and revise the remedies available to a franchisee in the event a franchisor terminates or fails to renew a franchisee in violation of the CFRA, as specified. BACKGROUND The California Franchise Investment Law (CFIL) was enacted in 1970 to regulate franchise investment opportunities in order to protect California investors from flimsy or fraudulent franchise investments. The CFIL generally requires franchisors to provide prospective franchisees with the information necessary to make an intelligent decision regarding franchise offers, and prohibits the sale of franchises where they would lead to fraud AB 525 (Holden) Page 2 of ? or likelihood that a franchisor's promises would not be fulfilled. (Corp. Code Sec. 31000 et seq.) Subsequently, the California Franchise Relations Act (CFRA) was enacted to govern the ongoing relationships between franchisors and franchisees in an effort to prevent unfair practices in the termination, renewal, or transfer of a franchise, where either the franchise is domiciled in California or the franchise business is or has been operated in California. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 20000 et seq.) For example, the CFRA generally prohibits franchisors from terminating a franchise prior to the expiration of its term, except for good cause, as specified. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 20020.) In 2012, AB 2305 (Huffman, 2012) was introduced to enact the Level Playing Field for Small Businesses Act of 2012 and would have amended both the CFIL and CFRA in an attempt to address "the widespread use of one-sided and nonnegotiable franchise agreements [which have] created numerous problems for franchisees in California." That bill sought to increase protections against unfair practices of franchisors, for example, by permitting termination of a franchise agreement for good cause only where there has been a substantial and material breach of the franchise agreement and the franchisee was granted specified time to cure the breach. Among other things, the bill would have required good faith in the performance and enforcement of the franchise agreement. AB 2305 also would have created a cause of action and would have permitted the award of attorney's fees where a franchisor or subfranchisor sold or offered to sell a franchise in violation of the bill's prohibitions against specified unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. Subsequently, SB 610 (Jackson, 2013) took a narrower approach than AB 2305 in seeking to amend the CFRA to enhance various protections for franchisees against unfair practices of franchisors with respect to sales, transfers, assignments, or terminations of a franchise. For example, similar to this bill, SB 610 would have generally prohibited a franchise agreement from preventing a franchisee from selling or transferring all or part of the franchise interest to another person and from unreasonably withholding consent to a franchisee seeking to sell, transfer, or assign the franchise or related rights, as specified, and would have required certain notices to be given AB 525 (Holden) Page 3 of ? in relation to a proposed sale, transfer, or assignment of a franchise. Additionally, SB 610 sought to protect franchisees by prohibiting a franchisor from terminating a franchise prior to expiration to its term, except upon a substantial and material breach of the franchise agreement, in which case the bill would have required the franchisor to allow the franchisee 30 days to cure the failure before termination. Also similar to this bill, SB 610 would have required a franchisor that fails to renew a franchise in violation of the CFRA to offer to repurchase the franchisee's resalable current inventory meeting the franchisor's present standards that is required by the franchise agreement or commercial practice and held for use or sale in the franchised business at the lower of the fair wholesale market value or the price paid by the franchisee. Ultimately, SB 610 was vetoed by the Governor due to concern that the bill would replace the well-known "good cause" standard with a "substantial and material breach" standard. This bill, seeks to enhance various protections under the CFRA for franchisees, while also being responsive to the Governor's veto message of SB 610. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW Existing law , the California Franchise Relations Act (CFRA), generally regulates the termination, nonrenewal, and certain transfers of franchises with the intent to protect franchise investors. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 20000 et seq.) Existing law provides that the provisions of the CFRA apply to any franchise where either the franchisee is domiciled in this state or the franchised business is or has been operated in this state. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 20015.) Existing law provides that any condition, stipulation or provision purporting to bind any person to waive compliance with any provision of this law is contrary to public policy and void. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 20010.) Existing law , the CFRA, generally defines a franchise to mean a contract or agreement, either express or implied, whether oral or written, between two or more persons by which: a franchisee is granted the right to engage in the business of AB 525 (Holden) Page 4 of ? offering, selling or distributing goods or services under a marketing plan or system prescribed in substantial part by a franchisor; the operation of the franchisee's business pursuant to that plan or system is substantially associated with the franchisor's trademark, service mark, trade name, logotype, advertising, or other commercial symbol designating the franchisor or its affiliate; and, the franchisee is required to pay, directly or indirectly, a franchise fee. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 20001(a)-(c).) Existing law , the CFRA, expressly excludes various establishments or organizations from the definition of "franchise." In relevant part, existing law provides that "franchise" does not include any franchise governed by the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (P.L. 95-297). (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 20001(d).) Existing law , the CFRA, defines a "franchisee" as a person to whom a franchise is granted, and defines "franchisor" as a person who grants or has granted a franchise. (Bus. & Prof. Code Secs. 20002, 20003.) Existing law , the CFRA, prohibits franchisors, unless otherwise provided under the CFRA, from terminating a franchise prior to the expiration of its term, except for good cause. Existing law provides that "good cause" shall include, but is not limited to, the failure of the franchisee to comply with any lawful requirement of the franchise agreement after being given notice thereof and a reasonable opportunity, as specified, to cure the failure. