Business Law

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. George H. WaiteAttorney at Law134 E. Leatrice Ln. Anaheim, CA 92802 Dear Mr. Waite: The request for an interpretive opinion,… 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 IVPresident Computerized Real Indoor GolfCorporation200 Huntington Ave, Suite 1607Alexandra, VA 22303 Dear Mr. Palms: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated March 12, 1973, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the Distributorship Contracts (“contracts”) between Computerized Real Indoor… 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. Sidney A. CopilowAttorney at Law1900 Avenue of the StarsSuite 1060Century City, CA 90067 Dear Mr. Copilow: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated November 13, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the offer and sale of a franchise by… 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. James L. SealAttorney at LawEberle, Berlin, Xading,Musick, Peeler & GarrettOne Wilshire BoulevardLos Angeles, CA 90017 Dear Mr. Seal: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated July 14, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether, under the circumstances described by you,… 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. Lawrence & GrosbergAttorney at LawWolf & Dublin9454 Wilshire BoulevardBeverly Hills, CA 90212 Dear Mr. Grosberg: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated November 24, 1972, as supplemented by your letter dated December 1, 1972, 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. David M. EpsteinEpstein, O’Neill & Utan Attorney at LawSuite 800, Scranton Life BuildingScraton, PA 18503 Dear Mr. Epstein: The request contained in your letter dated December 11, 1972, for reconsideration of the opinions expressed by us in our letter dated December 14, 1971 and commissioner’s Opinion No. 72/6F dated March 15,… 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 L. RunftAttorney at LawEberle, Berlin, Xading,Turnbow & Gillespie, Chartered 711-1/2 Bannock StreetPost Office Box 1368Boise, ID 83701 Dear Mr. Runft: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated October 6, 1972, as supplemented by your letter dated October 17, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your… 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 F. TylerAttorney at Law1660 California Federal Plaza5670 Wilshire BoulevardLos Angeles, CA 90036 Dear Mr. Tyler: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated September 12, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the arrangements between Redi-Strip, Inc., a California corporation… 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. The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated September 25, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the so called Agreement between W, Inc. and X is a franchise within the definition of Section 31005 and subject to the provisions of 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. C. William Carlson, Jr.Attorney at Law18080 Beach BoulevardHuntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Carlson: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated August 29, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the so-called Manufacturer’s and Agent’s Agreements (“agreement”) between Green Rain,… Read more