From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
In re Taylor Investment Partners II, LLC
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia
533 B.R. 837 (2015)
Facts
Taylor Investment Partners II, LLC (Taylor) (debtor) was the franchisee of record for two Moe’s Southwestern Grill restaurants in Georgia. Taylor’s affiliate TIP II-Ansley, LLC operated the Moe’s franchise in Atlanta, and Taylor’s affiliate TIP II-Suburban, LLC operated the Moe’s franchise in Decatur. To ensure that franchisees’ restaurants were complying with the company’s standards, Moe’s conducted unannounced inspections of the restaurants. Taylor’s franchise agreement provided that the agreement could be terminated if Taylor’s restaurants repeatedly failed to meet the standards set by Moe’s. After Taylor’s Decatur location failed numerous inspections, Moe’s sent Taylor a termination notice for the franchise. The notice gave Taylor six months to sell or vacate the premises. Before the six-month termination period had expired, Taylor filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. Moe’s filed a motion in the bankruptcy proceeding seeking relief from the automatic stay to be able to terminate the franchise agreement. Moe’s argued that section 365(c) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibited Taylor, as debtor in possession, from assuming the franchise agreement without consent from Moe’s, and Moe’s refused to consent to the assumption.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Murphy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 619,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
