Does the Anago Subfranchise Agreement assignment require a bond for injunctive relief?
Anago Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
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.
Source: Item 23 — RECEIPTS (FDD pages 62–298)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Anago's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, when seeking equitable relief to enforce the terms of the Subfranchise Agreement assignment, Anago does not require a bond for injunctive relief. The assignor and assignee consent to the entry of injunctive relief, including temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and permanent injunctions, without the need for a bond. This is according to the usual equity rules in the jurisdiction where such relief is sought.
This means that Anago has the option to pursue legal action to ensure compliance with the assignment terms without having to provide financial security in the form of a bond. This can expedite the process of obtaining injunctive relief, as it removes a potential hurdle of securing a bond. For a subfranchisee, this could mean that Anago can act quickly to enforce the assignment terms if they are violated.
However, it's important to note that while Anago does not require a bond, the court may still impose one based on the specific circumstances and the jurisdiction's equity rules. In such cases, the need for a bond would be determined by the court, not by Anago's contractual requirement. Subfranchisees should be aware of this possibility and understand the potential costs associated with litigation, even if Anago initially waives the bond requirement.