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. 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

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. Antonio J. GaudioAttorney at Law405 Grand Avenue, Room 208South San Francisco, CA 94082 Dear Mr. Gaudio: The request for… 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. Austin F. StevensAttorney at Law520 South El Camino RealSuite 428San Mateo, CA 94402 Dear Mr. Stevens: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated April 28, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the Design Patent License and Distributorship Agreement (“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. Thomas H. ThorntonAttorney at LawSuite E14482 Beach BoulevardWestminister, CA 92683 Dear Mr. Thornton: The request for an interpretive opinion, contained in your letter dated April 26, 1973, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the agreements between Z Z Corporation (“Z Z”) and persons referred… 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 J. RedingtonAttorney at LawEadington and Howald1666 North Main Street, Suite 340168 North Brent StreetSanta Ana, CA 92702 Dear Mr. Eadington: The request for an interpretive opinion, contained in your letter dated March 29, 1973, as supplemented by your letter dated April 25, 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. J. Roger MyersAttorney at LawRains & MyersCommunity Professional Building168 North Brent StreetSuite 304Ventura, CA 93003 Dear Mr. Myers: The request for an interpretive opinion, contained in your letter dated January 25, 1973, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the Sales Representative Agreements (“Agreements”) between… Read more