Important Franchise Issue: Enforcing a Breach of Settlement Agreement
Our clients expect settlement agreements to be enforceable. Such agreements often contain activity restrictions, like noncompete agreements and confidentiality provisions. U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Michelle Jerson of the Northern District of Texas had the opportunity to consider the consequences of a flagrant breach of a settlement agreement in the case of Pirtek USA v. James Bradley Lager, (Bankr. N.D. Texas, 2023).
August 17, 2023 at 11:25 AM
6 minute read
CommentaryOur clients expect settlement agreements to be enforceable. Such agreements often contain activity restrictions, like noncompete agreements and confidentiality provisions. U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Michelle Jerson of the Northern District of Texas had the opportunity to consider the consequences of a flagrant breach of a settlement agreement in the case of Pirtek USA v. James Bradley Lager, (Bankr. N.D. Texas, 2023). Jerson carefully marshalled the facts in this very interesting opinion addressing important issues of contract law, franchise law and dischargeability in bankruptcy.
The defendants, James Bradley Lager (the debtor) and his company JBL Hose Service LLC d/b/a Texas Hose Pro (JBL), had signed two successive and confidential settlement agreements with its franchisor, Pirtek USA, LLC (Pirtek) in order to resolve nonrenewal by Pirtek of two franchise agreements. In the first settlement, debtor and JBL agreed to pay unpaid amounts to the franchisor, observe the noncompete provisions and maintain confidentiality. Within months of entering into the first settlement agreement, counsel to the debtor and JBL demanded $9 million from Pirtek and rescission of the first settlement agreement. The parties renegotiated the first settlement agreement.
This content has been archived.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 AllCommonwealth Court Overturns Award of Damages Assessed Against Landlord on Claims of Unlawful Discrimination
6 minute readJudge Louis C. Bechtle: An American Jurist Who Relied on Common Sense, Sound Judgment and Fairness
5 minute readSix Ways Thought Leadership Can Support Your Law Firm’s 2025 Strategic Plan
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 16-48. It’s Comp Time Again: How To Crush Your Comp Memo
- 2'Religious Discrimination'?: 4th Circuit Revives Challenge to Employer Vaccine Mandate
- 3Fight Over Amicus-Funding Disclosure Surfaces in Google Play Appeal
- 4The Power of Student Prior Knowledge in Legal Education
- 5Chicago Cubs' IP Claim to Continue Against Wrigley View Rooftop, Judge Rules
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