Franchising
Case 1: Restaurant Franchisee Shareholder Buyout
Einbinder & Dunn successfully represented a restaurant franchisee shareholder in an arbitration proceeding against the other shareholder in their six-unit network of restaurants. The parties had agreed that Einbinder & Dunn’s client would buy out his soon to be former partner at a price to be determined by an arbitrator based on the parties’ respective investments in the franchise and the value of their franchise network. The partner claimed his interest was worth more than $2 million. However, the arbitrator agreed with Einbinder & Dunn’s client and only awarded the partner a low five-figure payment.
Case 2: New York Burger Co.
Einbinder & Dunn was able to protect the trademark rights of two-time AOL CityGuide “Best Burger” winner New York Burger Co. by compelling another restaurant, on the eve of its grand opening, to change its intended name from “N.Y. Steak & Burger Co.” to something that was not improperly substantially similar to that of the firm’s client.
Case 3: Island Ink-Jet Earnings Claim
Einbinder & Dunn obtained an arbitration award—compensating a client for her entire investment and attorney’s fees—on behalf of an area developer and franchisee of Island Ink-Jet in New York City. The franchisee had acquired the right to obtain or develop 47 franchises. The arbitrator ruled the franchisor’s salesperson’s indication that franchisees on average had revenues of over $200,000/year per unit to be an earnings claim. Significantly, the arbitrator did not determine that the earnings claim was false but simply determined that the franchisor had violated New York law by providing such earnings information outside the UFOC.
Case 4: Encroachment Claim
Einbinder & Dunn successfully defended a national franchisor against a claim of encroachment based on the franchisor’s sales in the franchisee’s territory. The arbitrator adopted Einbinder & Dunn’s interpretation of the franchise agreement as accurate: The agreement gave the franchisee the exclusive right to operate a retail business in the territory at issue, but not the exclusive right to all sales there. The arbitrator also held that the franchisee’s own breaches of the franchise agreement barred any recovery.
Case 5: Aftermarket Automobile Repair Franchise Dispute
In a case in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Einbinder & Dunn gained judgment on behalf of a franchisee of a well-known aftermarket automobile repair franchise. The franchisee was provided with pre-sale earnings disclosures. The court ordered full restitution of all franchisee fees and the franchisee’s operating losses and attorneys’ fees.
Case 6: Emfore Corp. v. Blimpie Assoc., Ltd
Einbinder & Dunn represented a franchisee in a very important case for franchisees. The Appellate Division, First Department of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Emfore Corp. v. Blimpie Assoc., Ltd., 46 A.D.3d 389, 848 N.Y.S.2d 89 (1st Dep’t 2007), affirmed as modified, 51 A.D.3d 434, 860 N.Y.S.2d 12 (1st Dep’t 2008), reversed the trial court’s order and allowed the plaintiff franchisee to proceed with its claims that the defendant franchisor had violated Sections 683 (disclosure requirements) and 687 (fraud) of the New York State Franchise Act by providing false and misleading earnings statements to the plaintiff. The appellate court ruled that separate questionnaires and other documents containing disclaimers or waivers that the franchisor requires the franchisee to sign as well as contract clauses in the franchise agreement proper are invalid under the Franchise Act.
Case 7: Case Dismissed
Einbinder & Dunn represented a franchisee client in defending two lawsuits brought by a franchisor seeking to enjoin the franchisee from operating his health-care business after the termination of the franchise agreement on the basis that the franchisee was using confidential trade secrets belonging to the franchisor. The firm’s defense of the case resulted in the dismissal of all claims, after the court found that no trade secrets were being used.
General Litigation
Case 1: Favorable Recovery
Einbinder & Dunn represented a business broker seeking the recovery of a ten million dollar commission relating to a reverse merger with a public company. The case resulted in an extremely favorable recovery for the client.
Case 2: Bank Client Recovery
Einbinder & Dunn represented a bank client seeking the recovery of a $2.5 million loan after the debtor transferred all of its assets to an affiliate—a straw company—just before declaring bankruptcy. The firm’s work in prosecuting the fraudulent conveyance claim—including discovering the fraud in the debtor’s falsified invoices—resulted in the recovery of nearly all of the debt.
Case 3: Settlement for Nuisance Value
Einbinder & Dunn settled—for nuisance value—a multi-million dollar tortious interference with contract and misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit against a trucking company client.
Case 4: Favorable Settlement
Einbinder & Dunn obtained for a client, a small grower of trees for medicinal uses, a favorable settlement in an international arbitration from a large, multi-national pharmaceutical concern for breach of an agreement to purchase harvested plant matter for use in making drugs.
Case 5: Keeping the Lights On
When a client of the firm, the operator of the largest movie theater circuit in the United States, was backbilled for six years’ worth of electricity plus interest and late fees because a faulty meter had not registered the full amount of services, Einbinder & Dunn litigated and negotiated aggressively with ConEd, the New York City utility provider until ConEd agreed to waive one year of service charges and all interest, an amount approaching a quarter of a million dollars.
Case 6: $1M Multistate Recovery
Einbinder & Dunn recovered $950,000 for a bank client, aggressively pursuing a personal judgment in several states, conducting extensive discovery, and ultimately obtaining full payment of the judgment and attorney’s fees.
