Tag: business

This Week in Congress – February 2, 2015 re: 2016 Budget Proposal, DHS, and more

Covington_NL

President Obama will release his Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 budget proposal today, requesting roughly $4 trillion in spending for the upcoming year and specifying the Administration’s views on how and from what sources the federal government should be raising money and how and on what it should be spending it for the fiscal year beginning October 1.  The President’s budget sets off a fiscal showdown with the Republican-led Congress, whose members generally view the Administration’s proposals as higher taxes and higher government spending.  Many of President Obama’s cabinet members will be on Capitol Hill this week and in the coming weeks, testifying before House and Senate committees as to the merits of the budget proposal and highlighting areas of potential compromise as Congress develops its own budget for FY 2016.  Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew will be before the House Ways and Means and Senate Budget Committees on Tuesday, while IRS Commissioner John Koskinen will be before the Senate Finance Committee.  On Wednesday, Shaun Donovan, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, is scheduled to appear before the House Budget Committee and Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, appears before the Senate Finance Committee.  In addition, the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold the confirmation hearing this week for Ashton Carter to serve as Secretary of Defense.  With Committee Chairman John McCain’s strong desire for increased defense spending, the budget will no doubt be front and center in that hearing as well.

The House of Representatives returns to legislative business on Monday taking up three bills concerning programs at the Department of Homeland Security.  On Tuesday, the House will vote on H.R. 596, a bill that would repeal the Affordable Care Act while directing House committees to develop alternatives.  Since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law in 2010, Congress has voted 54 times on measures to repeal, revamp, or make technical changes to it.  On Wednesday, members will consider H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2015, sponsored by Rep. Virginia Foxx.  This legislation, which passed the House in 2014 by a vote of 234-176, would impose stricter requirements for how and when federal agencies must disclose the cost of federal mandates and equips both Congress and the public with tools to determine the true costs of regulations.  On Thursday, the House will vote on H.R. 527, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015, sponsored by Representative Steve Chabot, which requires federal agencies to consider the economic effects of regulations on small business before imposing overly burdensome mandates that prevent growth and job creation.  This legislation has also passed the Republican-controlled House in the two previous Congresses.

The Senate returns on Monday and is expected to vote on H.R. 203, the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act, a bill that the House passed unanimously.  The bill would require annual evaluations of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ mental health and suicide prevention programs.  The Senate will then seek to turn to H.R. 240, an appropriations bill that will fund the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of 2015; the current budget for DHS expires  Feb. 27. While the bill provides $40 in funding for DHS, it also blocks any of the funds from being used to carry out President Obama’s new immigration and deportation policy announced in an executive order last November.  President Obama has pledged to veto the measure if the immigration rider is included.  Leader McConnell is unlikely to be able to get the 60 votes needed on cloture on the motion to proceed to the appropriations bill.  Once the cloture vote fails, he will need to figure out an alternative means of considering the legislation.  He has put a clean Democratic DHS appropriations bill on the Senate Calendar under Rule 14, so moving to that bill after the failed cloture vote is one possibility.

In addition to the hearings focused on the President’s budget and on the Defense Secretary nomination, a list of other key congressional hearings this week is included below:

 Feb. 3

 House Committees

Global Threat Assessment
House Armed Services
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 3, 10 a.m., 2118 Rayburn Bldg.

Flu Preparation and Prevention
House Energy and Commerce – Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee Hearing
Feb. 3, 10 a.m., 2123 Rayburn Bldg.

U.S. Interests in Western Hemisphere
House Foreign Affairs – Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere
Subcommittee Hearing
Feb. 3, 11 a.m., 2172 Rayburn Bldg.

Immigration Law Assessment
House Judiciary
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 3, 11 a.m., 2141 Rayburn Bldg.

Inspectors General Oversight
House Oversight and Government Reform
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 3, 10:15 a.m., 2154 Rayburn Bldg.

NSF Research Facility Oversight
House Science, Space and Technology – Subcommittee on Oversight; House Science, Space and Technology – Subcommittee on Research and Technology
Committee Joint Hearing
Feb. 3, 10 a.m., 2318 Rayburn Bldg.

Energy and Transportation Issues
House Transportation and Infrastructure – Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials
Subcommittee Hearing
Feb. 3, 10 a.m., 2167 Rayburn Bldg.

