To begin it is valuable to review some of Item 2’s
relevant background; the original rule making commission found that some
individuals offering franchises were misleading consumers regarding important
facts about the franchise business. For example, how long the business had been
operating and the experience of the parties managing the franchise. The FTC
concluded that these types of misrepresentations could mislead reasonable
consumers, causing them to believe that the franchise offering was a more
secure investment than it actually was. Accordingly, they added a rule
requiring franchisors to disclose information about their
business including names and addresses for the franchise business, any parent
companies, and any sellers. Additionally, they had to provide background
information for any sellers, officers, and directors.
As
the FTC enforced the franchise regulations, it became apparent that franchisors
were still misleading consumers by misrepresenting relevant information about
the business. Specifically, the franchisors would leave out information about
their predecessors (entities or individuals who had previously owned or
operated the franchise). Alternatively, franchisors would give the people
managing the sales or services titles other than officer or director to avoid
disclosing their unappealing backgrounds in the FDD. Consequently, the FTC
amended the rule to require franchisors to disclose information about its
predecessors and about any party with significant management responsibilities.
It
is important to understand that Item 2 contains only work experience for the
prior five years. Franchisors are not allowed to place information inside of
Item 2 that is considered extraneous or unrelated.
The Franchisee’s Perspective for Item 2:
There
are a few red flags to look for in Item 2 of the FDD. First, if there are
predecessors then the franchisee will want to research what happened to them.
Did they go bankrupt, suffer significant legal problems, or did they sell the
system to investors? If the conditions of the sale were concerning, and if the
management is the same then you may want to reconsider franchising with that
particular franchisor. Second, you will want to research the individuals who
are managing the system. If they lack experience or they have a history of
business mismanagement or failure you may want to reconsider franchising with
them, because those traits are likely to permeate the entire franchise system.
Finally, these red flags can be mitigated or exacerbated depending on the level
of franchisor involvement. If the system is complicated, or you are unfamiliar
with the underlying business, then these red flags are even more important. If
you are inexperienced you will likely need significant help, at least at first,
from the individuals managing the franchise.
The Franchisor’s Perspective:
There
are a few concerns that a franchisor should keep in mind when drafting Item 2.
First, the FDD is not supposed to contain extraneous information. While you may
want to include information about awards or accolades your management staff has
received or a particularly impressive work position from more than five years
ago, don’t. Registration states may require you to delete this information
before they will accept it, and you can share this information with your
perspective franchisees in other ways. Second, the exact definition of
“management responsibility” is not explicitly defined in the Franchise rule
leaving franchisors often to question whether an individual has management
responsibility. However, some additional insight can be gained from an
examination of the original rule (UFOC), and the commentary preceding the amendment
to the franchise rule.
The
old rule generally provided that an officer was an individual who had
significant management responsibilities for marketing or servicing franchises.
The old rule was amended because franchisors were giving these responsibilities
to individuals who were not given the title or name of officer or director. To
combat this naming problem, the FTC amended the rule to include any individual
with significant management responsibilities. The amended rule was not changed
to cover additional or different activities, but to cover individuals acting
like officers (managing services or sales to franchisees). Ultimately, the rule
of thumb for a franchisor is that any individual who actively controls the
marketing or servicing of franchisees should be included in Item 2.
Finally,
it is important to remember not to include individuals in Item 2 who do not
have significant management responsibility. In other words, it may be
misleading to include a notable individual who might attract franchisees, but
who does not actually participate in the management of the franchise. For
example, if Warren Buffet had a small interest in the franchisor, but exercised
no control over the franchisors marketing or services it would likely be
misleading to include his name in Item 2, and could result in a lawsuit.
Item
2 is an important part of the FDD, and while it may seem strait forward at
first blush, there are important nuances that both franchisors and franchisees
should both be aware of.