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 20020.) Existing law , the CFRA, specifies various grounds under which immediate notice of termination without an opportunity to cure shall be deemed reasonable. Among other things, this includes where the franchisee: makes any material misrepresentations relating to the acquisition of the franchise business or the franchisee engages in conduct which reflects materially and unfavorably upon the operation and reputation of the franchise business or system; fails, for a period of 10 days after notification of noncompliance, to comply with any federal, state or local law applicable to the operation of the franchise; AB 525 (Holden) Page 5 of ? engages in the same noncompliance whether or not such noncompliance is corrected after notice after curing any failure in accordance with specified law above; or repeatedly fails to comply with one or more requirements of the franchise, whether or not corrected after notice. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 20021.) Existing law prohibits a franchisor from failing to renew a franchise unless the franchisor provides a written notice, to the franchisee, of its intention not to renew the franchise, at least 180 days prior to the expiration of the franchise, and, certain other circumstances apply or are met. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 20025.) In relevant part, existing law permits the franchisor to fail to renew the contract if the franchisor gives the required notice to the franchisee at least 180 days prior to the expiration of the franchise, and during that time, permits the franchisee to sell his business to a purchaser meeting the franchisor's then current requirements for granting new franchises, or if the franchisor is not granting a significant number of new franchises, the then current requirements for granting renewal franchises. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 20025(a).) Existing law prohibits a franchisor from denying the surviving spouse, heirs, or estate of a deceased franchisee or the majority shareholder of the franchisee the opportunity to participate in the ownership of the franchise under a valid franchise agreement for a reasonable time after the death of the franchisee or majority shareholder of the franchisee. Existing law provides that during that time, the surviving spouse, heirs, or estate of the deceased must either satisfy all of the then current qualifications for a purchaser of a franchise or sell, transfer, or assign the franchise to a person who satisfies the franchisor's then current standards for new franchisees. Existing law specifies that the rights granted pursuant to these provisions shall be granted subject to the surviving spouse, heirs or estate of the deceased maintaining all standards and obligations of the franchise. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 20027.) Existing law , the CFRA, provides that in the event a franchisor terminates or fails to renew a franchise other than in accordance with the CFRA, the franchisor must offer to repurchase the franchisee's resalable current inventory, as specified. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 20035.) AB 525 (Holden) Page 6 of ? Existing law , the CFRA, provides that the franchisor may offset against any repurchase offer made pursuant to provision, above, any sums owed the franchisor or its subsidiaries by the franchisee pursuant to the franchise or any ancillary agreement. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 20036.) Existing law , the California Franchise Investment Law (CFIL), provides, in relevant part, that it shall be a violation of the CFIL for any franchisor, directly or indirectly, through any officer, agent or employee, to restrict or inhibit the right of franchisees to join a trade association or to prohibit the right of free association among franchisees for any lawful purposes. (Corp. Code Sec. 31220.) Existing law , the CFIL, permits any person who violates the above to be sued in the superior court in the county in which the defendant resides or where a franchise affected by the violation does business, for temporary and permanent injunctive relief and for damages, if any, and the costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees. A plaintiff shall not be required to allege or prove that actual damages have been suffered in order to obtain injunctive relief. (Corp. Code Sec. 31302.5(a).) Existing law , the CFIL, prohibits an action from being maintained to enforce any liability under Section 31220 unless it is brought within two years after the violation upon which it is based or within one year after the discovery by the plaintiff of the facts constituting such violation, whichever occurs first. (Corp. Code Sec. 31302.5(b).) Existing law , the CFIL, provides that any person who offers or sells a franchise in violation of specified sections of the CFIL or in violation of any provision that provides an exemption from the requirements of the CFIL, as specified, shall be liable to the franchisee or subfranchisor, who may sue for damages caused thereby, and if the violation is willful, the franchisee may also sue for rescission, unless, in specified cases (provisions relating to the willful making of an untrue statement of material fact or omission of a material fact), the defendant proves that the plaintiff knew the facts concerning the untruth or omission, or that the defendant exercised reasonable care and did not know, or, if he or she had exercised reasonable care, AB 525 (Holden) Page 7 of ? would not have known, of the untruth or omission. (Corp. Code Sec. 31300.) Existing law provides that except as explicitly provided in the CFIL, no civil liability in favor of any private party shall arise against any person by implication from or as a result of the violation of any provision of this law or any rule or order hereunder. Existing law further provides that nothing in the CFIL shall limit any liability which may exist by virtue of any other statute or under common law if this law were not in effect. (Corp. Code Sec. 31306.) This bill would redefine "good cause" for purposes of the CFRA's provision on franchise terminations. Specifically, the bill would specify that good cause is