Business Law Franchise Opinions

State of California Department of Corporations Brian R. Van Camp, Commissioner In reply refer to: File No. _____ This interpretive opinion is issued by the Commissioner of Corporations pursuant to section 31510 of the franchise investment law. It is applicable only to the transaction identified in the request therefor, and may not be relied upon in connection with any other transaction. Mr. David M. EpsteinAttorney at LawEpstein, O’Neill & UtanScranton Life BuildingScranton, PA 18503 Dear Mr. Epstein: The request contained in… Read more

State of California Department of Corporations Brian R. Van Camp, Commissioner In reply refer to: File No. _____ This letter is not an Interpretive Opinion for the reasons stated below. Mr. Donald F. KrankAttorney at LawKrank and Notturno1101 Park City CenterLancaster, PA 17601 Dear Mr. Krank: The request for an interpretive opinion, contained in your letter dated July 30, 1973, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the agreements between Protection Plus International, Limited, a Pennsylvania… Read more

State of California Department of Corporations Brian R. Van Camp, Commissioner In reply refer to: File No. _____ This letter is not an Interpretive Opinion for the reasons stated below. Mr. Robert A. GastonAttorney at LawDunne and Gaston100 Wilshire BoulevardSanta Monica, CA 90401 Dear Mr. Gaston: The request for an interpretive opinion, contained in your letter dated May 24, 1973, as supplemented by your letter dated August 9, 1973, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letters raise the question whether… Read more

State of California Department of Corporations Brian R. Van Camp, Commissioner In reply refer to: File No. _____ This letter is not an Interpretive Opinion for the reasons stated below. Mr. Roger W. Blakely, Jr.Attorney at LawSpensley, Horn, Jubas & LubitzSuite 500, 1880 Century Park EastLos Angeles, CA 90067 Dear Mr. Blakely: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated July 5, 1973, as supplemented by your letter dated July 12, 1973, has been considered by the Commissioner.… Read more

State of California Department of Corporations Brian R. Van Camp, Commissioner In reply refer to: File No. _____ This letter is not an Interpretive Opinion for the reasons stated below. Mr. Paul ConfortiAttorney at LawLaw Offices of Donald C. Kemby115 East Foothill BoulevardGlendora, CA 91740 Dear Mr. Conforti: The request for an interpretive opinion, contained in your letter dated June 1, 1973, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the “Exclusive Management Agreements” (“Agreements”) between M&M… Read more

State of California Department of Corporations Brian R. Van Camp, Commissioner In reply refer to: File No. _____ This letter is not an Interpretive Opinion for the reasons stated below. Mr. Peter J. Palm IVPresidentComputerized Real Indoor GolfCorporation200 Huntington Ave., Suite 1607Alexandra, VA 22303 Dear Mr. Palms: The request for an interpretive opinion, contained in your letter dated May 14, 1973, requesting reconsideration of the views expressed in Comm. Op. 73/17F, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the… Read more

State of California Department of Corporations Brian R. Van Camp, Commissioner In reply refer to: File No. _____ This letter is not an Interpretive Opinion for the reasons stated below. Mr. Samuel C. AlhadeffAttorney at LawAsaro, Featherman & Keagy304 Kalmia StreetSan Diego, CA 92101 Dear Mr. Alhadeff: The request for an interpretive opinion, contained in your letter dated May 16, 1973, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the Distributorship Agreements between Don Moody and Tom… Read more

State of California Department of Corporations Brian R. Van Camp, Commissioner In reply refer to: File No. _____ This letter is not an Interpretive Opinion for the reasons stated below. Mr. John P. DahlAttorney at LawNewlander, Wright, Dorsa & Dahl1825 De La Cruz Blvd., Suite 8 & 9Santa Clara, CA 95050 Dear Mr. Dahl: The request for an interpretive opinion, continued in your letter dated June 1, 1973 has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the… Read more

State of California Department of Corporations Brian R. Van Camp, Commissioner In reply refer to: File No. _____ This letter is not an Interpretive Opinion for the reasons stated below. Mr. Sam RosenAttorney at LawShannon, Gracey, Ratliff & Miller2700 Continental National Bank BuildingFort Worth, TX 76102 Dear Mr. Rosen: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated February 23, 1973 has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the agreement between Property Damage Appraisers… Read more

State of California Department of Corporations Brian R. Van Camp, Commissioner In reply refer to: File No. _____ This letter is not an Interpretive Opinion for the reasons stated below. Mr. Bruce MichaelAttorney at LawPerkins, Coie, Stone,Olsen & Williams 1900 Washington BuildingSeattle, WA 98101 Dear Mr. Cross: The request for an interpretive opinion, contained in your letter dated June 30, 1972, as supplemented by your letters dated August 25, 1972, February 13, 1973, and April 16, 1973, has been considered by the… Read more