Fiscal 2016 Budget Issues – Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew
House Ways and Means
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 3, 10 a.m., 1300 Longworth Bldg.

Airport Access Control Measures
House Homeland Security – Subcommittee on Transportation Security
Subcommittee Hearing
Feb. 3, 2 p.m., 311 Cannon Bldg.

Wounded Warrior Program
House Armed Services – Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Subcommittee Hearing
Feb. 3, 3:30 p.m., 2118 Rayburn Bldg.

Senate Committees

Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission
Senate Armed Services
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 3, 9:30 a.m., G-50 Dirksen Bldg.

Fiscal 2016 Budget – Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew
Senate Budget
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 3, 10 a.m., 608 Dirksen Bldg.

U.S.-Cuba Relations
Senate Foreign Relations – Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Transnational Crime, Civilian Security, Democracy, Human Rights and Global Women’s Issues
Subcommittee Hearing
Feb. 3, 10 a.m., 419 Dirksen Bldg.

IRS Fiscal 2016 Budget Request – John Koskinen, Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service
Senate Finance
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 3, 10:30 a.m., 215 Dirksen Bldg.

No Child Left Behind and Student Needs
Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 3, 10 a.m., 216 Hart Bldg.

Joint Committees
Veterans Affairs Issues
House Veterans’ Affairs; Senate Veterans’ Affairs
Committee Other Event
Feb. 3 TBA, Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW

Feb. 4

House Committees

Military Compensation and Retirement Commission
House Armed Services
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 4, 10 a.m., 2118 Rayburn Bldg.

Fiscal 2016 Budget Issues – Shaun L.S. Donovan, Director, Office of Management and Budget
House Budget
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 4, 10:30 a.m., 210 Cannon Bldg.

U.S. Schools and Workplaces
House Education and the Workforce
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 4, 10 a.m., 2175 Rayburn Bldg.

HUD Ethical Oversight
House Financial Services – Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee Hearing
Feb. 4, 10 a.m., 2167 Rayburn Bldg.

U.S.-Cuba Policy Assessment
House Foreign Affairs
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 4, 10 a.m., 2172 Rayburn Bldg.

Legal Workforce Act
House Judiciary – Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security
Subcommittee Hearing
Feb. 4, 10 a.m., 2141 Rayburn Bldg.

Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act
House Judiciary – Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law
Subcommittee Hearing
Feb. 4, 1 p.m., 2141 Rayburn Bldg.

Palestinian Authority and International Criminal Court
House Foreign Affairs – Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa
Subcommittee Hearing
Feb. 4, 2 p.m., 2172 Rayburn Bldg.

Senate Committees

Secretary of Defense Nomination
Senate Armed Services
Full Committee Confirmation Hearing
Feb. 4, 9:30 a.m., G-50 Dirksen Bldg.

HHS Fiscal 2016 Budget Request – Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human Services
Senate Finance
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 4, 10 a.m., 215 Dirksen Bldg.

Cybersecurity and Private Sector Issues
Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 4, 10 a.m., 253 Russell Bldg.

Implications of Immigration Action
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 4, 10 a.m., 342 Dirksen Bldg.

Vessel Discharge Regulations
Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation – Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard
Subcommittee Hearing
Feb. 4, 2:30 p.m., 253 Russell Bldg.

Indian Affairs Legislation
Senate Indian Affairs
Full Committee Markup
Feb. 4, 2:30 p.m., 628 Dirksen Bldg.

Loan Leveraging Issues
Senate Indian Affairs
Full Committee Oversight Hearing
Feb. 4, 2:30 p.m., 628 Dirksen Bldg.

Financial Exploitation of Seniors
Senate Special Aging
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 4, 2:15 p.m., 562 Dirksen Bldg.

Joint Committees

Proposed Waters Rule
Senate Environment and Public Works; House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee Joint Hearing
Feb. 4, 10 a.m., HVC-210 Capitol Visitor Center

Feb. 5

House Committees

Drinking Water Protection Act
House Energy and Commerce – Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy
Subcommittee Hearing
Feb. 5, 10 a.m., 2123 Rayburn Bldg.

Senate Committees

Treasury Fiscal 2016 Budget Request – Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew
Senate Finance
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 5, 10 a.m., 215 Dirksen Bldg.

