DEFAULT

Tricia seckerson bankruptcy

2 Likes, 0 Comments - UWyo Architectural Engineering (@uwyoarchitecturalengineering) on Instagram: “UW Architectural Engineering Students walk through a model of the Barcelona Pavilion in "The Cave" ”. Tricia DeLeon is a trial attorney in Holland & Knight's Dallas office with more than 20 years of business litigation experience and has been recognized as one of the Top 50 Women Attorneys in Texas in and by Texas Super Lawyers magazine. Ms. DeLeon has first-chaired multiple jury and bench trials, adversary proceedings and is lead counsel on numerous arbitrations with the American. The African Union | Economy of Africa.

William S. Fagan, Case No. The named respondents were those shareholders who effectively dissented under the dissenters statute.

Those shareholders represented approximately , shares of TQC's outstanding common stock before the Transactions. The dissenters alleged that the value of each share was greater than that amount. A trial was conducted in this matter over several months beginning in May Certain dissenting shareholders On August 12, , defendants filed counterclaims, asserting claims for breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation based on termination of the agreements.

Defendants also sought a declaration that 1 the sales and opening goals in the area director marketing agreement were unconscionable, 2 TQM and TQFC breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, 3 the sales and opening goals were modified by course of conduct, 4 defendants were not in default, and the termination of the area director marketing agreement was wrongful, and 5 TQM and TQFC should be estopped from asserting termination or waived their rights in that regard.

Defendants also sought an unspecified amount of damages. After four days of trial in February , the parties settled the case. Peter Tyrka, et al. The Quizno's Franchise Corporation, et al.

On July 22, , claimants, a former QUIZNOS area director and its principals, initiated an action against TQC and TQFC, asserting claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and various other claims arising from the termination of the parties' area director marketing agreement. Claimants sought an unspecified amount of damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and a constructive trust over all sums otherwise due to them but paid to the respondents after the termination.

The case was closed on April 5, Daniel Schwalbe, et al. Steve Pocrnic, et al. Quizno's Canada Corporation, et al. The complaint sought rescission of the The case was dismissed on August 1, Josa, Inc.

The crossclaim and third party complaint sought an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees and costs. QFA disbursed the termination fee on February 2, The case was dismissed in March Jeffrey Hancharick and Suzanne Hancharick v. Case No. The complaint sought an unspecified amount of damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.

Prior to the filing of this action, on January 5, , defendants filed an action in Denver District Court, Colorado seeking declaratory relief and damages for breach of contract.

Accordingly, the New Jersey action was dismissed on May 12, The Denver, Colorado action was dismissed on June 27, Thuy D.

Murray and Sean K. Murray v. The complaint sought rescission, an unspecified amount of damages, interest, and costs. On May 22, , plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

On June 2, , the case was transferred to federal court in Denver, Colorado. The case was dismissed on December 28, On April 22, , the plaintiff, a former QUIZNOS franchisee, filed a complaint against defendants in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, asserting claims for breach of contract, fraud, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and interference with prospective business advantage.

In addition to injunctive relief, the complaint sought to have the court declare that the termination of plaintiffs' franchise agreements was wrongful. On the same day, certain Quizno's entities filed a complaint and a motion in United States District Court for the District of Colorado against plaintiffs, which sought to have that court declare the termination proper and seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.

Subsequently, the Quizno's entities withdrew their complaint in District Court, and on June 24, , sought the same relief in the California Court. The court granted defendants' motions to compel arbitration. No other monies were paid to the plaintiffs. The case was closed on June 7, Moiez Al-Harazi and Sawson Shoraan v. The Quizno's Canada Restaurant Corporation, et al. The claim sought compensation for loss of income and foregone opportunity cost or damages.

On February 24, , plaintiffs amended the statement of claim further and, on or about April 4, , plaintiffs On November, 23, , plaintiffs issued a fresh as amended statement of claim. A settlement was reached between the representative plaintiffs and defendants. On July 7, , the class was certified for settlement purposes only and the terms of the settlement were approved by the court. Inna Bogdanova, et al..

The complaint sought, among other things, an unspecified amount of damages, rescission of the plaintiffs' franchise agreements, and injunctive relief to prevent future sales of QUIZNOS franchises in New Jersey.

TQM disbursed the amount on August 22, Kenneth Forrester, et al. On February 1, , claimants, who were a current QUIZNOS franchisee, initiated an arbitration proceeding against TQM, TQC and certain former QUIZNOS employees, asserting claims for fraudulent inducement, violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, indemnification, contribution, and violation of the NJFPA based on alleged misrepresentations by defendants about territorial rights.

