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. Larry E. MillerVice PresidentEMPLOYERS OVERLOADEO Building8040 Cedar AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55420 Dear Mr. Miller: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated March 20, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the contracts between Employers Overload, a Minnesota corporation (“Overload”), and persons… 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. Jerald A. InfantinoAttorney at LawCarroll, Breen, Paixotto& Infantino P.O. Box 712Santa Clara, CA 95050 Dear Mr. Infantino: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated April 5, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the agreements between Neal’s Earpiercing (“Neal’s”) and various… 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. Bernard J. O’MalleyAttorney at LawConnolly, O’Malley & Connolly420-430 Royal Union BuildingDes Moines, IA 50309 Dear Mr. O’Malley: The request for an expression of our opinion contained in your letter dated April 12, 1972, as supplemented by your undated letter filed in this office on May 5, 1972 and your letter… 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. Jesse W. JackAttorney at LawJack, Ruiz, Mallen & Sullivan941 West Hedding StreetSan Jose, CA 95126 Dear Mr. Jack: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated March 16, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the Lease Agreement entered into between… 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. Bertrand M. Lanchner, SecretaryVideorecord Corporation of AmericaVideorecord BuildingWestport, CO 06880 Dear Mr. Lanchner: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated February 9, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the receipt of deposits by Videorecord Corporation of America (“Videorecord”) from… 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. 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