Does the Anago Assignment agreement require a bond for injunctive relief sought by SUBFRANCHISOR?
Anago Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
visions in the Franchise Agreement. ASSIGNOR and ASSIGNEE further agree that they have and will continue to have a substantial relationship with SUBFRANCHISOR at its offices in City, State and that, with the exception of SUBFRANCHISOR's right to seek injunctive relief in any appropriate jurisdiction as set forth below, any action by or against them arising out of or relating to this Assignment will be commenced, litigated, and concluded only in the state or federal court which is closest to SUBFRANCHISOR's then current principal place of business (currently City, State). ASSIGNOR and ASSIGNEE irrevocably submit to the jurisdiction of such courts and waive any objection they may have to either the jurisdiction or venue of such courts. ASSIGNOR and ASSIGNEE further waive any objection that such court is an inconvenient forum. SUBFRANCHISOR shall have the option, at its sole discretion, of bringing any action seeking equitable relief to enforce the terms of this Assignment in any court of competent jurisdiction in order to prevent real or threatened harm, and ASSIGNOR and ASSIGNEE consent to the entry of injunctive relief, including, without limitation, temporary restraining orders and/or preliminary and permanent injunctions without the requirement of bond, according to the usual equity rules in the jurisdiction in which such relief is sought.
-
- The Franchise Agreement and this Assignment, and any exhibits thereto or hereto, shall constitute the entire integrated assignment between the parties with respect to the subject matter contained herein and shall not be subject to change, modification, amendment or addition without the express written consent of all the parties.
-
Source: Item 23 — RECEIPTS (FDD pages 62–298)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Anago's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the subfranchisor has the option to bring legal action to enforce the terms of the assignment. In such cases, the assignor and assignee consent to the entry of injunctive relief, which includes temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and permanent injunctions. Importantly, this can occur without the requirement of a bond, aligning with standard equity rules in the relevant jurisdiction. This means that Anago subfranchisors seeking injunctive relief to enforce the assignment terms may not be required to post a bond, which could save them money and time in legal proceedings.
However, the document also states that the franchisor, not the subfranchisor, has the option of bringing any action seeking equitable relief to enforce the terms of the assignment. In this case, the assignor and assignee consent to the entry of injunctive relief without the requirement of a bond. This clause benefits Anago by potentially reducing the financial burden associated with seeking injunctive relief.
In contrast, when Anago itself seeks equitable relief for breaches of the Unit Franchise Agreement, it is entitled to seek this relief without posting any bond or security. However, if a bond is required by a court, the parties agree that $1,000 is a sufficient bond. This discrepancy suggests that while Anago aims to avoid bond requirements, a nominal amount is pre-agreed upon if a bond is deemed necessary by the court, potentially streamlining the legal process and minimizing costs.