The demand sought, among other things, an unspecified amount of damages and rescission of the claimants' franchise agreements. On March 7, , respondents filed a counter demand, asserting claims for breach of contract. TQM disbursed the amount on August 10, Residences Food, Inc. The complaint sought recovery of all amounts paid to defendants, costs, and attorneys' fees.

On October 31, , defendants and Residences Food, Inc. The case was dismissed on January 2, Chris Bray, et al. On December 15, , 8 plaintiffs, who were current QUIZNOS franchisees of QFA, filed this action after receiving notice that their respective franchise agreements were terminated by reason of their posting certain materials on an internet website. The complaint asserted claims for breach of contract, coercion of first amendment free speech rights, violation of the Michigan, Minnesota and Connecticut franchise acts, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and sought injunctive relief enjoining termination of plaintiffs' franchise agreements.

In connection with the settlement, QFA dismissed its separately filed actions against the five franchisee parties. Farshid Ganjavi v. The claim sought a refund of plaintiff's initial franchise fee and other fees paid to QCRC, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The case was discontinued on October 12, The complaint sought a declaration that the termination of defendants' area director marketing agreement was proper.

On April 9, , defendants filed a counterclaim against QF, asserting claims for breach of contract based on wrongful termination. The counterclaim sought, among other things, a declaration that the termination of defendants' area director marketing agreement was improper.

On or about September 21, , the parties. The case was dismissed on October 4, Inna Todortsev, et al. The complaint sought an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 28, , which added claims for declaratory relief and violation of the California Franchise Investment Law. On December 6, , plaintiffs' filed a second amended complaint, which removed the claim for money had and received and sought rescission of the plaintiffs franchise agreements.

On January 8, , QF filed a counterclaim against plaintiffs, asserting claims for breach of contract and the related guaranty. The counterclaim sought damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest.

The case was dismissed on April 2, Christopher T. Kearns v. The complaint sought a refund of plaintiff's initial franchise fee, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and an unspecified amount of damages for alleged lost profits.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in June , revising the rescission and restitution claim to include breach of contract implied in law because of fraud. QF filed a counterclaim against plaintiff on September 12, , asserting claims for breach of contract. The counterclaims sought an unspecified amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim was dismissed on January 4, The case was dismissed on February 22, Bailal Haidari v.

The complaint sought rescission of plaintiff's franchise agreement and a refund of plaintiff's initial franchise fee. Dag Inc. On July 13, , claimant, who was a current QUIZNOS area director, filed a demand for arbitration against QFA, asserting claims for breach of contract and violation of the California Business and Professional Code based on a dispute over the renewal of claimant's area director marketing agreement. The demand sought an injunction to prevent termination of the claimants' area director marketing agreement, attorneys' fees, and costs.

On August 1, , claimant filed an amended arbitration demand, which added a claim for violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and sought an unspecified amount of damages from respondent. The case was closed on April 28, Brad Fix, et al. The complaint sought specific performance under the defendants' franchise agreements, damages, and other relief against defendants in connection with defendants' posting of certain materials on an internet website.

On March 12, , defendants filed counterclaims against QFA asserting claims for violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, intentional fraud, fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, civil conspiracy, and extreme and outrageous conduct.

The counterclaim sought to enjoin QFA from taking the alleged actions described in the counterclaim, an unspecified amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. The case was dismissed on May 14, Milwaukee Realty, LLC v. On June 10, , Fu Shin Lin, a former QUIZNOS franchisee, filed a third party complaint against QF, asserting claims for negligence and fraud claiming QF was negligent in approving the location of the restaurant and in negotiating lease terms and that QF misrepresented that the location was demographically suitable and that the lease terms were favorable.

Lin filed an amended third party complaint against QF on June 26, , asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. The case was dismissed on May 7, Brad Braman, et al. The complaint asserted claims for violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices and Business Opportunity Plans Acts, breach of contract and fiduciary duty, common law deceptive trade practices and fraud. The complaint sought, among other things, an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees, costs, interest and a declaration that the plaintiffs' franchise agreements were null, void and unenforceable.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in Colorado on February 27, On August 24, , the parties signed a. The case was dismissed on July 14, Gregory D.

Brenneman, et al. On May 25, , the derivative action was filed nominally on behalf of Home Depot against certain current and former officers and directors, including Gregory D.

Brenneman, in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment in connection with Home Depot's return-to-vendor, stock option, and compensation practices.

Such action was filed by alleged shareholders of Home Depot. Relief sought included an unspecified amount of damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, benefits and compensation obtained by the defendants, costs, and attorney's fees.

An amended complaint was filed June 22, based on the same cause of action and sought the same relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on February 20, On June 10, , the Court held a hearing to consider a proposed settlement of the Wandel and the City of Pontiac actions pursuant to which Home Depot agreed to implement or maintain certain corporate governance measures, the Plaintiffs agreed, on behalf of themselves and derivatively on behalf of Home Depot, to dismiss the actions and provide releases to the individual defendants, including Mr.

