taking
a
ggre
ssi
ve
a
c
ti
on to elim
inate
c
onti
nuing
vi
olations of the f
ra
n
c
hise
a
gre
e
m
e
nt b
y
a
n
y
de
fic
ient f
r
a
nc
hise
e
s. Thi
s a
pproa
c
h
m
a
y
be
pr
e
se
nted a
s a
"
posi
ti
ve
a
tt
ribute
"
of the
fr
a
n
c
hisor
to prospe
c
ti
ve
fr
a
nc
hise
e
s, a
nd a
s a
r
e
sult
, man
y
fr
a
nc
hisee
s man
y
h
e
a
r
a
bo
ut fr
a
nc
hisor ini
ti
a
ted
law
suit
s e
ve
n if sa
id l
it
igation i
s not
disclosed in t
he
UF
OC.
As a
le
g
a
l conside
ra
ti
on,
I
do n
ot b
e
li
e
ve
ther
e
sho
uld be a
re
quir
e
ment f
or t
his par
ti
c
ular
infor
mation t
o be
disclosed a
s thi
s infor
mation does not di
re
c
tl
y
se
rv
e
the
pa
rtic
ular
purp
os
e
of
prote
c
ti
ng
th
e
c
onsum
e
r i
n fr
a
nc
hise t
ra
nsa
c
ti
ons, a
nd, pa
rtic
ula
rl
y
with l
a
r
g
e
e
stablis
he
d
fr
a
nc
hisors, su
c
h a
r
e
quir
e
ment c
ould s
ubst
a
nti
a
ll
y
incr
e
a
s
e
c
osts
for
p
re
pa
r
a
ti
on of
the ma
ter
ial
a
nd fo
r the
inc
re
a
s
e
d doc
ument si
z
e
that would ha
ve
to re
sult
fr
om t
he
incl
usion
of this m
a
ter
ial.
Que
sti
on/Topi
c
: S
hould
"g
a
g"
ord
e
r a
rr
a
n
ge
ment
s be
re
g
ulate
d?
C
omm
e
nt/
R
e
sponse: "
Ga
g"
ord
e
r a
rr
a
n
ge
ments of
ten f
orm a
ne
c
e
ssa
r
y
ince
nti
ve
for
fr
a
nc
hisors
to ente
r into settl
e
ment a
g
r
e
e
ments wit
h fr
a
nc
hise
e
s. Ga
g
ord
e
r a
rr
a
n
ge
me
nts s
hould not
be
re
g
ulate
d, a
nd th
e
y
shoul
d c
e
rta
inl
y
not be pr
ohibi
ted. W
it
h re
spe
c
t t
o fu
ll
disclosure
to
prospe
c
ti
ve
f
ra
nc
hise
e
s,
a
fr
a
n
c
hisee
who
ha
s a
gr
e
e
d to a
"g
a
g"
ord
e
r ma
y
not be pe
rmitt
e
d to
discuss t
he
ter
ms of his
se
tt
leme
nt or li
ti
g
a
ti
on with a ne
w pr
osp
e
c
ti
ve
f
ra
n
c
hisee
, but he is not
prohibit
e
d fr
om t
e
ll
ing
th
e
ne
w pr
osp
e
c
ti
ve
f
r
a
nc
h
isee
that he
is s
ubjec
t t
o the spe
c
ific
re
strictions
im
pose
d b
y
a
"g
a
g"
ord
e
r.
I
f
thi
s infor
mation i
s troubli
ng
to t
he
prospe
c
ti
ve
fr
a
nc
hise
e
, he
will
then p
ursue
it
fur
ther
with t
he
r
e
pre
se
nt
a
ti
ve
s of the
f
ra
n
c
hisor unti
l he is
sa
ti
sfie
d with re
spe
c
t
to t
his or a
n
y
oth
e
r tr
a
ns
a
c
ti
ons t
ha
t ar
e
subj
e
c
t t
o
"gag"
o
rde
rs.
Que
sti
on/Topi
c
: S
hould t
he
C
omm
iss
ion continue
pe
rmitt
ing
a
thr
e
e
-
y
e
a
r p
ha
se
-
in of a
udit
e
d
fina
nc
ials for
n
e
w e
ntr
a
n
ts
?
