Regarding injunctive relief for Bft franchises, who determines if a bond is required?
Bft Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
- Injunctive Relief. The following language is added to the end of Section 12.2 (Injunctive Relief) of the Franchise Agreement:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, a court will determine if a bond is required to obtain injunctive relief.
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, a court will determine if a bond is required to obtain injunctive relief. This information is found as an addition to Section 12.2 of the Franchise Agreement, which addresses injunctive relief. This applies to franchises governed by Minnesota law, as indicated by the context of the added language within Item 17 of the FDD.
In practical terms, this means that if Bft seeks an injunction against a franchisee, or vice versa, the decision on whether a bond is necessary rests with the court. A bond serves as a form of security, ensuring that the party against whom the injunction is issued can be compensated if the injunction is later found to be unjustified.
This clause modifies the standard terms of the Franchise Agreement to align with Minnesota law, which may provide additional protections or considerations for franchisees in the state. Prospective franchisees in Minnesota should take note of this modification, as it could affect their rights and obligations in the event of a dispute involving injunctive relief.