On June 10, , the Court entered an order approving the settlement and entering final judgment. The day period in which to appeal the Superior Court's judgment expired on July 11, without the filing of any appeal. On September 6, , the derivative action was filed nominally on behalf of Home Depot against certain current and former officers and directors, including Gregory D. Brenneman, in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment in connection with Home Depot's return-to-vendor, stock option, and compensation practices.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 20, Plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal of plaintiffs to remove Tracie Scotto, Patricia Capizzi and Savino Cappizi as plaintiffs on April 23, , and plaintiffs filed another notice of dismissal of plaintiffs to remove Sharon Stark, Scott Stark and Sarah Kleinman as plaintiffs on April 30, On June 11, , defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

On June 10, , the Court held a hearing to consider a proposed settlement of the Wandel and City of Pontiac actions pursuant to which Home Depot agreed to implement or maintain certain corporate governance measures, the plaintiffs agreed, on behalf of themselves and derivatively on behalf of Home Depot, to dismiss the actions and provide releases to the individual defendants, including Mr.

Brenneman, and Home Depot agreed to pay plaintiffs' attorneys an award of attorneys' fees Edward C. Richard E. Schaden, Frederick H. Eric Lawrence, John L.

Todd, Brad A. In the complaint, Sebesta alleged that the members of the board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to TQC's shareholders. Sebesta filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent TQC's shareholders' meeting at which the Transactions were to be put to a vote. On November 28, , the Court denied the motion for temporary restraining order. The Transactions were consummated in December The case settled, and the trial court entered judgment for approval of the settlement on April 15, Implementation of the settlement was stayed because certain of the plaintiffs filed an appeal.

On May 18, , the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court approving the settlement. On May 31, , appellants filed a petition for rehearing, which was denied. In November , the appellants filed a writ of certiorari. On August 13, , the Colorado Supreme Court denied appellant's petition for certiorari. The plan for administration of the shareholders' claims was approved by the trial court in January Distribution was completed at the end of the third quarter of Leonid Zbarsky, et al.

The arbitration demand sought, among other things, an unspecified amount of damages, rescission of the claimants' franchise agreements, and injunctive relief to prevent future sales of QUIZNOS franchises in New Jersey.

Scott A. Gilbert, et al. The complaint asserted claims for fraudulent inducement, violations of the Wisconsin Franchise Investment Law and Wisconsin Statutes Sec. The complaint sought rescission of the plaintiffs' franchise agreements, an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. Ultimately, the parties agreed to arbitrate all pending disputes between them. Accordingly, on August 23, , plaintiffs filed their demand for arbitration against QFII and a current Quizno's area director and its principals.

Kashri Corporation v. Quizno's Corp, et al. The complaint sought an unspecified amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 12, , which added QF as a defendant. The parties attended mediation on August 18, , and reached a settlement. The case was dismissed on December 10, Manda LLC, et al.

The complaint sought an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. On April 10, , plaintiffs' consumer fraud claim was dismissed with prejudice and the remaining claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 22, , which removed the claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and added a claim for breach of contract. Subsequently, a stipulation of dismissal was filed by plaintiffs. Halo Investments LLC, et al. On November 21, , plaintiffs, who were current QUIZNOS franchisees and their principals, filed an action against QF, asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.

The complaint sought an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees, costs, restitution, and rescission of the plaintiffs' franchise agreements. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on February 26, On April 22, , the court granted QF's motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim.

The case was dismissed on March 20, Richard Urso, et al. The complaint sought, among other things, an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees, costs, interest and a rescission of plaintiffs' franchise agreements. The complaint sought, among other things, an unspecified amount of damages, costs, and attorneys fees. The case was removed to federal court in December On December 3, , plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which removed a certain area director as a defendant, added QF as a defendant, withdrew the claims of breach of contract and fraud, and added claims for violations under the California unfair competition and false advertising laws.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement on March 30, The amount of the payment depends on the date on which the franchise agreement was signed. These franchisees' franchise agreements will be terminated upon receipt of payment. In the alternative to receiving a payment, a class member with a non-terminated franchise agreement can elect to remain a franchisee, and is entitled to receive a credit in an amount equal to the initial franchise fee toward the purchase price of equipment and supplies which are necessary to open a QUIZNOS Restaurant.

Approximately another members of the class with terminated franchise. On December 8, , the settlement was approved by the court. The complaint sought specific performance under the defendants' franchise agreement, damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest.

On January 10, , defendants filed counterclaims against plaintiffs, asserting claims for violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, the Connecticut Franchise Act, the Connecticut Fair Practices Trade Act, and intentional fraud, breach of contract, fraudulent concealment, civil conspiracy, and extreme and outrageous conduct. The counterclaim sought to enjoin plaintiffs from taking the alleged actions described in the counterclaim, and an unspecified amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.

