Business Law Franchise Opinions

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. George M. HenzieAttorney at LawBelcher, Henzie & Biegenzahn510 South Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90013 Dear Mr. Henzie: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated January 6, 1972, as supplemented by your letter dated January 11, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letters raise the… Read more

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. Donald W. PerkalAttorney at LawPerkal and Petty580 Bank of California Building401 Civic Center Drive WestP.O. Box 324Santa Ana, CA… 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. Dr. David I. FreedAttorney at LawFouke, Wersch & HayesOne Eleven Sutter StreetSuite 2240San Francisco, CA 94104 Dear Mr. Freed: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated January 12, l972, as supplemented by your letter dated February 8, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises… Read more

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. The request contained in your letter dated February 7, 1972, for reconsideration of the opinion expressed in our letter dated… Read more

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. The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated February 1, 1972, 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. Vincent A. MuzziAttorney at LawLaw Office of William F. Kenney520 El Camino BuildingSan Mateo, CA 94402 Dear Mr. Muzzi: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated November 16, 1971, as supplemented by your letter dated November 29, 1971, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letters… Read more

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. Jefferson FrazierAttorney at LawO’Brien, Stout, Bunim, Fraizer & Hallisey One California StreetSan Francisco, CA 94111 Dear Mr. Frazier: The request… Read more

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. The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated January 10, 1972, 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 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. James R. CoombsAttorney at LawCoobs, Manley & Root800 Tenth StreetSacramento, CA 95814 Dear Mr. Coombs: The request for reconsideration… Read more

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. James G. Engler3903 W. Legion LaneLos Angeles, CA 90039 Dear Mr. Engler: The request for an expression of our… Read more