Joint-Employer Standard
Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 5, 10 a.m., 430 Dirksen Bldg.

Judiciary Issues

Senate Judiciary
Full Committee Business Meeting
Feb. 5, 10:30 a.m., 226 Dirksen Bldg.

Kaitlyn McClure, Covington & Burling LLP Policy Advisor, co-authored this post.

ARTICLE BY

Richard A. Hertling
OF
Covington & Burling LLP

GoPro Announces Plans to Sell Millions In Stock

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

Stock sell-off, a term which our readers may have come across before, refers to the selling of securities by a company, whether stocks or bonds or other commodities. According to Investopedia.com, sell-offs can occur for a variety of reasons, such as after a less than satisfactory earnings report or when oil prices significantly increase. A sell-off can be a smart way for companies to deal with uncertainties in the stock market, depending on how they are handled.

Recently, GoPro—the company famous for designing and manufacturing high-definition personal cameras—announced that it would be selling off $100 million worth of stock in order to free up capital to expand its business. The company went public in June, and it is not uncommon for companies to sell stock after a successful initial public offering, particularly when there is still a need to raise capital to launch the company to greater success.

In addition to the $100 million sell-off, existing shareholders are going to sell off $700 million. In total, the sell-off could increase the company’s capital by over 40 percent. That money will reportedly be going toward investment in human capital, technology, as well as infrastructure and potential acquisitions.

There are a variety of ways companies can utilize sell-offs to better position themselves in the marketplace. Regardless of the approach used, it is critical that the sell-off is situated in the context of a long-term plan for the company’s success. Companies considering a sell-off should, naturally, work with an experienced legal team to ensure the success of their efforts.

Source: San Jose Mercury News, “GoPro plans $100 million cash boost with stock sale,” Heather Somerville, Nov. 10, 2014.

ARTICLE BY

Business and Corporate Law Practice Group
OF
McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

Jumpstart Your Startup: Entity Selection and Formation

vonBriesen

When starting a business, you must decide what form of business entity to establish. The “choice of entity” decision is one of the most important decisions facing new business owners. There are several forms of business to choose from, each of which generates different legal and tax consequences. That said, there is no single form of entity that is appropriate for every type of business owner.

The most common forms of business are the sole proprietorship, partnership, C corporation, S corporation, and limited liability company.

Sole Proprietorship

A sole proprietorship is the simplest business structure. It is an unincorporated entity owned and run by one individual with no distinction between the business and the individual owner. The owner is entitled to all profits and is personally responsible for all the business’ debts, losses, and liabilities.

A sole proprietorship needs to obtain the necessary licenses and permits for the industry in which the sole proprietorship does business. If the business operates under a name different than the individual, registering that name (e.g., DBA name, short for “doing business as”) with a state agency may be required.

Because the business and the owner are one and the same, the business itself is not taxed separately. The owner is responsible for and reports income, losses and expenses for income tax purposes.

Partnership

A partnership is the relationship between two or more persons who join to carry on a trade or business. Each partner may contribute money, property, labor, and/or skill, and, in return, each partner shares in the profits and losses of the business.

Because partnerships involve more than one person, it is important to develop a partnership agreement. The partnership agreement should document how future business decisions will be made, including how the partners will divide profits, resolve disputes, change ownership (i.e., bring in new partners or buy out current partners) and under what circumstances the partnership would be dissolved. In addition, owners of a partnership should determine which type of partnership to establish. The three most common types of partnership arrangements are:

  • General Partnership: Profits, liability, and management duties are presumed to be divided equally among all partners. If an unequal ownership distribution is preferred, the partnership agreement must document that preference. A general partnership ordinarily owns its assets and is responsible for its debts. It is important to note that in a general partnership, the individual partners are personally liable for all partnership debt, obligations and liabilities. No formal state registration and/or filing is required to form a general partnership.
  • Limited Partnership: A limited partnership requires at least one general partner and one limited partner. Limited partners are generally not liable for the debts and obligations of the limited partnership (though the general partners will be liable), but they must have restricted participation in management decisions. Limited partnerships ordinarily must be filed with a state.
  • Limited Liability Partnership: A limited liability partnership generally operates and is governed by the same rules as a general partnership, except: (1) its partners have limited liability for partnership debt, (2) it can choose to be taxed as a corporation or a partnership, and (3) it is formed by filing the appropriate documentation with a state.