On August 13, , the court dismissed defendants' counterclaims with respect to the Connecticut Franchise Act, the Connecticut Fair Practices Trade Act and civil conspiracy claims. Dalvinder Sahota v. Quizno's Canada Restaurant Corporation, No. The claim sought a refund of plaintiff's initial franchise fee.

The motion sought a refund of plaintiff's initial franchise fee and annulment of plaintiffs' franchise agreement. Louis Glazer v. Gause v. Geronimo Financial, Inc. Prokupek constituted a fraudulent conveyance. Without admitting liability, the parties entered into a Confidential Settlement and Release Agreement on September 3, , in which Gause agreed to dismiss the lawsuit against Geronimo and Mr. Miguel Morales Vallellanes v. Quizno's Sub, et al. The complaint sought a refund of plaintiff's initial franchise fee, attorneys' fees, costs, interest and a decree that plaintiff's franchise agreement was invalid.

Thin N' Out Fitness Inc. Schaden, and certain other unrelated entities and individuals, asserting claims for violation of the Washington Franchise Investment Practices Act.

The demand sought rescission of the plaintiffs' franchise agreement, or in the alternative, an unspecified amount of damages, fees, and costs. The parties signed a settlement agreement and the case was dismissed in February The complaint sought specific performance under the defendants' franchise agreement, damages, attorneys' fees, costs, interest, and other relief. On November 13, , defendants filed counterclaims against QFII, asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent non-disclosure.

The counterclaim sought rescission, an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Defendants' counterclaims for unjust enrichment and fraudulent-non disclosure were dismissed by the court in January On June 9, , plaintiffs' amended their counterclaims to add rescission and restitution.

Trial concluded on December 12, QFII filed an appeal on February 12, QFII filed an appeal of the judgment on February 12, , and an appeal of the award of attorneys' fees and costs on July 15, These appeals were consolidated on August 7, On March 25, Saturated Fats, Inc.

Roper, Michael J. Roper v. On December 14, , plaintiffs, including Michael J. Roper, filed a complaint against defendants asserting claims for breach of contract, specifically, breach of an asset purchase agreement, an installment collateral note and personal guaranty, and a security agreement.

On January 17, , defendants answered plaintiffs' complaint and filed counterclaims against plaintiffs asserting breach of contract, fraud, and fraud in the inducement. On February 18, , the parties entered into a settlement agreement and general release, under which the parties agreed to waive their claims against each other, including any amounts owed.

On February 22, , in accordance with the settlement agreement, the court dismissed both defendants' and plaintiffs' claims against each other with prejudice. Raymond Bonanno, et al. The complaint sought, among other things, an unspecified amount of damages, rescission of plaintiffs' franchise agreements, and injunctive relief to prevent future sales of QUIZNOS franchises in New Jersey.

The claims against the area director were dismissed on January 24, On August 1, , plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Schaden and Richard F. In addition, the amended complaint removed two plaintiff parties, added seven new plaintiff parties, and alleged a putative nationwide class. The amount of settlement payment to a qualified class member depends on whether the class member is a SNO Class Action member or a Franchise Operator Class Action member, the date which the franchise agreement was signed, and whether the class member has previously executed a release in favor of QUIZNOS.

Putative SNO Class Action members who elect to remain franchisees are entitled to receive a credit towards equipment and supplies for their Restaurant in an amount equal to the amount of the initial franchise fee paid. In addition to the above settlement payments to qualified class members, under the settlement agreement, QUIZNOS agreed to make certain modifications to its franchise model and business practices. The case was dismissed with prejudice on August 18, Fred N.

Westerfield, et al. Schaden, and certain current and former area directors, asserting claims for violation of the federal RICO statute 18 U. The complaint sought unspecified preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and an unspecified amount of damages.

The amount of settlement payment to a qualified class member depends on whether the class member is a SNO Class Action member or a Franchise Operator Class Action member and the date which the franchise agreement was signed.

The case was dismissed with prejudice on August 17, Bonnie Brunet, et al. Schaden, asserting claims for violation of the federal RICO statute, Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the Colorado Antitrust Act, the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, common law fraud, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, economic duress and declaratory judgment.

The complaint sought unspecified preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and unspecified compensatory, consequential and statutory damages and exemplary, punitive and treble damages. The amount of settlement payment to a qualified class member depends on whether the class member is a SNO Class Action member or a Franchise Operator Class Action member and the date which the franchise agreement was signed.

