If you are a minority-owned business, (at least 51% owned by a member(s) of one or more of the following groups: African American/Black, Female, Asian Pacific, Hispanic, Subcontinent Asian, American Indian/Native American?), and you wish to do business with Montgomery County, the State of Maryland, or the federal government, you should consider filing for MBE/DBE certification. The following is from the Maryland DOT website:
The Maryland Department of Transportation’s (MDOT) Office of Minority Business Enterprise has two primary functions: Minority Business Enterprise (MBE)/Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) certification for the State of Maryland and the administration and coordination of the MBE and DBE programs within the MDOT administrations.
To ensure that only bona fide MBEs/DBEs participate in the programs, Maryland has a comprehensive certification program. Only those businesses determined to be owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals are certified. A firm designated as an MBE and/or DBE will have its name appear in the MBE/DBE Directory, a reference document made available on the Internet to all State departments/agencies, the contracting community and the general public.
Recognizing that the potential for MBE/DBE participation is dependent upon several variables, each MDOT administration examines its respective contracts/purchase orders and establishes specific goals on a contract-by-contract basis. Procedures are followed to assure that an award of a contract is not made until a prime contractor has met the MBE/DBE goal(s) or has demonstrated a good faith effort to meet the MBE/DBE goal(s).
After a contract has been awarded, MBE/DBE participation is closely monitored by key personnel within each administration. Monitoring includes a review of the subcontract financial transactions, and visits to the job-site to verify actual work being performed by the MBE/DBE firm. The standards for MBE/DBE compliance are spelled out in the MBE/DBE Program Manual. Any deviation from compliance standards is documented and if it is not corrected, sanctions may be applied against the contractor and subcontractor(s). The MBE/DBE Program Manual identifies the sanctions which may be instituted.
Periodically, MDOT revises the MBE/DBE Program Manual for improvements and to include any applicable changes in federal and/or State regulations or laws. Persons having an interest in the program may find this guide helpful in understanding MDOT’s MBE/DBE Program. Copies of the complete Program Manual are available online in Adobe PDF format or at the following address for a nominal fee:
Maryland Department of Transportation
Office of Minority Business Enterprise
7201 Corporate Center Drive
Hanover, MD 21076
410 865-1269 or 1-800-544-6056
TTY 410 865-1342
http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/
To view the Uniform Certification Application to get certified as a Maryland minority-owned businesses, click:
http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/MBE_Program/Documents/DEEO-50%20Uniform%20Certification%20Applic.pdf
To see what documents need to accompany the application, click the following if you are a corporation:
http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/MBE_Program/Documents/Checklist-CORP0710.pdf
Click the following if you are a limited liability company (LLC)
http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/MBE_Program/Documents/Checklist-LLC0710.pdf
If you need assistance with your MBE application, please contact me.
In representing franchisor clients against defaulting franchisees, it is imperative to give adequate thought to how the franchisor is going to prove its damages that resulted from a franchisee’s breach of the franchise agreement. When confronted with this issue, I most often utilize a financially competent representative of the franchisor to testify with regard to that amount of monetary damage suffered by the franchisor. The franchisor’s representative must be able to prove the damage by evaluating the franchisee’s financial statements, including revenues and/or profits, expenses, and royalties paid to the franchisor, and then determine what sums the franchisor would have earned either during and/or after the franchise term had it not been for the franchisee’s breach.
In order to testify convincingly and thoroughly, the franchisor’s representative must be able to analyze the franchisee’s financial numbers and draw a conclusion from such numbers. Therefore, a chief financial officer of a small franchisor, or an auditor or accountant of a larger franchisor, is an ideal representative in these instances, provided that the representative has been with the company long enough to be able to testify knowledgeably with regard to the details of the franchisor’s system.
Generally, a well-prepared franchisor representative will be permitted to testify as to the value or the projected profits of a franchised business provided the representative has a sufficient foundation for the analysis and opinion, including particular knowledge of the financial issues presented by virtue or his or her position in the franchisor company. This simply means that a franchisor representative may opine on the issue of lost profits where they know the franchisor and franchisee’s business and financial system intimately, and have the professional ability to analyze the franchisee’s financial statements.
To see how a franchisor SHOULD NOT approach the issue of proving its damages against a franchisee, see Lifewise Master Funding v. Telebank, 374 F.3d 917 (10th Cir. 2004), which in essence holds that a company’s witness as to damages must have personal knowledge of all items factored into his opinion in order for the opinion to be admissible. The court concluded that a business owner or executive may give “a straightforward opinion as to lost profits using conventional methods based on [the company's] actual operating history.” However, because in this case the witness lacked personal knowledge of the factors used in the damages analysis, the opinion was inadmissible.