limited to the failure of the franchisee to substantially comply with the franchise agreement after being given notice at least 60 days in advance of the termination and a reasonable opportunity, which in no event shall be less than 60 days from the date of the notice of noncompliance, to cure the failure. This bill would further provide that in no event will the right to cure the failure exceed 75 days unless there is a separate agreement between the franchisor or franchisee to extend the time. This bill would revise existing law to authorize immediate termination where the franchisee fails, for a period of 10 days after notification of noncompliance, to comply with any federal, state, or local law or regulation, including, but not limited to, all health, safety, building, and labor laws or regulations applicable to the operation of the franchise. This bill would require a franchisor, upon a lawful termination or nonrenewal of a franchisee to compensate the franchisee, at the value of price paid minus depreciation, of all inventory, supplies, equipment, fixtures, and furnishings purchased or paid for by the franchisee from the franchisor or its approved suppliers and sources under the terms of the franchise agreement or any ancillary or collateral agreement, and, at the time of the notice of termination or nonrenewal, are in possession of the franchisee or used in the franchise business, except as specified. This bill would provide that this provision: shall not require the franchisor to purchase any personalized items, inventory, supplies, equipment, fixtures, or furnishings not reasonably required to conduct the operation AB 525 (Holden) Page 8 of ? of the franchise business in accordance with the franchise agreement or any ancillary or collateral agreement; shall not apply if the franchisee declines a bona fide offer of renewal from the franchisor; shall not apply to any termination or nonrenewal of a franchisee due to a publicly announced and nondiscriminatory decision by the franchisor to completely withdraw from all franchise activity within the relevant geographic market area, as defined under existing law, in which the franchise is located; or shall not apply to any inventory, supplies, equipment, fixtures, or furnishings that are sold by the franchisee between the date of the notice of termination or nonrenewal, and the cessation of operation of the franchise business, by the franchisee, pursuant to the termination or nonrenewal. This bill would authorize a franchisor, upon the termination of a franchisee, to offset against amounts owed to a franchisee under the provisions above, any amounts owed by such franchisee to the franchisor. This bill would provide that it is unlawful for a franchisor to prevent a franchisee from selling or transferring all or substantially all of the assets of the franchise business, as defined, or a controlling or noncontrolling interest in the franchise business, to another person provided that the person is qualified under the franchisor's then-existing and reasonable standards, as consistently applied to similarly situated franchisees operating within the franchise brand, for the approval of new or renewing franchisees. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding the above, a franchisee shall not have the right to sell, transfer, or assign the franchise or substantially all of the assets of the franchise business, or a controlling or noncontrolling interest in the franchise business, without the written consent of the franchisor, except that the consent shall not be withheld unless the buyer, transferee, or assignor does not meet the standards for new or renewing franchisees described above. This bill would further specify that nothing in the above provisions shall prohibit a franchisor from exercising the contractual right of first refusal to purchase a franchise after receipt of a bona fide offer to purchase the franchise by a AB 525 (Holden) Page 9 of ? proposed purchaser of the franchise. A franchisor exercising the contractual right of first refusal shall offer the franchisee payment at least equal to the value offered in the bona fide offer. This bill would require the franchisee, prior to the sale, assignment, or transfer of all or substantially all of the assets of the franchise business, or a controlling or noncontrolling interest in the franchise business, to another person, to notify the franchisor of the franchisee's intent to sell, transfer, or assign the franchise or substantially all of the assets of the franchise business, or a controlling or noncontrolling interest in the franchise business. The notice shall be in writing, delivered to the franchisor by business courier or by receipted mail, and include specified information. This bill would require the franchisor, within 60 days after the receipt of all of the necessary information and documentation required pursuant to the above, or as specified by written agreement between the franchisor and the franchisee, to notify the franchisee of the approval or disapproval of the sale, assignment, or transfer of the franchise. This bill would require the notice to be in writing and be delivered to the franchisor by business courier or receipted mail within 15 calendar days. The bill would require a proposed sale, assignment, or transfer to be deemed approved, unless disapproved by the franchisor in the manner provided by this subdivision. Further, if the proposed sale, assignment, or transfer is disapproved, the bill would require the franchisor to include in the notice of disapproval a statement setting forth the reasons for the disapproval. This bill would provide that in any action in which the franchisor's disapproval of a sale, assignment, or transfer pursuant to this subdivision is an issue, the reasonableness of the franchisor's decision shall be a question of fact requiring consideration of all existing circumstances. This bill would provide that for these purposes, the finder of fact may be an arbitrator specified in the franchise agreement and who satisfies the specified requirements under the CFRA. This bill would provide that nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit summary judgment when the reasonableness of transfer approval or disapproval can be decided as a matter of law. AB 525 (Holden) Page 10 of ? This bill would provide that nothing in the above notice provisions requires a franchisor to exercise a contractual right of first refusal or prohibits a franchisor from exercising the contractual right of first refusal to purchase a franchise after receipt of a bona fide