Generally, a partnership must file an annual information return to report income, deductions, gains, and losses from its operations, but it does not pay income tax. Instead, it “passes through” any profits or losses to its partners. Each partner includes his or her share of the partnership income or loss on his or her individual tax return.

C Corporation

A C corporation is an independent legal entity incorporated in a single state, although it may do business in other states. Because a corporation is an independent legal entity, its existence continues until formally dissolved under the laws of the state in which it is incorporated. Ownership of a corporation is in the form of shares of stock, there is no limit to the number of stockholders, and there is no limit on the number of classes of stock a C corporation can issue. Additionally, the corporation itself, not the stockholders, is generally liable for the debts and obligations of the business.

For corporate governance, a corporation generally has a board of directors and bylaws. The initial directors may be named in the articles of incorporation or elected shortly after filing the articles of incorporation. Thereafter, directors are elected as set out in the articles of incorporation or bylaws.

For federal income tax purposes, a C corporation is recognized as a separate taxpaying entity. The profit of a C corporation is taxed to the corporation when earned, and then is taxed to the stockholders if and when distributed as dividends. This creates a double tax. The corporation does not receive a tax deduction when it distributes dividends to stockholders and stockholders cannot deduct any loss of the corporation.

S Corporation

An S corporation is similar to a C corporation, except that an S corporation passes income, losses, deductions, and credits through to its stockholders for federal tax purposes. Stockholders of an S corporation report the flow-through of income and losses on their personal tax returns and are assessed tax at their individual income tax rates. Thus, an S corporation generally avoids double taxation on corporate income.

In order to become an S corporation, the corporation must make appropriate filings with the IRS. To qualify for S corporation status, the corporation must meet the following requirements:

  • Be a domestic corporation;
  • Have only allowable stockholders, which are individuals, certain trusts and estates, and may not include partnerships, corporations (unless owned as a qualified subchapter S subsidiary), or non-resident aliens;
  • Have no more than 100 stockholders;
  • Have only one class of stock; and
  • Not be an ineligible corporation (e.g., certain financial institutions and insurance companies).

S corporations file specific tax returns and tax forms with the IRS.

Limited Liability Company

A limited liability company (“LLC”) is a hybrid entity that is treated like a corporation for limited liability purposes, but for tax purposes can choose to be taxed either as a corporation, partnership, or, in some cases, a disregarded entity (i.e., single-member LLC). A limited liability company is created under state law by filing articles of organization with a state. The owners of an LLC are referred to as “members” and generally may include individuals, corporations, other LLCs and other types of entities. There typically is no maximum number of members.

LLCs with more than one owner should have an operating agreement. An operating agreement usually includes provisions that address ownership interests, allocation of profits and losses, and members’ rights and responsibilities, among others.

Since the federal government does not consider an LLC a separate legal entity, an LLC with at least two members is, by default, classified as a partnership for federal tax purposes unless it files with the IRS and affirmatively elects to be treated as a corporation for tax purposes. An LLC with only one member is referred to as a single-member LLC and is treated as one and the same as its owner for income tax purposes (but as a separate entity for purposes of employment tax and certain excise taxes), unless it affirmatively elects to be treated as a corporation. An LLC may also elect to be taxed as an S corporation.

The business structure you choose will have significant legal and tax implications. In order to identify the best structure for you, it is important to understand your business goals and how the characteristics of each type of business entity can help you achieve those goals.

Article By:

Patrick J. Cannon
Of:
von Briesen & Roper, S.C.

Can the Town Make Me Change My Sign?

Giordano Logo

A business’ signage can be one of the most distinctive characteristics of its brand and one of its most important assets.  This is especially true when the sign display’s the business’ federally registered trademark and color is a feature of the mark.  But what happens when that brand runs afoul of state and local laws?

It is common place for commercial real estate development plans to impose requirements on the characteristics of the signs that tenants may display in the development.  Sometimes, those requirements impose restrictions on the colors that such signs may display.  For owners of federally registered trademarks where color is claimed as a feature of the mark, the last thing they want is to have to change the color of their sign.