C
omm
e
nt/
R
e
sponse:
I
de
finitel
y
be
li
e
v
e
the thr
e
e
-
y
e
a
r pha
s
e
-
in pe
rio
d shoul
d be
c
onti
nue
d. This
is a most
e
ff
icie
nt and f
a
i
r me
thod of pr
ovidi
ng
fin
a
nc
ial dis
c
losure
a
nd a
c
c
ountabili
t
y
for
ne
w
fr
a
nc
hisors
without
pe
na
li
z
ing
them or
re
strictin
g
the e
ntre
p
re
ne
u
ria
l m
oti
va
ti
on that is
a
n
im
porta
nt compone
nt. Ne
w, e
mer
g
in
g
fr
a
n
c
hisors
shoul
d not be disc
oura
g
e
d sol
e
l
y
due
to
fina
nc
ial r
e
porting
re
quir
e
ments a
s opposed to the
moni
toring
of f
inan
c
ial s
tabili
t
y
it
se
lf.
Que
sti
on/Topi
c
: Dist
ing
uishi
ng
B
usiness Oppo
rtunit
ies f
rom f
ra
nc
his
e
s?
C
omm
e
nt/
R
e
sponse:
I
t has be
e
n e
st
a
bli
she
d t
ha
t t
he
re
is a
ge
ne
r
a
l conse
ns
us t
ha
t "
B
usin
e
ss
Oppor
tuni
ti
e
s"
shoul
d be
dist
ing
uished a
nd re
c
o
gniz
e
d a
pa
rt f
rom f
r
a
nc
his
e
s.
W
it
h re
g
a
rd to pr
e
-
sa
l
e
d
isclosure
s re
quir
e
d of
B
u
siness Oppor
tuni
ti
e
s,
I
fe
e
l i
t i
s a
pprop
ria
te
that a
n
y
suppl
ie
r of
20 pe
rc
e
nt or
mor
e
of the
sta
rt
-
up inventor
y
of a
n inves
tor in a
B
usiness
Oppor
tuni
t
y
shoul
d ha
ve
to be disc
losed pr
ior to t
he
sa
le.
As a
n a
lt
e
rn
a
ti
ve
de
finiti
on of
a
"
B
usiness Oppo
rt
unit
y
"
,
I
would su
gg
e
st t
he
following
de
finiti
on:
A B
usiness Oppor
tuni
t
y
i
s a
volunt
a
r
y
a
r
ra
n
g
e
m
e
n
t betwe
e
n two pa
rtie
s, w
he
re
one
p
a
rt
y
(the
fir
st par
t
y
), of
fe
rs the
oth
e
r pa
rt
y
(th
e
se
c
ond p
a
rt
y
) pa
rtic
ipation i
n the on
-
going
busi
ne
ss
2
taking
a
ggre
ssi
ve
a
c
ti
on to elim
inate
c
onti
nuing
vi
olations of the f
ra
n
c
hise
a
gre
e
m
e
nt b
y
a
n
y
de
fic
ient f
r
a
nc
hise
e
s. Thi
s a
pproa
c
h
m
a
y
be
pr
e
se
nted a
s a
"
posi
ti
ve
a
tt
ribute
"
of the
fr
a
n
c
hisor
to prospe
c
ti
ve
fr
a
nc
hise
e
s, a
nd a
s a
r
e
sult
, man
y
fr
a
nc
hisee
s man
y
h
e
a
r
a
bo
ut fr
a
nc
hisor ini
ti
a
ted
law
suit
s e
ve
n if sa
id l
it
igation i
s not
disclosed in t
he
UF
OC.
As a
le
g
a
l conside
ra
ti
on,
I
do n
ot b
e
li
e
ve
ther
e
sho
uld be a
re
quir
e
ment f
or t
his par
ti
c
ular
infor
mation t
o be
disclosed a
s thi
s infor
mation does not di
re
c
tl
y
se
rv
e
the
pa
rtic
ular
purp
os
e
of
prote
c
ti
ng
th
e
c
onsum
e
r i
n fr
a
nc
hise t
ra
nsa
c
ti
ons, a
nd, pa
rtic
ula
rl
y
with l
a
r
g
e
e
stablis
he
d
fr
a
nc
hisors, su
c
h a
r
e
quir
e
ment c
ould s
ubst
a
nti
a
ll
y
incr
e
a
s
e
c
osts
for
p
re
pa
r
a
ti
on of
the ma
ter
ial
a
nd fo
r the
inc
re
a
s
e
d doc
ument si
z
e
that would ha
ve
to re
sult
fr
om t
he
incl
usion
of this m
a
ter
ial.
Que
sti
on/Topi
c
: S
hould
"g
a
g"
ord
e
r a
rr
a
n
ge
ment
s be
re
g
ulate
d?