The case was dismissed with prejudice on August 16, Ilene Siemer, et al. On August 13, , the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted final approval of the settlement agreement and dismissed the case with prejudice. Casual Dining Development Inc. The complaint sought unspecified damages, fees, and costs. QFA's motion to dismiss was denied on September 3, QFA filed counterclaims against plaintiff for breach of contract and indemnification on September 18, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 25, The parties agreed to arbitrate this dispute between them and on January 8, , filed a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice, which dismissal was granted on January 11, On October 19, , the parties filed summary judgment motions in the arbitration.

QFA's motion for summary judgment except with respect to its indemnification claim was granted on November 26, On December 10, , the parties entered into a settlement agreement, under which the parties entered into a mutual general release and each party's claims against the other were dismissed with prejudice.

Jamie Carmona, et al. Kanya Enterprises Inc. CSV Inc. Kelvin Martinez, et al. Uk Jin Choi, et al. We Win Inc. Shree Apne Inc.

Samir Gandhi, et al. Watson Investments LLC, et al. Other than these actions disclosed above, no litigation is required to be disclosed in this Item. Except in certain limited circumstances described below, upon our receipt of payment, we have no obligation to refund the Initial Franchise Fee.

However, we have periodically agreed to refund the Initial Franchise Fee and terminate the Franchise Agreement under certain circumstances, including a franchisee's failure to successfully complete initial training. We may do so again in the future under circumstances we deem appropriate, but we are not obligated in any way to refund the Initial Franchise Fee. If we do elect to refund the Initial Franchise Fee and terminate the Franchise Agreement, you will be required to sign a general release as a condition to receiving any refund.

If you sign a Site Specific Addendum and we determine, after making best faith efforts, you are not able to secure the site identified in the addendum due solely to landlord's action or inaction or zoning or other governmental restrictions, we will refund the Initial Franchise Fee in accordance with the terms of the Site Specific Addendum upon your execution of a general release in the form we provide.

We will also refund the Initial Franchise Fee if you sign a Site Specific Addendum and you do not receive final approval from us for the site, subject to your execution of a general release in the form we provide.

We reserve the right to waive or reduce the Initial Franchise Fee either for our, our affiliates', or Franchisees' employees who have successfully completed our training program or for other franchise candidates.

Except as indicated above, we fully earn the Initial Franchise Fee when paid and the Initial Franchise Fee is not refundable under any circumstances. When a franchise is sold through an Area Director, Territory Developer or any of our other representatives, the Area Director or Territory Developer or other representative will receive a commission equal to a percentage of the total Initial Franchise Fee paid by a Franchisee who purchases a QUIZNOS Restaurant franchise, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions.

Non-Traditional Restaurant. See Item 1. The Initial Franchise Fees are fully earned once paid and are not refundable under any circumstances. You must pay the fee in a lump sum when you sign the Franchise Agreement. Convenience Restaurant. The Initial Franchise Fee is fully earned once paid and is not refundable under any circumstances. Reopen Restaurant. If you sign a Site Specific Reopen Addendum, we may terminate the Franchise Agreement if i we do not approve the transactions contemplated in the document governing your purchase of the Reopen Restaurant, ii you are unable to secure the site, iii you fail to reopen the Restaurant within 90 days or iv we determine that you have failed to actively and diligently proceed with servicing the site and re-opening the Restaurant.

If we exercise our right to terminate, we will refund the Initial Franchise Fee, subject to your signing a general release in the form we require. The Initial Franchisee Fee is fully earned once paid and is not refundable under any circumstances.

Lease Review and Lease Assistance Program. After you select a location for your Restaurant, we must approve that location. If approved, our authorized representative which likely will be TQSC II or another affiliate will review and likely will negotiate certain lease provisions. We do not act as your legal counsel or representative in conducting those negotiations, although our interests, as Franchisor, are usually aligned with yours as the Franchisee and tenant.

We encourage you to consult your own attorney if you need legal assistance in negotiating a lease with which you are satisfied. The Lease Review Fee covers the costs of reviewing and if applicable negotiating the first lease we review.

You must pay only one Lease Review Fee unless you refuse to sign a lease that we have approved for your Restaurant and we or our authorized representative then must conduct one or more additional lease reviews for the Restaurant. In that case, you must pay a Lease Review Fee for the first lease review and another Lease Review Fee for each additional lease review conducted. For a Traditional Restaurant, we have periodically We may do so again in the future under circumstances we deem appropriate, but we are not obligated in any way to waive the Lease Review Fee.

You do not have to pay the Lease Review Fee if you operate a Non-Traditional Restaurant or a Convenience Restaurant and are providing the premises for the Restaurant, although we still have the right to approve the location. If you participate in our Lease Assistance Program, Restaurant Realty will sign the master lease with the landlord and then sign a Sublease Exhibit S with you. The amount of the security deposit depends on the amount of the security deposit required under the master lease and we are not able to estimate such amounts.

