Must a Bft franchisee sign a general release to qualify for a successor franchise?
Bft Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
TO FOLLOW]*
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and delivered this Rider to be effective as of the effective date of the Multi-Unit Agreement.
BFT FRANCHISE SPV, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company [NAME OF DEVELOPER] Capacity:
RIDER TO THE BFT FRANCHISE SPV, LLC MULTI-UNIT AGREEMENT FOR USE IN MINNESOTA
| THIS RIDER (this "Rider") is made and entered into by and between | BFT FRANCHISE SPV, |
|---|---|
| LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with its principal business address at 17877 Von Karman Ave., | |
| Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 ("Franchisor"), and, | |
| whose principal business address is | ("Developer"). |
| 1. | dated |
| Background. Franchisor and Developer are parties to that certain Multi-Unit Agreement | |
| , 20 (the "Multi-Unit Agreement") that has been signed concurrently | |
| with the signing of this Rider. This Rider supersedes any inconsistent or conflicting provisions of the Multi | |
| Unit Agreement. Terms not otherwise defined in this Rider have the meanings as defined in the Multi-Unit | |
| Agreement. | |
| This Rider is annexed to and forms part of the Multi-Unit Agreement. This Rider is being | |
| signed because (a) | will be |
| the Studios that Developer will develop under the Multi-Unit Agreement | |
| developed | (b) any of the offering or sales activity relating to the Multi |
| in the State of Minnesota; and/or | |
| Unit Agreement | |
| occurred in the State of Minnesota. |
- Termination.
Source: Item 17 — RENEWAL, TERMINATION, TRANSFER AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION (FDD pages 57–66)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Bft's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, whether a franchisee must sign a general release to qualify for a successor franchise depends on the state in which the franchise operates. Specifically, for franchisees in North Dakota, any release required as a condition of renewal will not apply to the extent prohibited by the North Dakota Franchise Investment Law.
Similarly, for franchisees in Maryland, any release required as a condition of renewal will not apply to claims arising under the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law, according to COMAR 02.02.08.16L.
For prospective Bft franchisees, this means that the requirement to sign a general release when seeking a successor franchise is not uniformly applied across all states. Franchisees operating in North Dakota and Maryland have specific protections under their respective state laws that limit the enforceability of such releases. This could be a significant benefit, as it protects their rights and potential claims against Bft under those states' franchise laws, even when seeking a renewal or transfer.