For example, imagine telling McDonalds that its famous golden and red sign must be displayed in other colors, say, like this:

McDonalds Logo w Inverted Colors

For most consumers, I suspect this sounds ridiculous.  But that is exactly the obstacle that federal brand owners must overcome when faced with local zoning restrictions on color.

Fortunately, the federal trademark law provides some relief.  Or does it?   The Lanham Act expressly provides that federal law preempts state law by providing (in part):

No State or other jurisdiction of the United States or any political subdivision or any agency thereof may require alteration of a registered mark …. (15 USCA §1121(B))

While this may seem pretty clear on its face, courts are split as to whether towns can lawfully impose color restrictions on signs displaying a federally registered trademark.

Two courts in the 9th Circuit (including the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals) have shot down Tempe, Arizona’s attempts to impose such color restrictions under this section of the Lanham Act.  Blockbuster Videos, Inc. v. City of Tempe, 141 F.3d 1295 (1998); Desert Subway, Inc. v. City of Tempe, 322 F. Supp.2d 1036 (2003).  Conversely, two courts in the 2d Circuit (including  the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals) have upheld town zoning boards’ imposition of signage color restrictions as superior to the rights of federally registered trademark holders.  Payless Shoesource, Inc. v. Town of Penfield, NY, 934 F. Supp. 540 (1996); Lisa’s Party City, Inc. v. Town of Henrietta, 185 F.3d 12 (1999).

According to the 9th Circuit courts, from looking at the legislative history, it is clear that while local governments can prohibit the display of outdoor signs altogether, there is nothing to suggest that local zoning ordinances may require alteration of trademarks.  Looking at the identical legislative history and, in some cases, quoting from the same testimony, the 2d Circuit courts agreed that the law would allow local zoning ordinances to prohibit outdoor signs altogether or even materially restrict their size.  However, the 2d Circuit found that the statute was intended to prohibit state-mandated changes in the trademark  itself since the brand owner would be free to use the unaltered mark in every other aspect of its business.

So who is right?

Like any other situation where courts are split geographically, they both are.  Until the Supreme Court takes up the issue, local ordinances in the 2d Circuit are free to place restrictions on colors used in trademarks displayed on signs, whereas in the 9th Circuit (especially, Tempe, Arizona), local ordinances may not.  For those of us in other circuits, the moral of the story for brand owners is to be mindful of local zoning restrictions before committing to a store location.  Real estate developers should also be mindful of signage restrictions included in their plans when seeking local approvals.

Article By:

Kurt E. Anderson
Of: 
Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C.

EB-5 Visas: A Source of Funding for US Businesses But Not Without Risk

Poyner Spruill

China’s wealthy investors are known for seeking secure havens for their money overseas.  In addition to being considered a secure environment for their money, the US offers the EB-5 program providing the investor and his or her immediate family with permanent US residence, known as getting “green cards” in return for making an investment.

Basically, in return for an investment of either $500,000 or $1,000,000, which can be shown to the satisfaction of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services to create 10 US jobs per investment over a two year period, the investor and his family get green cards.  Since it started in 1990, the EB-5 visa program has brought approximately $6.7 billion to the US and has created 95,000 jobs.  In fact, the EB-5 visa program was not very popular until the 2008 financial crisis when traditional sources of financing became more difficult to obtain.  Since then, numerous businesses have attempted to use the EB-5 program to raise money.  For example, Vermont’s Trapp Family Lodge of “Sound of Music” fame advertises that it seeks EB-5 investors to open a beer hall and renovate its existing resort facilities.

There are two distinct EB-5 routes — the Basic Program and the Regional Center Pilot Program. Both programs require that the immigrant make a capital investment of either $500,000 or $1,000,000 (depending on whether the investment is in a Targeted Employment Area [TEA]) in a new commercial enterprise located within the United States.  A TEA is defined by law as “a rural area or an area that has experienced high unemployment of at least 150% of the national average.”  The new commercial enterprise must create or preserve 10 full-time jobs for qualifying US workers within two years (or under certain circumstances, within a reasonable time after the two year period) of the immigrant investor’s admission to the US as a Conditional Permanent Resident.

