Scott A. McIntosh has a broad-based practice in franchising law, with significant experience in myriad business, litigation, and regulatory issues that confront franchising companies. He has represented franchise clients in both state and federal litigation, including complex multiple party lawsuits. Mr. McIntosh also has represented clients in various forms of alternative dispute resolution, including binding arbitration before the American Arbitration Association. He has successfully represented a number of clients in responding to inquiries and investigations into potential violations of federal or state franchise statutes and regulations by the Federal Trade Commission and various state attorney general offices.
Mr. McIntosh has handled various facets of electronic discovery under the new electronic discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as under the pre-2006 amendment version of the Rules. Mr. McIntosh has assisted clients in implementing document retention policies, formulating litigation hold memoranda, retrieving electronically stored information for review and production, and managing electronically stored information for effective use in litigation.
Mr. McIntosh also counsels clients on franchise relations, terminations, transfers, and regulatory compliance. His experience includes preparation of franchise and license agreements, area development agreements, numerous collateral agreements, and disclosure materials for domestic and international development. He has created documents for a variety of franchise business transactions, including the creation of advertising cooperatives and the sale of a domestic subfranchisor’s assets.
A.D.M. Club Management Systems, Inc. v. Gary Jonas Computing, Ltd. — This case involved an action by a number of dealers relating to changes in the defendant''s sales structure. This case was significant based upon the number of plaintiffs and the amount of damages sought, including treble damages for an alleged antitrust violation. The defendants prevailed on a motion to dismiss.
Peterson v. Mama Fu''s Noodle House, Inc. — This case was significant based upon the stakes at risk as it was brought by a substantial number of franchisees within the franchise system. Following a seven day bench trial, the Court granted defendants'' motion for judgment as a matter of law.
Applestein v. Fairfied Resorts, Inc. — This case was significant because it was brought as a class action, with potentially high stakes. The case also presented a significant number of legal challenges as it was brought pursuant to the TCPA, a statute whose interpretation was still developing (and is still developing) through judicial interpretation. Such interpretations are evolving on a state-by-state basis in light of the unique status of this federal statute. After certification was denied and Fairfield Resorts prevailed in a bench trial, the plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed the denial of certification and upheld the trial court''s determination that Fairfield Resorts could not be liable, under the facts presented, under the TCPA based upon the unauthorized conduct of an independent contractor.
The Tax Authority, Inc. v. Jackson Hewitt Inc. — This matter is significant on a number of levels. As to scope, it involved an action brought on behalf of approximately 150 franchisees. As an action that involved a significant portion of the franchise system, the stakes were high. After the case was settled, a small group of franchisees sought to avoid the settlement. After a series of appeals, the New Jersey Supreme Court enforced the settlement agreement as to the remaining franchisee plaintiff. The decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court also addressed, as a case of first impression in New Jersey, the ability of a group of parties to bind themselves to a settlement in advance of the settlement being finalized.