Why is this rider being signed in relation to the Bft Multi-Unit Agreement?
Bft Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
| 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. |
| Background. Franchisor and Developer are parties to that certain Multi-Unit Agreement |
| dated |
| , 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) Developer is a resident of the State of Maryland; or |
| (b) the Studios that Developer |
| develops under the |
| Multi-Unit Agreement |
| are or will be developed |
| in the State of Maryland; or |
| (c) the offer |
| to sell is made in the State of Maryland; or |
| (d) the offer to buy is accepted in the State of Maryland. |
| 2. |
| Insolvency. |
| The following is added to the end of Section 8.A.(1)(b) (Termination of |
| Franchise by Franchisor) |
| of the Multi-Unit Agreement: |
| The provision which provides for termination upon Developer's |
| bankruptcy might not be |
| enforceable under federal bankruptcy law |
| (11 U.S.C. Sections 101 et seq.). |
| 3. |
| Release. The following is added to the end of Section 9.B |
| (Transfer of Interest - |
| By |
| Developer and its Owners) |
| of the Multi-Unit Agreement: |
| Pursuant to COMAR 02.02.08.16L, any release required as a condition of renewal and/or |
| assignment/transfer will not apply to claims arising under the Maryland Franchise |
| Registration and Disclosure Law. |
| 4. |
| Governing Law; Consent to Jurisdiction. The following is added to the end of Sections 12.A |
| (Governing Law) |
| and 12.F (Consent to Jurisdiction) |
| of the Multi-Unit Agreement: |
| ; provided, however, Developer |
| may bring a lawsuit in Maryland for claims arising under |
| the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law. Maryland law may apply to |
| claims arising under the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law. |
| 5. |
| Mediation; Mandatory Binding Arbitration. The following is added to the end of Sections |
| 12.C (Mediation) |
| and 12.D |
| (Mandatory Binding Arbitration) |
| of the Multi-Unit Agreement: |
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, the rider to the Multi-Unit Agreement is being signed due to specific circumstances related to the developer's location, studio development, or sales activities within certain states. For Maryland, the rider is signed if the developer is a resident, the studios are developed in Maryland, the offer to sell is made there, or the offer to buy is accepted there. Similarly, for North Dakota, the rider is signed if an offer to sell is made in North Dakota or if the developer is domiciled there and the studio will be operated in North Dakota. In New York, the rider is required if an offer to sell or buy is made in the state, or if the developer is domiciled there and the studio will be developed in New York. For Minnesota, the rider is signed because the studios will be developed in Minnesota, or any of the offering or sales activity relating to the Multi-Unit Agreement occurred in Minnesota. Finally, for Washington, the rider is signed because the offer is directed into the state and received there, the developer is a resident, or the studios will be located or operated in Washington.
These state-specific riders modify the terms of the standard Multi-Unit Agreement to comply with franchise laws in those states. For example, the Maryland rider includes provisions related to insolvency, releases, governing law, jurisdiction, mediation, and mandatory binding arbitration, ensuring compliance with the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law. The Washington rider addresses surety bonds, enforcement of covenants, cross-default provisions, injunctive relief, limitation of claims, and recourse against nonparty affiliates, aligning with the Washington Investment Protection Act. These modifications are crucial to protect the franchisee's rights and ensure the enforceability of the agreement within each specific state.
For a prospective Bft multi-unit developer, these riders highlight the importance of understanding the specific legal requirements in the states where they plan to operate. The riders demonstrate that the standard Multi-Unit Agreement is not universally applicable and needs to be adapted to local laws. This could involve additional costs, such as obtaining surety bonds, and may affect the developer's rights and obligations under the agreement. It is essential for developers to carefully review these riders with legal counsel to fully understand their implications and ensure compliance with all applicable state laws.