offer to purchase the franchise by a proposed purchaser of the franchise. Any franchisor exercising the contractual right of first refusal shall offer the franchisee payment at least equal to the value offered in the bona fide offer. This bill would repeal the existing provision requiring that a franchisor offer to repurchase from the franchisee the franchisee's resalable current inventory, as specified, in the event a franchisor terminates or fails to renew a franchise other than in accordance with the provisions of the CFRA. This bill would provide that in the event a franchisor terminates or fails to renew a franchisee, in violation of this chapter, the franchisee shall be entitled to either: (1) reinstatement of the franchisee under the same terms as the existing franchise agreement, and the franchisor shall pay all damages caused to the franchisee from the violation; or (2) upon request of the franchisee, or if the specified reinstatement relief is determined by the finder of fact to be impossible or impracticable, then the franchisor shall pay the franchisee the fair market value of the franchise and franchise assets and any other damages caused by the violation of this chapter. This bill would authorize the court to grant preliminary and permanent injunctions for a violation or threatened violation of this bill. This bill would revise the existing authorization for the franchisor to offset against any repurchase officer for the franchisee's resalable current inventory to, instead, provide that the franchisor may offset against any remedies made pursuant to the provisions above, any prior recovery by the franchisee pursuant the bill's specified provisions on compensation for inventory at the time of termination or nonrenewal, and any sums owed the franchisor or its subsidiaries by the franchisee pursuant to the franchise or any ancillary agreement. This bill would provide that the amendments to the CFRA made by AB 525 (Holden) Page 11 of ? this bill shall apply only to franchise agreements entered into or renewed on or after January 1, 2016, or to franchises of an indefinite duration that may be terminated by the franchisee or franchisor without cause. COMMENT 1. Stated need for the bill According to the author, "[t]he annual survey of the franchise industry, the National Survey of Franchisees-2015, found that many franchisees feel that they do not receive support from the national organization. Although 68 [percent] of franchisee's reported that a franchise sales person helped induce them into buying the business, only 20 [percent] feel they were given a full and accurate picture of the franchise costs and requirements. Although 70 [percent] of franchisees reporting requirements involving investment of new capital beyond their original investment, only one-third believe the franchisor adequately tries to develop new products and grow business. Perhaps most telling from the 2015 survey is that only 17 [percent] of franchisees would recommend joining the industry to friends and family." The author writes that this bill is needed because "[t]he California Franchise Relations Act provides franchisee's fewer rights than nearly every other form of contract law in California, especially as it pertains to termination, breach and damages. Franchise agreements are frequently one-sided contracts that strongly favor the franchisor over the small business owners who operate franchises." As stated by the author: AB 525 restores fairness to franchise agreements by applying traditional contract law standards, giving franchisees the right to transfer the business, ensuring franchisees can recover the depreciated value of supplies, inventories, equipment, and business fixtures and furnishings, all while protecting the franchisor's rights to terminate the worst actors, including those who break laws, cannot make required payments or operate in direct defiance of the contract terms. The author further asserts that "AB 525 adopts provisions and legal standards already used in nearly a half-dozen states, including some standards that date back to the 1970's. These states continue to see robust growth and success in franchising, AB 525 (Holden) Page 12 of ? showing that providing a level playing field between franchisors and franchisees helps, not hurts, business." The sponsor of this bill, the Coalition of Franchisee Associations, writes that: Franchisees in California have had their businesses terminated without proof of any substantial violation of a contract or with manufactured evidence. They have also been denied the opportunity to pass the business to their family member, even though the family member was qualified to run it. After the business is taken, the franchisee cannot even recover the hundreds of thousands of dollars they have invested. This is all done through unethical intimidation tactics that remain legal because franchisors write contracts that allow them to do what they want and hide behind vague state laws. AB 525 clarifies state law to specify that a franchisor can terminate a franchise, but only where there are serious and substantial violations of the contract. It will also help California-based small business owners pass their business onto their family members, prevent franchisors from terminating a franchise without an opportunity to cure, and allow franchisees to renew their contracts (pending compliance with the franchise agreement) so as to continue their financial and personal investment in the franchise." 2. Nature of franchise agreements and state attempts to address disparity of bargaining power between franchisor and franchisees A 2010 article by the American Bar Association's Business Law Section notes that, since the "[r]egulation of the offer and sale of franchises was ushered in by the adoption of the California Franchise Investment Law in 1970," at least "16 states have passed 'relationship laws' focused on the rights of franchisees in existing franchise relationships. There are also other state statutes, in these and other states, that address specific industries, most notably petroleum dealers, automobile dealers, farm equipment dealers, and alcoholic beverage distributorships." These franchise "[r]elationship laws were passed to restrict the power of franchisors over franchise terminations, renewals, transfers, and certain other aspects of the franchise relationship. The statutes generally apply to franchisees located within a particular state, although coverage AB 525 (Holden) Page 13 of ? of state relationship laws may vary. State relationship laws usually require good cause for