Entrepreneurs across the nation have set up regional centers for foreign investment to market local EB-5 projects to investors.  There are over 230 such regional centers, some of which are state-run  like Vermont’s Jay Peak. The flexibility offered by a regional center is attractive to both the investor and developer since the investor does not have to play a role in the company. With a direct EB-5 investment, the investor must have some sort of “managerial” function.  Seeing a lucrative opportunity when connecting an investor with regional centers, an industry has sprung up, particularly in China, to connect US businesses with potential investors. These go-betweens charge the regional center as much as $175,000 per investor for making the introduction.

Some projects have not produced the requisite number of jobs that would prompt US immigration authorities to withhold green cards – resulting in exposure to lawsuits from the investor against the developer or regional center that has solicited the investment.  Approximately 31 investors, 15 from China, filed a federal lawsuit alleging the only thing they had to show for a $15.5 million investment was an undeveloped plot of land across the Mississippi River from New Orleans.  In San Bruno, California, three Chinese investors alleged in a lawsuit filed last year that they lost $3 million when an EB-5 developer disappeared with his associates concocted a story about his death.

In contrast, the Marriot and Hilton hotel chains have successfully solicited and obtained EB-5 investment funds to build new hotels; Sony Pictures Entertainment and Warner Brothers have used the EB-5 program to raise funds for film projects; and the new home of the NBA’s Brooklyn Nets, Barclay Center, was funded through EB-5 investment.

Even if successful, EB-5 visa approval has become much slower due to suspicion of fraud and developers’ inaccurate estimate of creating 10 jobs per investor.  With the economic downturn, the USCIS has hired economists and securities lawyers to review EB-5 applications. Now showing it that it means business, the Securities Exchange Commission has filed its first lawsuit against an EB-5 project alleging that the promoters of a Chicago hotel and convention center project fraudulently sold more than $145 million in securities and collected $11 million in administrative fees from over 250 Chinese investors.

The Canadian government has decided recently to halt its immigrant investor program due to the number of Chinese applications.  This has left Chinese investors potentially turning their attention to the US equivalent as they seek a financially and politically stable haven for themselves and their families.

Article By:

Jennifer G. Parser
Of:
Poyner Spruill LLP

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Giordano Logo

 

Quiznos, the toasted sandwich chain based out of Denver, CO, filed for prepackaged bankruptcy protection within days of Sbarro. The company foresees this restructuring cutting $400 million of debt.  In its bankruptcy protection the company listed liabilities between $500 million and $1 billion.

In recent years, Quiznos has faced stiff competition from long-time rivals such as Subway as well as from new entrants to the market like Potbelly Corp.  Subway has over 41,000 restaurants in more than 100 countries, while Quiznos has only 2,100 locations.  All but seven of these restaurants are owned by franchisees.  There are over a dozen locations in New Jersey.  Similar to Sbarro’s bankruptcy, Quiznos franchise locations should not be directly affected by the bankruptcy.

Quiznos’ senior lenders have committed $15 million in debtor-in-possession financing to support ongoing operations during the bankruptcy.

The company plans to implement a franchisee rebate program as part of its restructuring. This program will include investments in advertising, new technology at the restaurants and new incentives for prospective franchisees.  The company has requested that the locations honor all outstanding gift cards.

Though the bankruptcy may not directly impact Quiznos’ franchisees, this is a sign of things to come.  Landlords and franchisees alike should brace themselves for a bumpy road if Quiznos cannot turn operations around.

The case is In re: The Quiznos Global LLC, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware No. 14-10557.

Article by:

Donald F. Campbell Jr.

Of:

Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C.

Last chance! Register now for the Women in the Law Rainmaker Forum: A Catalyst for Stepping into Your Power

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Women in the Law Rainmaker Forum hosted by KLA Marketing Associates.

1.24.14

When

For your convenience, 3 dates and times:

February 17 – Late Afternoon

Feburary 19 – Morning

Februrary 27 – Late afternoon

Where

Philadelphia / New Jersey / Virtual

Join us – a safe, intimate forum where Women in the Law “lean in” and access much-needed resources to develop a prosperous and rewarding practice. Make 2014 the year to take control of your career. 
Join for our popular Forum to:
  • Learn critical rainmaking techniques
  • Brainstorm opportunities
  • Dig deep into your business challenges
  • Tap skills/experience of others  

Four 2-hour sessions to change the

way you do business – and win business!

