Businesses enter into contracts each and every day. Contracts are formed when customers make purchases, when suppliers deliver materials, or when contractors place orders. Contracts are a critical element when it comes to operating a business, and when contracts are not honored, disputes arise.

What Is Required to Form A Contract?

A contract requires five basic requirements, and if any one of the requirements is missing, no legal contract can be formed. The requirements for a contract include:

1. Parties Capable of Entering a Contract. The parties to the contract must be legally capable of entering the contract in the first place. This means that each party to the contract must be fully aware of what they are doing by entering the contract and must understand what the contract means. As a general rule, minors are not legally capable of entering into a contract due to their inexperience, nor are individuals who are considered insane capable of understanding what it means to enter a contract.
2. Offer and Acceptance. In order for a contract to exist, an offer to contract must be made by one party, and the offer must be accepted by another party. The offer must be clear and the acceptance must be definite and unqualified.
3. The parties must exchange something. Each party makes a promise to the other or gives something of value to the other party. The consideration does not necessarily have to be fair or proportional: one party could agree to pay a single dollar in exchange for a motor vehicle, and so long as both parties agree to that arrangement, it can be binding. Consideration could also take the form of not doing something, or foregoing something a party normally would do or has a legal right to do, such as waiving certain rights. This is sometimes referred to as “bargained for exchange” or “bargained for detriment”.
4. Legal Purpose. The contract must be for a legal purpose. To say this another way, the contract cannot violate the law. The parties cannot negotiate terms for the contract that break the law, or are illegal.
5. Mutual Assent. Both parties to the contract must have a meeting of the minds, meaning both parties have a similar understanding of what the contract means, and both agree to be bound by it.

If any of the above requirements is lacking, then it is unlikely that a contract has legally been formed. Furthermore, specific types of contracts might have additional requirements in order to successfully form a valid contract. For instance, for many types of contracts encountered in business, the contract must be made in writing, identifying key terms of the contract, and signed by both parties. For instance, California Civil Code Section 1622 notes that all contracts can be made orally, unless the contract is specifically required to be made in writing by law.

Additionally, certain states may impose additional requirements for a contract to be legally binding and valid, and these laws should be taken into consideration if a specific state’s laws govern the contract.

These elements are fairly straightforward, yet when a contractual issues do arise it can be very difficult for the parties to understand and navigate the legalities in contract law.  Please contact our office if you are facing a contractual issue, dispute, or simply have additional questions relating to contracts.

What LLCs Need to Know About the Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act

Any manager or owner of a California LLC established after January 1, 2014 needs to be familiar with how the Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act (RULLCA) impacts their business.

Unanimous Approval Required When Issue Not Addressed

The RULLCA places certain restrictions on voting approval of certain issues that are not addressed specifically by the operating agreement. For instance, unanimous voting approval is required in order to:

● Merge the LLC with another entity or to convert the LLC to another type of entity.
● Dispose of LLC property, such as selling, leasing or exchanging the property.
● Amend the operating agreement.
● Do anything on behalf of the LLC that is outside of the ordinary course of business.

Because unanimous voting approval is required to do any of the above if it is not specifically provided for in the operating agreement, one member or manager of the LLC could stall out a decision to act on one of these matters by withholding their approval. Addressing these issues explicitly in a written operating agreement can circumvent a lot of potential headaches.

What The RULLCA Means for Agreements

Under the RULLCA, any agreement between the members of the LLC concerning the governance of the LLC is considered binding, which can create a lot of problems within the company if an agreement was made orally or was implied. Under the RULLCA, it is important to memorialize, in writing, any operating agreement concerning:

● Management’s rights and duties.
● The activities and conduct of the LLC.
● Relations between and among members of the LLC.
● How amendments to the operating agreement are to be made.

When matters concerning LLC governance are made in writing, there is less risk that members of the LLC will dispute the agreement, because the terms and conditions of the operating agreement have been documented.

Also, for LLCs that choose to be manager-managed, the RULLCA requires that this should be made explicit in both the operating agreement for the LLC, as well as in the the articles of organization.

Fiduciary Responsibilities under the RULLCA

Members or managers of an LLC owe fiduciary duties to one another and the LLC under the RULLCA; however, these fiduciary duties can be modified if they are modified in a written operating agreement, but they may not be eliminated altogether or modified in such a way that they are rendered manifestly unreasonable. Under Section 17704.09 of the California Corporations Code, those fiduciary duties include:

● The duty of care.
● The duty of loyalty.
● The duty of good faith and fair dealing.