termination, which is defined as a material breach of the franchise agreement. State laws often impose a requirement of a notice of default and an opportunity to cure." (Gruneberg and Solish, Franchising 101: Key Issues in the Law of Franchising, American Bar Association, Business Law Today (Vol. 19, No. 4) (Mar./Apr. 2010) < http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/2010-03-04/grueneberg-soli sh.shtml> [as of Jul. 4, 2015].) Multiple proponents of the bill write in support of the bill's effort to strengthen this state's CFRA, noting the need for such laws based upon the fact that franchise agreements typically continue to be one-sided adhesion contracts favoring the franchisor. One individual supporting this bill, an attorney with experience representing franchisees, calls attention to a 1996 California Court of Appeal opinion, Postal Instant Press v. Sealy (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1704, 1715-1717, detailing the one-sided franchise relationship as follows: Although franchise agreements are commercial contracts they exhibit many of the attributes of consumer contracts. The relationship between franchisor and franchisee is characterized by a prevailing, although not universal, inequality of economic resources between the contracting parties. Franchisees typically, but not always, are small businessmen or businesswomen or people [ . . . ] seeking to make the transition from being wage earners and for whom the franchise is their very first business. Franchisors typically, but not always, are large corporations. The agreements themselves tend to reflect this gross bargaining disparity. Usually they are form contracts the franchisor prepared and offered to franchisees on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. (Emerson, Franchising and the Collective Rights of Franchisees (1990) 43 Vand. L. Rev. 1503, 1509 & fn. 21.) Among other typical terms, these agreements often allow the franchisor to terminate the agreement or refuse to renew for virtually any reason, including the desire to give a franchisor-owned outlet the prime territory the franchisee presently occupies. Some courts and commentators have stressed the bargaining disparity between franchisors and franchisees is so great that franchise agreements exhibit many of the attributes of an adhesion contract and some of the terms of those contracts may AB 525 (Holden) Page 14 of ? be unconscionable. "Franchising involves the unequal bargaining power of franchisors and franchisees and therefore carries within itself the seeds of abuse. Before the relationship is established, abuse is threatened by the franchisor's use of contracts of adhesion presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. (See, e.g., Ungar [v. Dunkin' Donuts of America, Inc. (3d Cir. 1976) 531 F.2d 1211], 1222-1223; Semmes Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor (2d Cir. 1970) 429 F.2d 1197, 1207; see generally, Note, Fairness in Franchising: The Need for a Good Cause Termination Requirement in California (1980) 13 U.C. Davis L.Rev. 780, 785, fn. 18?.) Indeed such contracts are sometimes so one-sided, with all the obligations on the franchisee and none on the franchisor, as not to be legally enforceable. (Brown & Cohen, Franchising: Constitutional Considerations for 'Good Cause' State Legislation (1978) 16 Hous.L.Rev. 21, 33?.)."(E. S. Bills, Inc. v. Tzucanow (1985) 38 Cal. 3d 824, 835-836 [215 Cal. Rptr. 278, 700 P.2d 1280] (conc. opn. of Mosk, J.).) The individual notes that while the CFRA was enacted over thirty years ago as one of the first state statutes to address the franchise relationship and partially limit terminations and non-renewals in franchising, the protections afforded to franchisees under these laws are still not sufficiently strong enough and the remedies are limited. In contrast, he notes that "[o]ther states including Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Washington, and Wisconsin, have enacted other franchise or dealership relationship provisions to prohibit unfair practices in the franchise relationship. AB 525 copies already existing statutes providing that 'good cause' for terminating the franchise or dealership relationship requires that the franchisee or dealer fail 'to comply substantially' with the franchise or dealership agreement [requirements],'" citing Arkansas Franchise Practices Act (Ark. Code Sec. 4-72-202[7(A)]); Nebraska Franchise Law (Neb. Rev. Stats. Sec. 87-402[8]); New Jersey Franchise Practices Act (N.J. Stat. [Sec. 56:10-5]); Rhode Island Fair Dealership Law (R.I. [Gen.] Law[s] Sec. 6-5[4]-2); Wisconsin Fair Dealership Act (Wis. Stat. Sec. 135.02[4(A)]). 3. Bill more narrowly defines what constitutes "good cause" for purposes of termination of a franchise agreement This bill would modify the California Franchise Relations Act (CFRA) to enhance the protections for and rights of franchisees AB 525 (Holden) Page 15 of ? in the performance and enforcement of the franchise agreement. As noted in the Background, the CFRA governs the ongoing relationships between franchisors and franchisees to generally prevent unfair practices in the termination, renewal, or transfer of a franchise. Specifically, the CFRA law prohibits a franchisor from terminating a franchise prior to the expiration of its term, except for good cause. Such a requirement prohibits a franchisor from terminating a franchise at will, after the franchisee has invested substantial time and money into the franchise to make it profitable, so that the franchisor can continue to run the operation and reap the profits for himself or herself. Under the CFRA, "good cause," for these purposes, is currently defined to include, but not be limited to, the failure of the franchisee to comply with any lawful requirement of the franchise agreement after being given notice thereof and a reasonable opportunity, which in no event need be more than 30 days, to cure the failure. Other states similarly require good cause, but define it more narrowly to constitute situations where the franchisee fails to substantially comply with the requirements (or in some cases, reasonable or material requirements), of the franchise agreement. Some, but not all, of these states further require a 60 day opportunity to cure the failure. (See e.g. Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 42-133l ; Haw. Rev. Stats. Ann. Sec. 437-58; Minn. Stat. Sec. 80C.14; N.J. Stat. Sec. 56:10-5; Wis. Stat. Secs. 135.02, 135.04.) The author asserts that the vagueness of the term "good cause" under the CFRA leads to termination of franchisees for minor issues. Accordingly, this bill seeks to instead provide that "good cause" shall be limited to the failure of the franchisee to substantially comply with the franchise agreement after being given notice at least 60 days in advance of the termination and a reasonable opportunity, which in no event shall be less than 60 days from the date of the notice of noncompliance, to cure the failure. As a matter of public policy, this more limited definition of "good cause" would arguably provide greater clarity to the parties that not any and every violation of what the contract constitutes a lawful ground for immediate termination of the franchise agreement. For example, if the franchisee were to fail to wash the windows of the franchise pursuant to a provision in the franchise agreement requiring window washing on a daily basis, such a violation, arguably, would not justify AB 525 (Holden) Page 16 of ? immediate termination where the franchisee is otherwise complying with the requirements of the franchise agreement. Instead, the franchisee would be given the opportunity to come into compliance with the window washing requirements within the specified time periods above. Of course, under the CFRA, existing law provides that if during the period in which the franchise is in effect the franchisee repeatedly fails to comply with one or more requirements of the franchise, whether or not corrected after notice, immediate notice of termination without an opportunity to cure, is deemed reasonable. This bill would not affect that existing authorization-it simply would recognize that in order for there to be good cause to terminate a franchise, there must be a failure by the franchisee to substantially comply with the franchise agreement after being given notice at least 60 days in advance of the termination and a reasonable opportunity to correct the failure. In order to address opposition concerns that the bill failed to place a cap on the cure period beyond the minimum 60 day cure period in which the franchisee has the opportunity to fix a violation of the franchise agreement, this bill was recently amended in the prior policy committee to include a cap of 75 days. Specifically, the bill now provides that, in no event will the right to cure the failure exceed 75 days, unless there is a separate agreement between the franchisor or franchisee to extend the time. Small Business Majority writes in support that "[w]hile the franchisee-franchisor relationship is often mutually beneficial, there have been instances of franchisors taking advantage of individual franchise owners, using their contract as a shield. Certain franchisors included unfair provisions in their contracts to limit franchisee rights while others have broadly interpreted state law to terminate the franchise agreements without cause and avoid their legal obligations to give franchisees another chance or return the franchisee's basic investment. This has led business owners who have invested their money into a franchise to be left with no possibility to regain the equity invested and no legal recourse to gain their investment back. AB 525 will address this by upholding the current relationship between franchisors and franchisees while helping protect small franchise owners from unfair termination practices. The legislation will clarify existing law to make it harder for franchisors to unfairly terminate contracts with the AB 525 (Holden) Page 17 of ? small business owners who run their franchises, and help protect the equity of franchisees by ensuring they receive the equity they put into their businesses in cases of termination." The International Franchise Association (IFA), in opposition, contends that "[t]his language poses a much higher threshold for a franchisor to establish than the 'failure of the franchisee to substantially comply with lawful requirements of the agreement.' California would be the only state imposing such a high threshold. The language [ . . . ] allows a franchisee to avoid termination, no matter how serious and longstanding its default and failure to cure, as long as the franchisee complies with its remaining obligations. Each default situation will require an individual balancing of the uncured default against the balance of the required contractual performance in order to assess 'substantial compliance.'" [Emphasis in original.] In response, the author writes: Substantial compliance is rooted in the traditional contract law principal of substantial performance. Both standards, by definition, examine the contract as a whole. California courts have been interpreting substantial performance of contracts dating back to at least the early 1900s (see, e.g., Thomas Haverty Co. v. Jones, 185 Cal. 285 (1921)). California's own civil jury instructions (CAIC 312) require the non- performing party to show that[: (1) a] good faith effort to comply with the contract[;] and [(2)] that the non-breaching party "received essentially what the contract called for." These instructions do not require a clause by clause analysis but rather ensure that the purpose of the contract is not frustrated. Longstanding defaults and failures to cure by franchisees would clearly be considered frustrating the purpose of the agreement, as the franchisor is not receiving their end of the bargain. To adopt the IFA's language would adopt a new, untested legal standard, something the Governor expressly rejected in vetoing SB 610 last year." 4. Bill modifies CFRA remedies This bill would modify the remedies available under the CFRA, including repealing a provision requiring the franchisor to offer to repurchase the franchisee's resalable current inventory in the event a franchisor terminates or fails to renew a franchise other than in accordance with the provisions of the AB 525 (Holden) Page 18 of ? CFRA, as specified, and replacing it with a provision that provides the franchisee with the following limited remedies: (1) reinstatement of the franchisee, as specified, including damages caused to the franchisee from the violation; or (2) upon request of the franchisee, or if the reinstatement relief is determined to be impossible or impracticable, as specified, payment of the fair market value of the franchise and franchise assets and any other damages caused by the violation of the CFRA. The bill would also authorize the court to grant preliminary and permanent injunctions for a violation or threatened violation of the CFRA. Separately, this bill would require a franchisor, upon a lawful termination or nonrenewal of a franchise to compensate the franchisee, at the value of the price paid minus depreciation, of all inventory, supplies, equipment, fixtures, and furnishings purchased or paid for by the franchisee from the franchisor or its approved suppliers and sources under the terms of the franchise agreement or any ancillary or collateral agreement, and, at the time of the notice of termination or nonrenewal, are in possession of the franchisee or used in the franchise business, except as specified. These exceptions include any personalized items, inventory, supplies, equipment, fixtures, or furnishings not reasonably required to conduct the operation of the franchise business in accordance with the franchise agreement or any ancillary or collateral agreement; as well as any inventory, supplies, equipment, fixtures, or furnishings that are sold by the franchisee between the date of the notice of termination or nonrenewal, and the cessation of operation of the franchise business, by the franchisee, pursuant to the termination or nonrenewal. A franchisor would further be exempted from these requirements if the franchisee declines a bona fide offer of renewal from the franchisor; or if the termination or nonrenewal of a franchise is due to a publicly announced and nondiscriminatory decision by the franchisor to completely withdraw from all franchise activity within the relevant geographic market area, as defined under existing law, in which the franchise is located. In opposition, the IFA, questions why a franchisee whose franchise is legitimately terminated under the new and heightened good cause standard should be entitled to any compensation, noting also that a prior version of the bill at the very least excluded from the compensation requirement those AB 525 (Holden) Page 19 of ? immediate terminations that a franchisor is authorized to make without any opportunity to cure pursuant to the CFRA's own terms. "A bad-actor or wholly incompetent franchisee can unfairly harm a franchise system by daring the franchisor to terminate the franchise, knowing that the franchisor ultimately must compensate the franchisee even if the termination decision is lawful." Moreover, IFA asserts, "[i]t is unfair to the franchisor, and creates an improper windfall for the franchisee, to require the franchisor to compensate the franchisee when the franchisor and franchisee mutually agree not to renew; where franchisee purchases are required by applicable law; and where the franchisee is provided an opportunity to sell its business over an extended timeframe." Additionally, IFA raises concerns with the remedy of "reinstatement," writing that it "does not work and makes little sense when the franchisee may seek injunctive relief to stop an allegedly inappropriate termination or non-renewal and also is entitled to recover damages for the franchisor's violation of its rights." Staff notes that it may behoove a franchise seeking to be reinstated to still seek injunctive relief so that he or she may feasibly be reinstated once the issue surrounding the validity of termination is resolved. Nonetheless, if the franchisee does not and the court finds that reinstatement is not possible or is impracticable, then the concerns raised would be moot under the provisions of the bill that would limit the franchisees remedies to payment of the fair market value of the franchise and franchise assets and any other damages caused by the violation of the CFRA. In response, the author argues: AB 525's narrow compensation requirements only apply when a franchisor retains the premises upon which the franchise was operated. Regardless of the reason for termination this section simply provides the franchisee compensation for goods they purchased that can now be used by the franchisor, or future franchisee, in running the business for a profit. This provision simply provides that if the franchisor can benefit from purchases made by the franchisee then the franchisee should be compensated. The franchisee remains liable for all damages caused to the franchisor and loses any opportunity to continue running the business. AB 525 (Holden) Page 20 of ? The reinstatement provisions of AB 525 have already been significantly amended to address concerns raised by the IFA. AB 525 provides the finder of fact the discretion to provide reinstatement, only when it is requested by the franchisee and the finder of fact determines the reinstatement is not otherwise impossible or impractical. In reality few franchisees will seek reinstatement after a business relationship has soured and those that wish to continue working in the industry will likely seek an injunction. The reinstatement provisions only apply in the narrow circumstances in which an injunction was not obtained and a neutral party believes continuing the relationship is practical. 5. Governor's veto message of SB 610 (Jackson) This bill is in many ways similar to SB 610 (Jackson, 2013), which was ultimately vetoed by Governor Brown in 2014, with the following veto message: This bill alters the relationship between franchisors and franchisees by, among other things, changing the standard required to terminate a franchise agreement from "good cause" to a "substantial and material breach." While the "good cause" standard is common and well understood, the standard provided in this bill is new and untested. The bill's changes would significantly impact California's vast franchise industry that relies on the certainty of well-settled laws. I am open to reforming the California Franchise Relations Act to give more protections to franchisees if there are indeed unacceptable or predatory practices by franchisors. I need, however, a better explanation of the scope of the problem so I am certain that the solution crafted will fix those problems and not create new ones. Additionally, the parties supporting and opposing this bill have diametrically different views. Given the polarized positions, it is in the best interest of all that a concerted effort be made to reach a more collaborative solution. This bill, however, attempts to respond to the Governor's veto message, and as such includes differences from SB 610. Most AB 525 (Holden) Page 21 of ? obvious is this bill's retention of the "good cause" standard, though the bill does attempt to provide better clarity as to what constitutes "good cause" under the CFRA statute. (See Comment 3, above.) Additionally, staff notes that when heard in the Senate Business, Professions & Economic Development Committee, it was specifically noted that the author and proponents have held stakeholder meetings and attempted to revise the bill in an effort to respond to the concerns raised by opponents. At that hearing, where additional amendments were taken in response to concerns, many of the opponents commented that they believed the few remaining issues could also be resolved. 