C
omm
e
nt/
R
e
sponse: "
Ga
g"
ord
e
r a
rr
a
n
ge
ments of
ten f
orm a
ne
c
e
ssa
r
y
ince
nti
ve
for
fr
a
nc
hisors
to ente
r into settl
e
ment a
g
r
e
e
ments wit
h fr
a
nc
hise
e
s. Ga
g
ord
e
r a
rr
a
n
ge
me
nts s
hould not
be
re
g
ulate
d, a
nd th
e
y
shoul
d c
e
rta
inl
y
not be pr
ohibi
ted. W
it
h re
spe
c
t t
o fu
ll
disclosure
to
prospe
c
ti
ve
f
ra
nc
hise
e
s,
a
fr
a
n
c
hisee
who
ha
s a
gr
e
e
d to a
"g
a
g"
ord
e
r ma
y
not be pe
rmitt
e
d to
discuss t
he
ter
ms of his
se
tt
leme
nt or li
ti
g
a
ti
on with a ne
w pr
osp
e
c
ti
ve
f
ra
n
c
hisee
, but he is not
prohibit
e
d fr
om t
e
ll
ing
th
e
ne
w pr
osp
e
c
ti
ve
f
r
a
nc
h
isee
that he
is s
ubjec
t t
o the spe
c
ific
re
strictions
im
pose
d b
y
a
"g
a
g"
ord
e
r.
I
f
thi
s infor
mation i
s troubli
ng
to t
he
prospe
c
ti
ve
fr
a
nc
hise
e
, he
will
then p
ursue
it
fur
ther
with t
he
r
e
pre
se
nt
a
ti
ve
s of the
f
ra
n
c
hisor unti
l he is
sa
ti
sfie
d with re
spe
c
t
to t
his or a
n
y
oth
e
r tr
a
ns
a
c
ti
ons t
ha
t ar
e
subj
e
c
t t
o
"gag"
o
rde
rs.
Que
sti
on/Topi
c
: S
hould t
he
C
omm
iss
ion continue
pe
rmitt
ing
a
thr
e
e
y
e
a
r p
ha
se
in of a
udit
e
d
fina
nc
ials for
n
e
w e
ntr
a
n
ts
?
C
omm
e
nt/
R
e
sponse:
I
de
finitel
y
be
li
e
v
e
the thr
e
e
-
y
e
a
r pha
s
e
in pe
rio
d shoul
d be
c
onti
nue
d. This
is a most
e
ff
icie
nt and f
a
i
r me
thod of pr
ovidi
ng
fin
a
nc
ial dis
c
losure
a
nd a
c
c
ountabili
t
y
for
ne
w
fr
a
nc
hisors
without
pe
na
li
z
ing
them or
re
strictin
g
the e
ntre
p
re
ne
u
ria
l m
oti
va
ti
on that is
a
n
im
porta
nt compone
nt. Ne
w, e
mer
g
in
g
fr
a
n
c
hisors
shoul
d not be disc
oura
g
e
d sol
e
l
y
due
to
fina
nc
ial r
e
porting
re
quir
e
ments a
s opposed to the
moni
toring
of f
inan
c
ial s
tabili
t
y
it
se
lf.
Que
sti
on/Topi
c
: Dist
ing
uishi
ng
B
usiness Oppo
rtunit
ies f
rom f
ra
nc
his
e
s?
C
omm
e
nt/
R
e
sponse:
I
t has be
e
n e
st
a
bli
she
d t
ha
t t
he
re
is a
ge
ne
r
a
l conse
ns
us t
ha
t "
B
usin
e
ss
Oppor
tuni
ti
e
s"
shoul
d be
dist
ing
uished a
nd re
c
o
gniz
e
d a
pa
rt f
rom f
r
a
nc
his
e
s.
W
it
h re
g
a
rd to pr
e
-
sa
l
e
d
isclosure
s re
quir
e
d of
B
u
siness Oppor
tuni
ti
e
s,
I
fe
e
l i
t i
s a
pprop
ria
te
that a
n
y
suppl
ie
r of
20 pe
rc
e
nt or
mor
e
of the
sta
rt
-
up inventor
y
of a
n inves
tor in a
B
usiness
Oppor
tuni
t
y
shoul
d ha
ve
to be disc
losed pr
ior to t
he
sa
le.
As a
n a
lt
e
rn
a
ti
ve
de
finiti
on of
a
"
B
usiness Oppo
rt
unit
y
"
,
I
would su
gg
e
st t
he
following
de
finiti
on:
A B
usiness Oppor
tuni
t
y
i
s a
volunt
a
r
y
a
r
ra
n
g
e
m
e
n
t betwe
e
n two pa
rtie
s, w
he
re
one
p
a
rt
y
(the
fir
st par
t
y
), of
fe
rs the
oth
e
r pa
rt
y
(th
e
se
c
ond p
a
rt
y
) pa
rtic
ipation i
n the on
going
busi
ne
ss
2
