Manufacturers and franchisors who settle cases with their dealers and franchisees often do so in part to stop harm to the supplier’s reputation in the marketplace. In those circumstances, the settlement agreement often includes a non-disparagement clause. The Supreme Court of Connecticut strongly upheld such a clause on March 25 in TES Franchising, LLC v. Feldman, 2008 WL 726293 (Conn. March 25, 2008). The court enjoined Feldman from any further violation of the settlement agreement and remanded to the trial court to determine how much he would have to pay for his past violations. The court found that the non-disparagement clause was important to the agreement because it not only prevented negative comments to potential new franchisees, but it protected confidential information shared by the parties during their former relationship.
The information contained in this post is provided to alert you to legal developments and should not be considered legal advice. It is not intended to and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Specific questions about how this information affects your particular situation should be addressed to one of the individuals listed. No representations or warranties are made with respect to this information, including, without limitation, as to its completeness, timeliness, or accuracy, and Lathrop GPM shall not be liable for any decision made in connection with the information. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.
About this Publication
The Franchise Memorandum is a collection of postings on summaries of recent legal developments of interest to franchisors brought to you by Lathrop GPM LLP.
To subscribe to monthly emails for The Franchise Memorandum, please click here.
RSS Feed