The closing fee is not refundable under any circumstances and the security deposit is refundable in accordance with the terms of the Sublease.

Opening Inventory. Prior to opening a Restaurant, as described in Items 7 and 11, you are required to purchase your opening inventory from a supplier designated by us, which could be one of our affiliates.

The amounts will be payable prior to opening and are not refundable under any circumstances. Site Specific Addendum. However, we have a small inventory of point-of-sale system parts that we may, but are not obligated to, sell to you.

In connection with such remodeling, you must purchase from us the required wallpaper for your Reopen Restaurant. If we or our affiliates obtain any such products and services on your behalf, Quizmark LLC will directly pay us or one of our affiliates the cost of such products and services from the proceeds of the Acquisition Financing. You must pay us or one of our affiliates the cost of any equipment or leasehold improvement prior to its shipment by the third party vendor. Fees for architectural services are payable upon invoice.

Fees for any equipment, leasehold improvements or architectural services purchased on your behalf are not refundable. However, we do not currently collect any amount for Bookkeeping Services. Remarks9 We reserve the right to require you to use our designated vendor to provide bookkeeping services for your Restaurant. We currently require you to pay the bookkeeping service provider directly.

However, we reserve the right to require you to pay us. In such case, your bank account will be debited for the amount due. We may increase the fee after the first 12 months based on market rates for similar services.

This may not be required for some Non-Traditional Restaurants. Payable on the day of the week periodically designated by us based on the prior week's Gross Sales Payable on the day of the week periodically designated by us.

Payable only if you participate in our Lease Assistance Program. We will debit your bank account for the amount due. Due Date Payable on the day of the week periodically designated by us based on prior week's Gross Sales. As of the date of this Disclosure Document, there are 4 regional advertising programs; you must contribute to the program operating in your region.

All Restaurants currently operating in the U. If a Local Advertising Cooperative is formed, you must contribute the amount determined according to the bylaws which must be approved by us see Item Percentage of Gross Sales determined by franchisees contributing to the Local Advertising Cooperative. Remarks9 Payable when your interest in the Franchise Agreement, a material portion of the Restaurant's assets, or an interest in you is transferred.

We may offer a reduced transfer fee for multi-unit owners who transfer their Restaurants and may reduce or waive transfer fees under certain other limited circumstances. We may require additional training occasionally. We may charge a training fee for each special program in which you participate. Due when we or a third party manage your Restaurant after your default or abandonment.

Payable if we prevail in a judicial or other proceeding. You must reimburse us and our affiliates if any of us are held liable for claims related to your Restaurant's operations. Remarks9 If you do not pay your rent or insurance premiums, we or our affiliates can pay them for you and you must reimburse the payor. Rent includes any payments required under your lease.

You must pay this fee for music we designate for your Restaurant. You must buy products and services, including a delivery website, that meet QUIZNOS standards and specifications, and in many cases, from approved or designated vendors, manufacturers, suppliers and distributors which may be us or one or more of our affiliates.

If you fail to purchase any required products or services from approved or designated vendors, manufacturers, suppliers and distributors, we may purchase such products or services on your behalf and charge you the cost of purchasing such products or services. We will transfer the amount owed from your bank account by electronic funds transfer. This covers the costs of testing new products or inspecting new suppliers you propose. Payable only if you fail to submit timely reports of Gross Sales and your Gross Sales must be estimated in order to debit your account for required payments; these amounts will be reconciled with the actual amounts owed after you submit reports.

Our method of estimating Gross Sales may change periodically, as described in the Operations Manual. We will also deduct a pro rata amount of the third party vendor commission for the card, if applicable.

Amount An amount equal to the net present value of the Royalties, Marketing and Promotion Fee, Local Advertising Fees, and Regional Advertising Fees that would have become due following termination of the Franchise Agreement for the period the Franchise Agreement would have remained in effect but for your default. Remarks9 You will be required to pay us this fee if we terminate the Franchise Agreement based on your default or you terminate without cause.

Royalties, Marketing and Promotion Fees, Local Advertising Fees, and Regional Advertising Fees will be calculated based on your Restaurant's average monthly Gross Sales for the 12 months preceding the termination date. Except as otherwise noted, fees are collected by and payable to us or our designated affiliates. No fees are refundable. Before opening, you must sign and deliver all documents needed to permit our designated representative to debit your bank account for each week's Royalty and Marketing and Promotion Fee payments and other payments due under the Franchise Agreement or otherwise, including interest due on late payments.

However, you must pay all amounts due by means other than automatic debit whenever we deem appropriate. You must use a designated vendor which may be one of our affiliates to provide bookkeeping services for you during the term of your Franchise Agreement. We can terminate the services upon 90 days' notice. If you purchase a franchise for a Traditional Restaurant, you must use our designated vendor for payroll services unless we approve another vendor.