When modifications to the fiduciary duties are made in the written operating agreement, they could be potentially drafted in a way that could open up individual members or managers of the LLC to liability for the LLC’s actions. This is because under the RULLCA, members or managers can lose their indemnification protections if the fiduciary duties of the members or managers are modified. LLC members and managers should make sure that they fully understand any modifications that have been made to the fiduciary duties in the written operating agreement before consenting to them.

Contact our office to speak with a senior Los Angeles business attorney for more information on what RULLCA means for your business entity today.

On Monday, May 11, 55-year-old Craig Stevens of Newport Beach pleaded not guilty in a scheme allegedly designed to bilk investors out of more than $4 million by selling ‘bogus’ In-N-Out Burger franchises in the Middle East, according to an LA Times article.

Stevens, who was in federal court in Santa Ana, pleaded not guilty to wire fraud. Prosecutors allege that in January of 2014, Stevens contacted potential investors via email, peddling the franchises for approximately $150,000 per location. Royalties would cost an added $250,000 annually, according to the article.

Charge documents filed by the U.S. attorney’s office claim that through his email scheme, Stevens solicited about $4.27 million. Court documents also allege that in June of last year, Stevens passed off a fake licensing agreement for an In-N-Out franchise via email to a Lebanese investor, who was not identified.

While Stevens made claims to investors of partnerships and franchise agreements, In-N-Out Burger Inc., based in Irvine, has been in business since 1948 and is privately owned. The company says it has no such agreements with third parties. Stevens is scheduled to go on trial on the wire fraud charge in July.

As seasoned Los Angeles business attorneys, it is sometimes difficult to believe how gullible some individuals are, particularly when it comes to email or other schemes on the Internet – but it happens every day.

Before you invest in any franchise, it is vital to have a skilled attorney review all agreements, restrictions, rights, purchase or sales agreements, and other relevant documentation regarding the purchase of a franchise. Franchise law is complex, particularly given the fact that so many businesses are crossing into countries outside of the U.S. today.   Franchises are also subject to numerous regulations, so it is essential to have every detail analyzed with a fine-tooth comb.

If you’re considering investing in a franchise opportunity, speak with the professionals at Spotora & Associates first.

According to a recent article at the Democrat & Chronicle, Xerox has acquired Healthy Communities Institute, a public health data firm based in Berkeley providing a cloud platform that makes it possible for public health agencies, hospitals, and community coalitions to access community health and socioeconomic information easily. This allows these organizations to have a clearer understanding of risk factors, community demographics, and other information related to health.

Healthy Communities Institute supports organizations in 36 states in the U.S.. Xerox intends to integrate Healthy Communities Institute into its Midas+ Juvo Care Performance analytics platform in an effort to ultimately reach improved health care outcomes due to an enhanced comprehensive view of patient care for the organizations who use the cloud-based platform.

Midas+ senior vice president and managing director Justin Lanning said in a statement that “With this acquisition, we are enriching our health care business, evolving our offerings and innovating to address market changes.” Lanning went on to say that the acquisition would make it possible for clients to identify populations that are more at-risk, resulting in timelier clinical interventions that are more personalized. Ultimately, it is hoped the acquisition will improve health care while reducing costs.

Detailed terms of the acquisition were not disclosed in news articles.

At Spotora & Associates, our merger and acquisitions attorneys know there is much involved in acquiring a business, whether a company is acquiring another business or the company is to-be acquired. When structured properly, these deals can result in big companies expanding their competitive strengths while smaller companies enjoy growth opportunity. Ultimately, we work with our clients to help them achieve their goals and advise them on wise, profitable business decisions. Los Angeles area companies can rely on our skilled team of business lawyers for exceptional legal guidance, insight, and support in all of your business dealings.

Recently, it was announced that Twenty-First Century Fox and Walt Disney Co. would no longer run Verizon FiOS commercials in certain markets that advertise Verizon’s cable package, arguing that the company’s FiOS TV, a cable program that is said to be cheaper and slimmer than basic cable, violated existing agreements.

According to a news article at L.A. Biz, Verizon called the move made by the two companies, along with Comcast Corporation, an “anticompetitive tactic.” A spokeswoman for Verizon revealed to the New York Times that Disney would pull ads run for the cable program at television stations in New York including A & E and WABC, in addition to ESPN radio. In Philadelphia, the ABC affiliate pulled advertising for the FiOS custom TV stations. Fox has decided to pull the Verizon ads from WNYW, its New York affiliate, and YES, a sports cable channel.

