Business Law

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. Palms IVPresidentComputerized Real Indoor GolfCorporation200 Huntington Ave., Suite 1607Alexandria, VA 22303 Dear Mr. Palms: The request for an interpretive opinion, contained in your letter dated July 30, 1973, as supplemented by your letter dated August 22, 1973, requesting reconsideration of the views expressed in Commissioner’s Opinion No. 73/29F,… 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. Arnold J. StoneAttorney at LawWainer & Stone, Inc.1900 Avenue of the StarsSuite 1090Century CityLos Angeles, CA 90067 Dear Mr. Stone: The request for an interpretive opinion, contained in your letter dated July 24, 1973, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the so-called “license agreement”… 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. GambleAttorney at LawGamble, Riepe, Webster & Fletcher500 Bankers Trust BuildingDes Moines, IA 50309 Dear Mr. Gamble: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated August 10, 1973, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the Dealership Agreements (“Agreements”} between Windtie… 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. Michael J. HarbersAttorney at LawO’Melveny & Myers611 West Sixth StreetLos Angeles, CA 90017 Dear Mr. Harbers: The request for an interpretive opinion, contained in your letter dated April 16, 1973, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the arrangements between Ovation Cosmetics, Inc., a California… 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 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