Menu
Blog Banner Image

The Franchise Memorandum

Franchisee’s Intentional Interference Claim Survives Motion to Dismiss
Posted in Transfers

Meanwhile, a federal court in Kentucky held that a franchisee sufficiently pled a claim against a franchisor for intentional interference with a prospective economic advantage. Raheel Foods, LLC v. Yum! Brands, Inc., 2017 WL 217751 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 18, 2017). Raheel was party to several franchise agreements with Yum! Brands and eventually decided to sell its franchised stores. Under the franchise agreements, prior to selling the stores, Raheel was required to obtain Yum! Brands’ approval of the proposed purchaser. Raheel alleged that it presented proposed purchasers to Yum! Brands for approval and that Yum! Brands undercut Raheel either by offering the proposed purchasers corporate-owned stores at below-market prices, or by refusing to approve the proposed purchasers as franchisees when presented but later approving them to purchase corporate-owned stores. In ruling on a motion to dismiss filed by Yum! Brands, the court held that, taking Raheel’s allegations as true (which the court was obligated to do for purposes of deciding the motion), Yum! Brands’ conduct could potentially constitute intentional interference with a prospective economic advantage, and the case could proceed to discovery.

Yum! Brands had argued that because it had the right under the parties’ franchise agreements to deny any sale proposed by Raheel, its denial of Raheel’s proposals was not improper interference as a matter of law. The court disagreed, holding that Raheel did not allege that the mere denial of the proposed sales was improper interference but rather that Yum! Brands used its disapproval rights for an improper purpose—to take Raheel’s buyers for itself. Yum! Brands had further argued that it was a competitor with Raheel (in the respect that both parties were engaged in selling franchised stores), and that competition alone was not an improper basis for interference. Again, the court disagreed, reasoning that Yum! Brands was privy to the terms of the proposed deals and allegedly used its contractual right of approval to handcuff Raheel and purloin its potential purchasers.

Email LinkedIn Twitter Facebook

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

Topics

Archives

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

Blog Authors