Special Pricing: $499* for all 4 sessions – – and more. Register now to claim your seat that will change the way you do business!

About the Trainer/Coach
Kimberly Alford Rice, Principal and Chief Strategist of KLA Marketing Associates, has successfully trained hundreds of lawyers to build and grow a prosperous book of business over the course of her 20+ year legal services advisory practice. She deeply understands how to engage the organizational and human factors that drive successful implementation and change through her work. To learn more, check out KLA Marketing Associates website.

One week until the final session! Register today for the Women in the Law Rainmaker Forum

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Women in the Law Rainmaker Forum hosted by KLA Marketing Associates.

1.24.14

When

For your convenience, 3 dates and times:

February 17 – Late Afternoon

Feburary 19 – Morning

Februrary 27 – Late afternoon

Where

Philadelphia / New Jersey / Virtual

Join us – a safe, intimate forum where Women in the Law “lean in” and access much-needed resources to develop a prosperous and rewarding practice. Make 2014 the year to take control of your career. 
Join for our popular Forum to:
  • Learn critical rainmaking techniques
  • Brainstorm opportunities
  • Dig deep into your business challenges
  • Tap skills/experience of others  

Four 2-hour sessions to change the

way you do business – and win business!

Special Pricing: $499* for all 4 sessions – – and more. Register now to claim your seat that will change the way you do business!

About the Trainer/Coach
Kimberly Alford Rice, Principal and Chief Strategist of KLA Marketing Associates, has successfully trained hundreds of lawyers to build and grow a prosperous book of business over the course of her 20+ year legal services advisory practice. She deeply understands how to engage the organizational and human factors that drive successful implementation and change through her work. To learn more, check out KLA Marketing Associates website.

February 17, 19, 27 – Women in the Law Rainmaker Forum: A Catalyst for Stepping into Your Power

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Women in the Law Rainmaker Forum hosted by KLA Marketing Associates.

1.24.14

When

For your convenience, 3 dates and times:

February 17 – Late Afternoon

Feburary 19 – Morning

Februrary 27 – Late afternoon

Where

Philadelphia / New Jersey / Virtual

Join us – a safe, intimate forum where Women in the Law “lean in” and access much-needed resources to develop a prosperous and rewarding practice. Make 2014 the year to take control of your career. 
Join for our popular Forum to:
  • Learn critical rainmaking techniques
  • Brainstorm opportunities
  • Dig deep into your business challenges
  • Tap skills/experience of others  

Four 2-hour sessions to change the

way you do business – and win business!

Special Pricing: $499* for all 4 sessions – – and more. Register now to claim your seat that will change the way you do business!

About the Trainer/Coach
Kimberly Alford Rice, Principal and Chief Strategist of KLA Marketing Associates, has successfully trained hundreds of lawyers to build and grow a prosperous book of business over the course of her 20+ year legal services advisory practice. She deeply understands how to engage the organizational and human factors that drive successful implementation and change through her work. To learn more, check out KLA Marketing Associates website.

February 17, 19, 27 – Women in the Law Rainmaker Forum: A Catalyst for Stepping into Your Power

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Women in the Law Rainmaker Forum hosted by KLA Marketing Associates.

1.24.14

When

For your convenience, 3 dates and times:

February 17 – Late Afternoon

Feburary 19 – Morning

Februrary 27 – Late afternoon

Where

Philadelphia / New Jersey / Virtual

Join us – a safe, intimate forum where Women in the Law “lean in” and access much-needed resources to develop a prosperous and rewarding practice. Make 2014 the year to take control of your career. 
Join for our popular Forum to:
  • Learn critical rainmaking techniques
  • Brainstorm opportunities
  • Dig deep into your business challenges
  • Tap skills/experience of others  

Four 2-hour sessions to change the

way you do business – and win business!

Special Pricing: $499* for all 4 sessions – – and more. Register now to claim your seat that will change the way you do business!

About the Trainer/Coach
Kimberly Alford Rice, Principal and Chief Strategist of KLA Marketing Associates, has successfully trained hundreds of lawyers to build and grow a prosperous book of business over the course of her 20+ year legal services advisory practice. She deeply understands how to engage the organizational and human factors that drive successful implementation and change through her work. To learn more, check out KLA Marketing Associates website.