According to another article at Reuters, Walt Disney Co. did run the Verizon ads in Pittsburgh, Boston, and Washington, D.C. last week. Disney declined to comment on the commercials, while a spokesperson for Fox told the Times that the company desired to keep the company’s discussions regarding commercials confidential.

Verizon’s FiOS Custom TV package makes it possible for customers to sign up for a basic package consisting of 36 channels; customers are also able to add on two news, sports, children’s program, or other genre-specific packages. With a cost of $55 per month, the package targets those who have chosen streaming services over cable due to cost.

On Wednesday, April 22, Disney notified Verizon via e-mail that the company would not run FiOS Custom TV ads on their channels, claiming that the ad violates contract agreements. Verizon maintains that the company, under current agreements with media companies to offer the slimmed-down service, is within its rights by giving subscribers their basic package of 36 fixed channels for the monthly charge.

Ultimately, at the bottom of the dispute is that while pay-TV providers desire to break up the large bundles of channels being offered by online companies and cable rivals at the current time, media companies are attempting to keep specific channels that are popular in the larger packages they offer in an effort to protect business.

At the time of news reports, Verizon and Disney had no comments on the pulled television ads.

The Los Angeles business attorneys at Spotora & Associates realize that the business and entertainment worlds are highly competitive, and the claims arising from television programming package agreements can be particularly complex. Whether your company is being accused of violating a contract or another entity is in breach of your agreement, contact us right away and our senior associates will identify and enforce your contractual rights to resolve the issue as efficiently as possible.

More than two decades after ‘What About Bob’ came out, Richard Dreyfuss is taking Disney to court over what monies may be owed after accountants refused to take a look at Disney’s books to see what may be owed. Dreyfuss has sued Walt Disney Pictures for breach of contract and additional claims after Disney allegedly refused to let Robinson & Company perform an audit for Dreyfuss and the widow of Raymond Wagner, producer of Turner & Hooch.

Why will Disney not allow auditors to review the ledgers related to Turner & Hooch and What About Bob? According to news reports, Robinson & Company is a particularly aggressive and effective auditor who typically recovers large damages for clients, according to a recent article at Deadline Hollywood. The filing, which includes seven filings made by Dreyfuss, claims that Disney is hostile regarding audits in general, and will not allow Robinson & Company, the auditor chosen by Dreyfuss, to audit the film giants’ ledgers; therefore, accounting under the supervision of the court is warranted. According to Dreyfuss, Wagner, and other plaintiffs in the case, Disney does not understand the intricacies involved in Hollywood accounting and only wants to use PricewaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte, KPMG, or Ernst & Young, the largest and most well-known accounting firms in the nation.

The filing claims that historically, motions picture companies abhor having to pay net and gross profit participants significant amounts, and have withheld substantial profits from those participants. Auditing companies who audit the entertainment industry including television and motion picture industries often fine that profit participants are owed monies, which is the reason for profit participation auditors.

Although there is reportedly a three year waiting list to perform an audit on Disney properties, Dreyfuss has apparently decided that he is a large enough talent to attempt to collect what is rightfully his in terms of profits. According to news reports, Turner & Hooch generated $72 million in revenue in the U.S., with What About Bob? generating $64 million in revenues in the U.S. and Canada since its release in May of 1991. In addition to movie theater revenues, international sales and home videos are thought to add up to a substantial amount for the two films in one way or another.

In the end, Dreyfuss and Wagner believe they have an opportunity to explore issues including how net profits are calculated by raising the issues of auditors. The complaint claims that the ‘Big Four’ accounting firms named above have no competence or reputation relevant to auditing such big names as Disney; Robinson, the auditing firm hired by Dreyfuss, is reported to be results-driven, tenacious, and tough.

As reputable LA entertainment attorneys, the staff at Spotora & Associates realize there are many complexities involved when it comes to profit participants and the entertainment world. Auditing is one small nuance of the overall picture, however when you have issues regarding whether monies are being paid out fairly, it is important to choose a Los Angeles business lawyer who is highly experienced and capable in these matters.

