Franchisors and Unplanned Exits: A Succession Plan Is a Good Idea
It is a win-win when the franchisor suggests or require that a franchisee have a succession plan.
March 26, 2018 at 01:44 PM
5 minute read
It is a win-win when the franchisor suggests or require that a franchisee have a succession plan. By raising issues that most franchisees do not want to confront, all parties can collaborate on a business contingency plan which benefits everyone. Although cases alleging age discrimination in franchising are rare and perhaps rising, a succession plan may avoid such claims by focusing on long-term goals and a strategy on how to achieve those goals. I strongly recommend that all franchisors require their franchisees of over two years to have succession plans, even if they are not shared completely with the franchisor, because it helps with continuity so essential to brand equity.
The succession plan need not be complicated nor does it necessarily require accountants and lawyers. A succession plan just looks at what will happen if the owner leaves by death or otherwise. It asks the question, what is the best way to a planned exit, and what happens on an unplanned exit?
The succession plan may be coordinated with an estate plan, which contemplates dispositive transfers through sale and other means. The disposition can also occur by wills and trusts, buy-sell agreements, augmented by life insurance and family partnerships. A valuation of the business is often a key element in any exit strategy, and the succession plan, estate plan and valuation should be coordinated. These issues need to be coordinated with any restrictions that may exist under a franchise agreement on sale or disposition. In addition, state law may invalidate or alter some of these restrictions. For these reasons, the succession planning probably should be coordinated with lawyers familiar with both franchise law and estate planning.
|Confronting Business Facts
A strategy requires planning, usually three years in advance. Planning may be hindered if the franchisee has no valuation for its business. Their books and records need to be organized. They need to do this while they are still committed to the business and understand that the benefit of being fully invested of time and effort in the business. They also need to understand how the business will grow, or continue to operate, when they are no longer in the business.
|Confronting the Key Questions
- How will the business continue if the operator unexpectedly exits, becomes incapacitated or dies?
- Should the business be continued or liquidated in the unexpected exit of the operator?
- Would it be better if the business were sold in a planned sale?
- In the absence of the operator, who will be on the making these key decisions and should a team be established now?
Considerations of Franchise Law
The first consideration is coordination of the operator's succession plan with the restrictions in the franchise agreement. Franchise agreements generally prohibit sales to competitors and may grant the franchisor an option to purchase upon notice of sale or death. These restrictions may or may not be enforceable as written as a matter of contract law or antitrust law. These restrictions may also not be enforceable as written because of state laws governing the decedent's estate. These restrictions may also not be enforceable as written because of state franchise law which in some states, increases the ability of franchisees to sell their business during their life, or after their death. Proper planning requires a look at all of these considerations.
|The Role of Valuation
Valuation is important because it allows the operator to calculate their total estate and allocate based on value. Valuation helps with tax planning by pricing the assets and allowing a tax strategy to be formulated. The franchise community has specialists in tax planning and valuation, such as Franchise Valuations Ltd. in New York and many franchise business brokers have ancillary services.
|Make the Decisions
For the next generation, will ownership be separate from management? If the business is transferred to the children, do they have the experience, skill and motivation to take over? If not, the compensation plan to retain key employees needs to executed now.
Who will be on the succession team and trusted advisers? These specialists should include a franchise attorney, CPA or financial advisor, valuation specialist and a tax savvy estate planning attorney, Judgment calls need to be made and the franchisee needs to be well informed.
Resolving conflicts between active and passive owners are frequent in family owned businesses. Non-active family members want tax-advantaged dividend distributions and capital gains from the sale of the company. Active family members believe their efforts support the family and want to be paid for their work directly, rather than receive dividends diluting their direct compensation. Conflicts can be minimized by providing transparency in the books and records and to have a mechanism for buy-outs of dissident shareholders. Where generational differences regarding control, it may not be wise to have the elders “rule from the grave.” Recapitalization to give seniors preferred stock to maintain control while allowing the younger generation to acquire control may be the best practice to insure a passing of responsibility.
Employee succession can be executed through an employee stock ownership plan or ESOP, which allows employees to purchase and own stock of the employer. A life insurance can trust can help provide tax advantaged payments to children not active in the business as a means of wealth transfer.
As Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who fail to plan, you are planning to fail.” Make those decisions early, and with good counsel to maximize your goals.
Craig R. Tractenberg, a partner at Fox Rothschild, handles complex business disputes involving intellectual property, licenses, business torts and insolvency issues. He focuses on franchise companies' development and expansion. Contact him at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250