What is an 'AOD' as it relates to the New York matter involving affiliates of Basecamp Fitness?
Basecamp_Fitness Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
or did not accept the offer of rescission and its agreement continues in effect.
In the Matter of the Investigation by Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General of the State of New York, of The Bar Method Inc. and Carl Diehl (Assurance No. 08-108). On April 2, 2009, TBM and Mr. Diehl, as its Vice President, entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance ("AOD") under which, without admitting any violation of the law, they agreed to offer rescission of an agreement that TBM signed in New York without being registered to sell franchises in that state. As part of the AOD, TBM and Mr. Diehl agreed to comply with the provisions of the New York Franchises Act and not to sell franchises in New York without a current registration. TBM also paid to the State of New York the sum of $2,500. The New York operator did not accept th
Source: Item 3 — LITIGATION (FDD pages 13–14)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to the 2025 Basecamp Fitness FDD, an "AOD" is defined as an Assurance of Discontinuance. This is in reference to a legal matter involving The Bar Method Inc. and Carl Diehl, affiliates of Basecamp Fitness, and an investigation by the Attorney General of the State of New York.
In this specific case, TBM and Mr. Diehl entered into an AOD on April 2, 2009, without admitting any violation of the law. They agreed to offer rescission of an agreement that TBM signed in New York without being registered to sell franchises in that state. As part of the AOD, TBM and Mr. Diehl agreed to comply with the provisions of the New York Franchises Act and not to sell franchises in New York without a current registration. TBM also paid $2,500 to the State of New York.
For a prospective Basecamp Fitness franchisee, this disclosure indicates that Basecamp Fitness's affiliates have encountered legal issues related to franchise registration and compliance in the past. While the New York operator in this case did not accept the offer of rescission and continued to operate, it highlights the importance of franchisors adhering to state franchise laws and registration requirements. This also demonstrates the potential costs and consequences, such as fines and the obligation to offer rescission, associated with non-compliance.