Recently, it was announced that Two Toasters, a design and development agency for applications on Google and Apple platforms, was acquired by Ticketmaster, a divisions of Live Nation Entertainment. While Ticketmaster had little to say about the acquisition, it did confirm on the company’s website that the acquisition “further demonstrates Ticketmaster’s commitment to expanding its mobile capacity.”

While the amount Ticketmaster paid to acquire Two Toasters was not disclosed in news reports, the American Tobacco Campus-based company will be known as Ticketmaster Mobile Studio, according to the Herald Sun. On Tuesday, March 31, Ticketmaster issued a statement saying that the acquisition of Two Toasters “further demonstrates Ticketmaster’s commitment to expanding its mobile capacity and creating a truly end-to-end platform unlike any other in the live event and entertainment space.”

According to news sources, Two Toasters has been successful in the launch of more than 50 mobile applications for a wide array of companies, some of which include Regal Entertainment Group, Birchbox, Ebates, and Airbnb, among others. Two Toasters currently employs 32 individuals. The company was founded by Adit and Rachit Shukla, brothers. The deal is an important strategic undertaking for Ticketmaster, according to sources, who say the deal establishes a solid presence for Live Nation in the Triangle.

Two Toasters’ CEO Rachit Shukla said in the statement issued by Ticketmaster that, “We’ve assembled one of the best mobile teams in the region and Two Toasters has become a magnet for new talent.” Shukla went on to say that by Two Toasters joining Ticketmaster, the company’s visions has been expanded, and the talented team given the opportunity to take ownership and build a completely new mobile standard in the industry as Ticketmaster Mobile Studio.

Spotora & Associates is a talented team of Los Angeles business attorneys dedicated to achieving and exceeding your business goals. We specialize in mergers and acquisitions and successfully represent businesses in a wide array of industries; if you are in the process of acquiring a new entity or being acquired, we can help you ensure all bases are covered at every step. We know the complexities involved and will provide the expertise and knowledge essential to helping you make a smart and profitable business decision. Our primary goal is to obtain your objectives in business transactions from the simplest, to the most complex. Contact us to get started right away.

Recently it was announced that two giants in the food industry, Kraft and Heinz, would merge. Once combined into one company, Kraft Heinz will be the 5th largest food and beverage groups in the world, according to an article at the New York Times. In fact, the Kraft Heinz Company is expected to have a market value in excess of $80 billion. As you can imagine, this is the largest merger of 2015 thus far.

While Heinz focused primarily on condiments and canned goods such as ketchup, baby food, Classico spaghetti sauces, and other sauces, meals, and infant/nutrition, 3G Capital will take control of Kraft Foods, famous for Planters nuts, Jell-O, Mac and cheese, Oscar Mayer label meats, and other foods. 3G acquired Berkshire Hathaway, a companied formed by billionaire investor Warren Buffett, in 2013.

What is the intention of the merger? 3G, who took over beer giant Anheuser-Busch in 2008, intends to take ownership of iconic brands in an effort to expand the companies internationally, and drastically cut costs. According to news resources, Warren Buffett and 3G are hoping that combining Heinz and Kraft will result in steady growth of sales for such names as Velveeta, Lunchables, and Kool-Aid, just as the Heinz ketchup brand has risen in sales steadily since its acquisition in 2013.

Currently, the majority of Kraft products are sold in the U.S., while most of Heinz sales are generated abroad. 3G chairman of Kraft Heinz Alex Behring hopes that by merging, Kraft’s sales will expand into the global market. According to Behring, “Combining our two businesses, we’ll create the third-largest food and beverage company in North America, and the fifth-largest food and beverage company in the world.” Behring went on to say that the merger will enjoy a substantially enhanced scale at both the retail and food service channels in North America, its key market.

The merging of Heinz and Kraft has been in the works for years, however it wasn’t until the beginning of 2015, when John T. Cahill took over as CEO at 3G that Mr. Buffett approached Kraft about the two companies merging. In a statement, Buffett said that he was “delighted to play a part in bringing these two winning companies and their iconic brands together.” Buffett went on to reveal his excitement and anticipation of the opportunities possible for the newly combined organization.

At Spotora & Associates, our LA business merger attorneys know the complexities involved when two companies become one, and the potential pitfalls. Whether your company is small and local or known globally, work with a skilled and experienced Los Angeles business attorney to ensure positive, profitable results for your company.

