Jerry Grissom's extensive experience with and understanding of franchisor/franchisee relationships and legal issues enables him to credibly and effectively resolve franchise disputes through mediation and arbitration. He has helped to resolve disputes involving a range of franchise businesses, including automobile dealerships, insurance products, temporary employee services, financial services and advice, and other products and services.
Mr. Grissom has mediated and arbitrated the resolution of hundreds of disputes in 20 states, in a broad range of subjects, size, and complexity. He brings to each case the know-how for resolving disputes acquired from 12 years of experience as a full-time neutral and 20 years of business and tort litigation practice with a respected Dallas law firm. A tenacious but gracious advocate for settlement, he is recognized as a “go to” mediator for the difficult case. Fair and independent, Mr. Grissom is frequently selected as sole arbitrator and on arbitration panels as member and chair. Parties and counsel alike have expressed high levels of satisfaction with his capable management of ADR proceedings.
Mr. Grissom is an elected Fellow of the College of Commercial Arbitrators and a member of CPR’s Distinguished Panel of Neutrals.
- Claim by exclusive distributor for territory for wrongful termination of exclusive distribution agreement and for other breaches
- Dispute between manufacturer and franchise dealer regarding financial responsibility for consumer product claims, and whether claims were manufacturer’s warranty or dealer’s service responsibilities
- Dispute between national franchisor and a nationwide group of leading franchisees, including a key issue involving the franchisor’s development and distribution of software marketed online to the public in alleged violation of its commitments not to compete with its own franchisees in their territories, as well as licensing, marketing support, and other related issues
- Dispute between two existing franchisees and franchisor over alleged encroachment of territory by each franchisee
- Dispute concerning franchisee’s alleged non-compliance with standards for quality in the appearance of the dealership, local marketing, service, and financial accountability
- Dispute concerning valuation of minority interest in privately owned and very profitable medical products franchise; franchisor (also the majority owner of the franchise) and its majority interest in the franchise were acquired by publicly held company; minority interest owner of franchise claimed corporate oppression and sought fair value as of the sale
- Dispute concerning valuation: minority owner of profitable privately owned medical products franchise acquired by publicly held company claimed corporate oppression by majority owner and sought to recover fair value of minority interest as of date of sale
- Dispute over availability of popular and profitable product lines and accessories in high demand and short supply and criteria for manufacturer’s fair allocation among competing franchise dealers
- Dispute over existing franchise dealer’s complaints of encroachment of territory by manufacturer and the potential new dealer when manufacturer added a new franchise dealer nearby
- Dispute over franchise dealer’s attempt to sell its dealership, involving disputed qualifications of buyer and manufacturer’s exercise of right to approve buyer
- Dispute over franchisor’s termination of franchise agreement and whether conditions for termination had been met
- Dispute over manufacturer’s withdrawing one of several product lines from franchise dealer and establishing a new dealer in the territory to market that line
- Disputes concerning compliance with state regulatory agencies
- Disputes concerning dealer floor plan financing of inventory
- Disputes involving alleged violations of covenant not to compete, theft of trade secrets, use of trademark and intellectual property
- Disputes of issues arising from audit of franchisee operations and finances, compliance with standards of practice
- Franchise dealer’s claim that sales were improperly excluded from dealer incentive sales program, resulting in charge backs
- Franchisee claim against another franchisee, up-line supplier and competitor for slander, tortious interference with contractual relations with existing customers, breach of contract, and loss of business
- Franchisee claim that franchisor attempted to unilaterally change the franchise agreement and impose greater burdens on franchisee
- Franchisor’s complaints concerning franchisee’s compliance with requirements to invest capital, time, and best efforts in building and developing franchise in financial products business