You do not pay us or an affiliate for payroll services. We currently require you to enter into a direct contractual or other arrangement with the service provider.

Therefore, you are responsible for directly compensating the service provider for services and pay the amounts charged by the service provider for such services. If you are operating a Non-Traditional Restaurant or a Convenience Restaurant, you will not be required to use the service provider and the bookkeeping services may be performed by you internally or by a different third-party provider.

Expenses associated with travel, meals, and lodging while you attend initial training sessions, as well as any fees charged by test facilities. All of these expenses are paid to third parties.

Although we currently do not do so, we may in the future charge a tuition fee for training additional managers. These restrictions may be modified if you sign an agreement to operate a Non-Traditional Restaurant, a Convenience Restaurant or a Quiznos Mobile Trailer. See Item 19 Currently, AFD facilitates the specification, manufacture and purchase of most food and certain restaurant supplies used in the Quiznos System.

It maintains quality control standards, manages recipes and food content, and arranges for the acquisition of such items for use in the system. In doing so, AFD either designates a supplier, which sells directly to franchisees, or purchases the product and then resells it at a mark up to independent distribution companies that work under contract with AFD.

Those companies in turn sell the product to franchisees. With respect to certain products or supplies, AFD is paid a sourcing fee by the supplier or distributor. Upon submission Us or our Affiliate of request for site approval Before opening Landlord and Contractors.

Method of Payment 1 or 2 installments 1 or 2 installments 1 or 2 installments As agreed As agreed. The initial franchise fee is not refundable except under limited circumstances. See Item 5 Security deposits may be refundable. Otherwise, none of the fees described above are refundable under any circumstances. Investment figures represent approximate costs based on the size and type of your QUIZNOS Restaurant, location, and the extent of renovations required.

A lower cost Restaurant is one that would require fewer leasehold improvements, less seating, and fewer equipment expenditures. A higher cost Restaurant might require extensive interior renovations, extensive seating, and additional equipment.

It might not be possible to build a Restaurant for the lower total investment cost listed. For Non-Traditional Restaurants, these figures represent approximate costs for purchasing, installing, and equipping the Non-Traditional Restaurant.

Opening inventory expenditures usually are lower as well, but the initial investment in a Non-Traditional Restaurant depends on the type, location, and configuration of the Non-Traditional Restaurant and of the host facility. These amounts do not include plan review fees assessed by the municipality in which the Restaurant will be located. These amounts might be reduced if the landlord contributes any tenant finish allowance.

The amounts do not include any applicable sales taxes which are your responsibility. Sales tax will be included in equipment invoicing as appropriate to your state and. Included in the equipment and construction materials are HVAC, electrical panel, one sign, and millwork.

Figures represent approximate costs based on extent of equipment and renovations needed and reflect the purchase of new equipment. Subject to our prior written approval, you may purchase pre-owned equipment from our approved or designated suppliers. If you are permitted to purchase pre-owned equipment, your cost for such equipment will typically be lower than if you were to purchase new equipment. In connection with such remodeling, you must purchase the required wallpaper for the Restaurant from us.

See Item 5. You are responsible for arranging transportation and paying the expenses for meals and lodging for any persons attending the training program. The amount expended will depend on the distance you travel and the type of accommodations you choose. The estimate contemplates attendance by one person. Your expenses will be higher if more than one individual attends the training program. Real estate costs depend on whether you owned the Franchised Location before signing the Franchise Agreement or instead purchase or lease your Franchised Location.

A traditional Restaurant typically is located in an outdoor or enclosed mall or a strip shopping center and generally is from 1, to 1, square feet. Leasehold improvement costs, including floor covering, wall treatment, counters, ceilings, painting, window coverings, electrical, carpentry and similar work, and contractor's fees, depend on the site's condition, location, and size; the demand for the site among prospective lessees; the site's previous use; the build-out required to conform the site for your Restaurant; and any construction or other allowances the landlord grants.

If you lease your Franchised Location, the amount of rent depends on the market, Restaurant size, and common area expenses passed through to tenants. Rent for enclosed mall locations generally will be higher. This estimates the funds needed to cover your initial expenses for the first 3 months of operation. It includes payroll costs but not any draw or salary for you , utilities, and miscellaneous supplies. However, this is only an estimate, and it is possible that you will need additional working capital during the first 3 months you operate your Restaurant and for a longer time period after that.

This 3-month period is not intended, and should not be interpreted, to identify a point at which your Restaurant will break even. We cannot guarantee when or if your Restaurant will break even. Your costs will depend on your management skill, experience, and business acumen; local economic conditions; the.

This amount does not include real estate costs. We have relied on our affiliates' and our principals' many collective years of experience in this business to compile these estimates. Because these figures are only estimates, it is possible both to reduce and to exceed costs in any of the areas listed above.