6. Other opposition concerns IFA also argues in opposition to the bill that "requiring 'reasonable' standards under [proposed Business and Professions] Section 20028 for the approval of new franchisees in the transfer context is troublesome because it allows every franchisee to challenge any standard a franchisor articulates for new franchisees, even if the franchisor consistently applies the standard to similarly-situated franchisees. [That provision] also ignores whether a franchisor may require compliance with transfer conditions expressly stated in a franchise agreement from the inception of the franchise relationship." The Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC) also writes an "oppose unless amended" position letter with respect to the prior version of this bill, asserting that this bill "would create uncertainty and encourage litigation in the franchise relationship by (1) changing the standard under which a franchisee agreement may be terminated from good cause when failing to comply with lawful requirements of the contract and (2) introducing new, litigious standards on nonrenewals/nontransfers of the franchise relationship." In response, the author writes that "language regarding automatic renewals was removed from the bill in April, two months before CJAC began opposing the measure." Additionally, in response to the concerns regarding the change in the "good cause" standard, the author reiterates that "substantial compliance is based in the traditional contract law principal of substantial performance and can traces its origins AB 525 (Holden) Page 22 of ? back to English Common Law" and is less vague than the current "good cause" standard used by the CFRA. (See also Comment 2 above, for further response by the author on this issue in response to IFA's similar concerns.) "Furthermore," the author writes, "six states have already successfully implemented substantial compliance standards in the franchise context starting in the 1970's. This well understood standard provides legal clarity that will actually reduce litigation by eliminating fights over every minor dispute between a franchisee and a franchisor, and eliminate the necessity or arguing over every instance of 'good cause.'" In fact, the author asserts: [ . . . ] the new standards and processes for transfers will reduce litigation by providing a clear, step-by-step procedure for the approval or denials of a transfer. Existing law requires no affirmative disclosure by the franchisor as to why a franchise cannot be transferred, leaving litigation and the lengthy discovery process as the only remedy retained by a franchisee seeking answers as to why they cannot sell a franchise. Instead AB 525 requires the franchisor to clearly state the grounds for denying transfer, which so long as they are equally applied to other similarly situated franchisees, precludes the franchisee from objecting to the denial. In response to the IFA's concerns regarding "reasonable standards," the author argues that "[c]urrently, franchisors retain authority to unilaterally and arbitrarily change the conditions for transfers by simply updating their operations manual. The 'reasonable' language ensures that a franchisor cannot unilaterally change the criteria for the transfer of a franchise while the sales process is taking place. In response to IFA concerns that this standard would require their member companies to compare transfer terms across the industry, AB 525 was amended to significantly narrow the language to apply only to similarly situated franchisees operating within the same brand. Rather than permitting the contesting of every standard in every contract, it prohibits the unilateral inclusion of one-time conditions on an individual franchisee's transfer or sale." 7. Technical and clarifying amendments The following technical and clarifying amendments are suggested to address drafting errors and issues. AB 525 (Holden) Page 23 of ? Suggested amendments: On page 5, line 9, strike "Upon lawful termination or nonrenewal of a" On page 5, strike lines 10-17, inclusive, and insert "Upon a lawful termination or nonrenewal of a franchisee, the franchisor shall compensate the franchisee, at the value of the price paid, minus depreciation, for all inventory, supplies, equipment, fixtures, and furnishings purchased or paid for under the terms of the franchise agreement or any ancillary or collateral agreement by the franchisee to the franchisor or its approved suppliers and sources, that, at the time of the notice of termination or nonrenewal, are in possession of the franchisee or used in the franchise business." On page 5, line 28, strike "franchisee" and insert "franchise" On page 6, line 1, strike "franchisee" and insert "franchise" On page 7, line 22, before "sale, assignment, or transfer" insert "proposed" On page 7, line 24, strike "franchisor" and insert "franchisee" On page 7, line 25, strike "15 calendar days" Support : California Association for Micro Enterprise Opportunity; California Beer and Beverage Distributors; California Fair Franchise Association; California Labor Federation; EA Independent Franchisee Association; East Valley Business Legislative Advocacy Committee; Service Employees International Union; Independent Organization of Little Caesars Franchisees; North American Association of Subway Franchisees; Plumbing Heating Cooling Contractors Association of California; Slater Associates; Small Business California; Small Business Majority; numerous individuals Opposition : Civil Justice Association of California (oppose unless amended); AB 525 (Holden) Page 24 of ? International Franchise Association (oppose unless amended) HISTORY Source : Coalition of Franchisee Associations Related Pending Legislation : None Known Prior Legislation : SB 610 (Jackson, 2013) See Background. AB 1141 (Dahle, 2013) would have enacted the Small Business Investment Protection Act of 2013, which was broader in scope than SB 610 but also similar in some respect. AB 1141 died in the Assembly Judiciary Committee without a hearing. AB 2305 (Huffman, 2012) See Background. Prior Vote : Senate Business, Professions & Economic Development (Ayes 6, Noes 1) Assembly Floor (Ayes 56, Noes 12) Assembly Business and Professions Committee (Ayes 11, Noes 0) Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 7, Noes 2) Assembly Rules Committee (Ayes 11, Noes 0) **************