Case law on the subject of a franchisor’s ability to collect future royalties, that is, royalties for the remainder of the term of the franchise agreement, is conflicting. Courts across the country have been unable to agree on when a franchisor may collect future royalties.
While guaranteeing the collection of future royalties from a terminated franchisee is impossible, there is one obvious but often overlooked way to increase the likelihood that a court or arbitrator will find in the franchisor’s favor when faced with the issue. That is, to disclose to the franchisee in the FDD, and include language in the franchise agreement, stating with specificity the franchisor’s policy on collecting future royalties. State for what period of time the franchisee willl be responsible for such royalties, ie for a certain number of months, or until the end of what would have been the franchise term. Also include what amount the franchisee will be expected to pay, for instance the average royalties paid by the franchisee over the past 6 or 12 months, or whatever time period the franchisor seeks to use.
Including specific and detailed language in the FDD and franchise agreement will not guarantee that a franchisor prevails with regard to a future royalties claim. However, NOT including such language will in my view guarantee that the franchisor loses such a claim.
A franchisor client recently asked me for clarification on the revised FTC Franchise Rule, specifically, whether audited financials are mandated by the FTC Rule in non-registration states, or whether less restrictive and less costly “reviewed” or “compiled” financials will suffice. The answer is clear that the revised FTC Rule does indeed require audited financials, with an exception for start-up franchisors:
Item 21: Financial Statements.
(1) Include the following financial statements prepared according to United States generally accepted accounting principles, as revised by any future United States government mandated accounting principles, or as permitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Except as provided in paragraph (u)(2) of this section, these financial statements must be audited by an independent certified public accountant using generally accepted United States auditing standards. Present the required financial statements in a tabular form that compares at least two fiscal years.
In TEKsystems, Inc. v. Bolton, (2010), the Maryland Federal District Court recently reinforced Maryland law on the point that the enforcement of a covenant not to compete is not dependent on whether the competing former employee solicits his former employer’s clients or uses its confidential information, but rather on whether or not the scope of the restrictive covenant is reasonable. The only factors that will determine whether the non-compete is valid are its temporal and geographical limits, the employer’s legitimate business interests, the employee’s unique and specialized skills, any undue hardship on the employee, and the public interest served by enforcing the restrictive covenant.
The non-compete found in the former employee’s employment agreement contained standard language prohibiting the former employee from engaging “in the business of recruiting or providing on a temporary or permanent basis technical service personnel, industrial personnel, or office support personnel” for a period of 18 months after termination of employment, and within a geographical limitation of a 50-mile radius of the employee’s former office. Both the period of time of 18 months and the geographical scope of 50 miles have been held as reasonable on numerous occasions by Maryland courts.
The Court also found that the employer had legitimate business interests in enforcing the covenant, the employee possessed unique and specialized skills, and the employee would not suffer undue hardship by enforcing the covenant. The enforcement of the non-compete was upheld against the former employee.
To read a comprehensive blog of all of the issues address by the Court in this case, visit the blog of the Business Law Section of the Maryland State Bar Association at http://marylandbusinesslawdevelopments.blogspot.com/search/label/Injunctive%20Relief.
In a recent Maryland Federal District Court Case, Antonio v. SSA, LLC, (2010) it was held that the parent of a company may not be held liable in Maryland for the acts of a subsidiary corporation under the corporate veil piercing doctrine without a showing of fraud or a necessity to enforce a paramount equity.
While the parent company, in this case ABM, did have control over the operations of the subsidiary company SSA, Inc., for example: (1) ABM owned 100% of the voting securities in SSA, Inc., (2) SSA, Inc. does not hold annual board meetings, keep corporate minutes, or conduct its own audits, and (3) all but one of SSA, Inc.’s officers are ABM’s officers, the Court held that control was by itself not enough to hold the parent company AMB liable and justify piercing the corporate veil.
The Court required that in order to hold the parent liable for the acts of the successor, the plaintiff mush show fraud on the part of the parent, or necessity to enforce a paramount equity. The court did not define what in this case would have amounted to a paramount equity, only stating that in this case none existed.
To read a comprehensive blog of all of the issues address by the court in this case, visit the blog of the Business Law Section of the Maryland State Bar Association at http://marylandbusinesslawdevelopments.blogspot.com/search/label/corporate%20veil.
Raymond McKenzie is a corporate and franchise attorney in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.
This blog focuses on:
1) Corporate and business law matters that are relevant to small and mid-size businesses located in the Washington, DC metropolitan area;
2) Franchise law issues that are of interest to franchisors and franchisees from across the United States.
Note: This blog does not constitute legal advice
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Aug | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||
Subscribe in an RSS reader