At Spotora & Associates, our Los Angeles mergers and acquisitions attorneys understand the complexities involved when one company acquires or merges with another.  Purchasing another company must be approached carefully and thoughtfully, with the assistance of a skilled lawyer.  Recently, El Segundo’s PCM Inc. purchased some of the assets of En Pointe Technologies Sales Inc., an IT firm who specializes in Microsoft products according to an article at the Los Angeles Business Journal.

PCM Inc. manufactures MacMall and PC Mall technology product catalogs in addition to information technology solutions designed for both local governments and businesses.  In acquiring specific assets from En Pointe Technologies Sales, PCM agreed to pay $15 million for the IT solutions acquired from En Pointe, a Gardena-based company.  Over the next three years, PCM will also pay 10% of certain agreed upon services revenues and 22 1/2% of the company’s future adjusted gross profit, according to a filing with the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission.)

En Pointe is expected to retain its inventory and accounts receivable; this includes a $72 million contract over the next five years to provide more than 30 Los Angeles County departments with cloud-based software, a contract that was signed in June of 2014.  At the time the company’s year ended on September 30, 2014, revenue was reported to be $393 million.

The acquisition deal between PCM and En Pointe is scheduled to close on April 1st of this year, with PCM planning the creation of a new division which will assume the En Pointe name.

According to chairman and chief executive of PCM Frank Khulusi, the company feels that acquiring En Pointe will complement PCM’s commercial and public sector segments.  In addition, the 240 employees of En Pointe will be offered equivalent positions at PCM.

Bob Din, Chief Executive at En Pointe, founded the company more than two decades ago in 1993.  When the acquisition of En Pointe by PCM was announced on Monday, shares at PCM closed at $9.11, an increase of one percent.

We understand how difficult it can be in making a decision to acquire a company, and all of the issues involved including often times difficult negotiations, regulatory filings, reaching your objectives and goals, tax implications, and more.  At Spotora & Associates, our LA acquisition lawyers want to help ensure your decisions are solid, smart, and most important of all, that all transactions and strategies are sound, protecting you from potential litigation in the future.

As experienced Los Angeles business attorneys we understand the issues franchisees often face in running a franchise.  Recently, a former 7-Eleven executive allegedly blew the whistle on company executives who put him in charge of ‘Operation Take-Back,’ a project that was designed to rid the franchise stores in New Jersey of South Asian and Indian franchisee owners, deemed no longer a part of the company’s vision.

According to a news article at NJ.com, Ian Shehaiber was hired by 7-Eleven as a district manager/field consultant in 2010.  Soon after, he was given a $1,500 cash reward and named 2011 Rookie Field Consultant of the Year.  However, all of that changed when his bosses placed Shehaiber in charge of the project in 2012.

Shehaiber filed suit against 7-Eleven in December in state Superior Court in Middlesex County, thereafter the company requested a change of venue to the U.S. District Court due to federal labor and discrimination law issues.  According to Gerald Marks, Shehaiber’s attorney, the franchise has taken action over the past two years to interrogate, dehumanize, and ridicule Indian franchisees in their effort to retake the 7-Eleven stores and resell them at a profit.

Margaret Chabris, a spokeswoman for 7-Eleven, said in a statement that “The allegations made in this complaint are false.”  She went on in the statement to say that the franchise is dedicated to protecting other franchisees, employees, and guests by terminating the relationship with franchisees who violate the franchise agreement or the law when appropriate, and that “a few” franchisees had been caught in violation of the law and/or their contractual obligations.  Shehaiber’s attorney did not comment on Chabris’ statement.

The lawsuit claims that Shehaiber was instructed to take part in the project in mid 2012, the goal being to identify franchisees who had stolen money from the franchise.  Shehaiber also claims in the suit that meetings regarding the take-back were fueled by aggressive anti-Indian tactics and racial remarks.  He said that he was constantly in fear that he would be terminated if he spoke up; Shehaiber also claims in the lawsuit that due to his Christian faith and his supervisor’s contempt for those who are non-Muslim, he was discriminated against and forced to work in a hostile environment.

Executives at 7-Eleven who were allegedly involved in ‘Operation Take-back’ claimed that franchise owners who were Indian made a habit of attempting to take advantage of others.

It will be interesting to learn how this all turns out, and whether 7-Eleven is able to put the stores in question under corporate control.

Whether you are a franchisor or franchisee, it is important to consult with a Los Angeles business attorney specializing in franchising when problems or issues surface that you are not certain how to deal with.  At Spotora & Associates, our staff has the skill, knowledge, and experience to successfully advise and handle any and all franchise issues.