A particularly vexing issue for franchisors is enforcing the post-termination obligations against the former franchisee, and against others acting in concert to usurp the benefits of the franchise relationship after it has expired or terminated. The issue usually arises where a restrictive covenant prohibiting competition exists, and the covenantor attempts to circumvent the restriction by having a trusted party continue in the business. A recent decision in New Jersey federal court provides some insight on how to address these issues.
In Jackson Hewitt v. Barnes Enterprises, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111390, D. NJ No. 10-cv-05108 (August 2, 2013), the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey again had the opportunity to address post-termination enforcement against signatories to a franchise agreement. In the previous 2011 decision, the franchisor alleged a former franchisee was planning on using his father to operate 15 competing tax-preparation businesses to circumvent a covenant against competition. The court agreed to enforce the covenant against the nonsignatory father. The court held that injunctions of this type are generally broad enough to encompass nonparties who have actual knowledge of the prohibited acts and are seeking to nullify the decree by aiding and abetting the prohibited acts. In 2013, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