Actual costs will vary depending on physical size and current condition of the premises. In addition, actual costs may substantially exceed these estimates in a major metropolitan market. To avoid excessive construction costs, we require that you pick contractors carefully by obtaining several competitive bids beforehand. These estimates do not include extensive exterior renovations.

You should review all figures in this Item 7 carefully with a business advisor before you decide to purchase the franchise. Except as noted in Item 10, neither we nor our affiliates offer financing directly or indirectly for any part of the initial investment. The availability and terms of financing depend on the availability of financing generally, your creditworthiness and collateral, and lending policies of financial institutions.

The estimate does not include any finance charge, interest, or debt service obligation. Prior to reopening a Restaurant, you are required to have a site inspection to determine the necessary upgrades and repair work needed to the existing Restaurant.

See Item 5 For a Traditional Restaurant, we have periodically waived the Lease Review Fee under certain circumstances, for instance if you currently operate a Restaurant. Except as noted in this Item, we and our affiliates currently are not approved vendors of any item, although our affiliates may become approved vendors at any time in the future and may even be the designated or sole vendor of one or more items, in which case you would have to buy the items from our affiliates at their then current prices.

If you desire to purchase equipment, products, services, supplies, or materials from vendors other than those previously approved, you first must submit a written request to change the supplier. Presently, AFD reviews these requests on our behalf depending on the type of supplier , and AFD will notify you in writing of its approval or rejection of the proposed vendor within a reasonable time after completing its investigation. AFD may withhold approval of the vendor for any reason.

In order to make its decision, AFD may require that samples of a proposed new product first be delivered for testing. Permission for inspection will be a condition of the continued approval of any vendor. You will pay a charge not to exceed the actual cost of the test. We and our affiliates reserve the right periodically to inspect the facilities and products of any approved vendor and to revoke approval upon the vendor's failure to continue to meet any of the then current QUIZNOS criteria.

If an exclusive vendor already has been designated for the equipment, products, services, supplies, or materials proposed to be offered by a new vendor, your request for a new vendor likely will be rejected without further review or investigation. Lease Review. The Lease Review Fee see Item 5 pays the cost for the lease review and if applicable negotiations we conduct for our purposes.

The lease review and certification are solely for our benefit, are designed to satisfy us that the proposed lease complies with minimum QUIZNOS requirements, and are based on the assumption that the lease has not previously been reviewed by counsel.

It is important that you review the lease closely and understand all of the terms and conditions before signing it. We may provide you with a list of attorneys who understand our lease requirements. You should have your own attorney review the lease on your behalf before signing it.

Lease Assistance Program. We may require you to participate in our Lease Assistance Program, in which our affiliate, Restaurant Realty, will assume the master lease for the Restaurant and then enter into a Sublease with you. If Restaurant Realty subleases the lease to you, the Sublease will incorporate the rental rate plus any additional fees and other terms contained in the master lease. If you are a legal entity, your owners must personally guarantee your performance under the Sublease and, if required by the master lease landlord, the master lease.

Your default under the Franchise Agreement will also be a default under the Sublease, and a default under the Sublease will be a default under your Franchise Agreement.

See Item 17 It is our decision whether you are eligible to participate in the Lease Assistance Program. Site Inspection. Email This BlogThis! Godspell musical revival at Union Theatre. Posted by Theatre Spy at 0 Post a comment. Labels: Godspell , union theatre. Labels: sing if you can. Cast Announced for Moby Dick at Landor.

Labels: Landor Theatre , moby dick. Labels: Matilda. Labels: Andrew Lloyd Webber , chris evans. Labels: Andrew Lloyd Webber , piers morgan. Labels: barnum , douglas hodge. Labels: Shrek. Lee Mead Concerts. Labels: Lee Mead.

Labels: alan titchmarsh. Labels: landi oshinowo , Shrek. Sierra Boggess Masterclass opening delayed. Labels: Sierra Boggess. Posted by Theatre Spy at 4 Post a comment. Labels: summer strallen , Tom Chambers , top hat. Labels: Les Miserables. Labels: alfie boe , hampton court palace festival. Labels: Samantha Womack , South Pacific. Labels: norm lewis. Latest on Spider Man Musical. Labels: alfie boe. Labels: sondheim performer of the year. Labels: grease tour , robin cousins. Kylie is the voice of Betty Blue Eyes.

Labels: Betty Blue Eyes , kylie minogue. Priscilla Queen of the Desert Divas appearing in Soho tonight. Labels: Priscilla Queen of the Desert. Alexia Khadime joining Les Miserables as Eponine. Labels: Alexia Khadime , Les Miserables.

2 thoughts on “Tricia seckerson bankruptcy

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *