Franchise Complaint: Lyons & Wolivar Investigations
July 3, 2008 by Sean Kelly
Filed under Business
(Best Franchise Opportunities) With 55 active offices, L&W Investigations, Inc. aka Lyons & Wolivar claims to be the foremost private investigations franchise specializing in fraudulent insurance claims. According to the company, L&W investigators are highly trained specialists equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance technologies and other advanced systems to provide second-to-none results and service. That includes online case status reports, video delivery by digital download or CD, DVD or VHS tape, rush services at no extra charge and much more.
However, at least one franchisee posting on Rip-Off Report believes that L&W Investigations, Inc. aka Lyons & Wolivar is the one that should be investigated, claiming:
I and a lot of other people around the U.S. purchased franchises for ‘L&W Investigations’ (formerly known as ‘Lyons & Wolivar Investigations’ based in CA and now) currently out of Westborough, MA. We are currently involved in a legal dispute with them as a joint group of franchisees claiming they committed misrepresentation and fraud.
My decision to purchase (my second franchise) was based on a year and a half search of current, new start up and franchised businesses. I decided on the L&W franchise as I believed it to be unique, related to my own personal experience, somewhat easy to operate from home and primarily because of what I was told by L&W owners and personnel…
…I based a lot of my decision to get involved in this franchise on the representations and information supplied by the franchisor. The three main owners at that time, Neal Lyons, Stuart Larimer and Scott Crowell all gave adequate (and apparently rehearsed) answers to any questions I or my wife asked.
The list of some thirty questions that I asked them in our final meeting before deciding to get involved answered everything I needed to know about their franchise. But again, I was given misinformation and lied to.
A main question I asked the franchisor (with my wife in the room as a witness at the time) was there any former/pending or on-going litigation/arbitrations/disputes I needed to know about? Their answer, ‘No’. This was a lie, because I later found out that they had, in fact, been in arbitration with at least one other franchisee and were in dispute with at least two or three other franchisees that were threatening to sue them at the time I was performing my due diligence. If I had received a truthful answer then I would not have bought an L&W franchise to begin with. Unfortunately, I believe that the franchise agreement/UFOC and franchise law would protect me. It didn’t. Apparently, I found out after that franchisor’s do not have to disclose arbitration/lawsuits etc. if they determine it is not warranted.
I was given financial information that was not accurate, told other branches were making serious profit, that top-notch former FBI agents would provide initial and on-going training/support, that the franchisor had multiple major national accounts and were adding new ones everyday and that they were somehow different from all the other investigative firms in the industry because of their unique ‘reports’ and ‘processes’. Some of this was misrepresntation but a lot was out and out dishonesty.
To date I know of more than a dozen franchisees whom some have spent their entire life savings in purchasing an L&W franchise that have gone broke, lost their homes, faced divorces, and have severe life threatening health problems due to these lies and misrepresentations by L&W and its owners and employees…
I am writing this to let people know that they need to do their own investigation of this company before getting involved with them. And most importantly, do not to believe anything that the owners or employees tell you. If you want the truth, ask around first, talk to all of their current and former franchisees and you’ll see what I mean.
WHAT DO YOU THINK? ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE LYONS & WOLIVAR INVESTIGATIONS / L&W INVESTIGATIONS FRANCHISE? SHARE YOUR INSIGHT BELOW.
Unhappy Franchisee: Franchising rumors, rants, controversies, issues, complaints & insider information you’re not supposed to know.
Unbiased franchise information, franchise interviews and detailed, searchable information on 400 franchise and business opportunities.
.
Franchisees, customers & experts vote for their favorite new franchises at Top New Franchise: Who’s hot. Who’s not.
Uh, really.
You based your entire decision on this one question?
Highly unlikely – stop making it worse for your next attorney.
Michael:
One question? He said he had a list of thirty questions:
The list of some thirty questions that I asked them in our final meeting before deciding to get involved answered everything I needed to know about their franchise. But again, I was given misinformation and lied to.
A close family member of mine was a fraud investigator with a company similar to this. These companies use deception to discredit insurance claims on a regular basis – sometimes justifiably, sometimes not. Why follow someone around for a week, hoping to get incriminating footage when you can put a 40 lb. bag of potatoes on their car hood, then film them taking it off when they come out of the supermarket? You’re done in an hour, bill the client for two days and everyone’s ahead of the game (except the poor dude whose claim was dismissed for free potatoes). They routinely deliver bogus packages or call under bogus premises to verify identities.
They deceive people for a living all day long. It’s not hard to believe that they might stretch the truth in the franchise sales process. I know after a while in that business it’s hard to remember what the truth is.
You are finding out the hard way that fraud in franchising is not defined under the law and that law enforcement ignores reports of franchise fraud and defers to federal regulatory policy and state public policy that subsidizes franchiSORS and protects franchisors from charges of fraud in the inducement to contract in arbitration and in the courts.
Franchisors are governed by the FTC Rule that requires franchisors to make certain disclosures before they can sell their franchises within the states, and the state disclosure documents must be in compliance with the Federal FTC Rule. THERE IS NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION under the FTC Rule for a violation of the disclosure laws and this is a statement of the public policy and the “will” of the Congress concerning the regulation of franchising.
Apparently, franchisors can experiment and sell their franchises at any degree of risk of failure or lack of profitability, etc.. as long as they are compliant with the FTC Rule concerning disclosure. They can do this out of view of the public who buy franchises and out of view of the regulators because franchisors, themselves, are not required to disclose UNIT performance statistics in their possession to new buyers of their franchises under the current FTC Rule.
The reality is that public policy deems that franchisors stimulate local economies and feed the economy and government revenues and that they must be protected from those franchisees who fail. The powers that be rationalize that, for instance, if 40%, or even more, of franchisees fail, the 60% who stand in the economy must not be destroyed by the 40% who fail. Entire franchise systems could be destroyed if franchisors could be found guilty of fraudulent inducement to contract and franchisees were made whole by judgements of the law. Public policy has deemed that this would not serve the “greater good” of the country. Franchising, as a business model, helps to overcome the harsh and known government statistics concerning the failure rate of startup small businesses and franchisees, under regulation, are merely resources to help the franchisors overcome these odds.
When franchisors violate disclosure law, it appears to be a matter for the Federal/State Regulator to decide and there is generally still “no private right of action” for the injured party who may receive some compensation by way of a rescission that is negotiated by the State with the offender. Rescissions are carefully negotiated so as not to destroy entire franchise networks. In your case, the statute of limitations has probably made your state complaint “moot” Ask your lawyer!
It would seem that a lot of the fraud could be stopped if franchisors were mandated to disclose unit performance statistics in their possession to new buyers. But, apparently such disclosure would reveal the high rate of failure in some systems and the low profitability for franchisees in some systems and this would inhibit franchising and therefore not serve the public good?
Your lawyers know all of this and if they have spent $l,000,000 of their own money to try to prosecute your cause, they must think that there is a deep pocket some place and that they can circumvent the public policy that generally protects the franchisors —or maybe they are pulling your leg! — because your pocket is empty.
Do some research on Google on the public comments to the FTC by Robert Purvin of the AAFD and Susan Kezios, President of the American Franchisee Association, and the comments of the SBA Advocacy to the FTC, and understand that the present status quo of franchise regulation was criticized on record over ten years ago by franshiSEE advocates but that nothing has been done —because franchisee prospects don’t know and they think that mandated disclosure protects THEM and they don’t understand that the disclosure really protects the franchisor and the public policy of the Congress and the FTC.
Good Luck. We learned the hard way in a The UPS Store investment. They are still selling new UPS Stores out there without disclosing the material risk of the investment to the new buyers and with immunity and impunity under the current regulation of franchising.
Carol
Rod:
Feel free to email me the document at unhappyfranchisee[at]gmail.com so I can post it. Two miles of text is not only hard to read, it kills the purpose of a comment section: Dialogue.
Also, it’s probably not the best day to be posting excerpts from Robert Purvin’s book. A case could be made that Purvin’s AAFD helps perpetuate fraud by selling awards and phony credibility to companies like Cuppy’s Coffee. Take a look at today’s post about Purvin’s suspension of Cuppy’s – He waits ’til the alleged crooks leave and then slams the guy trying to clean up the mess – because he won’t pay the piper.
Franchise Times (08) recently published a feature on L&W. I think it important at this point in time that anyone with issues contact Franchise Times with their story. I may follow up with my specifics after I discuss with my attorney.
L&W worked to get an article in The Franchise Times, to appear respectable to the Industry. The IFA and those who surround the IFA defend franchisors who are selling questionable franchises with high failure rates to the public because they feel safe in the arms of the FTC Rule and the State FDD’s.
I recently read a report on the Bad Bureau Rip Off Site about L&W, as well.
Hopefully, prospective franchisees of L&W will find these negative comments before they put their signature to that malicious legal trap, the standard franchise agreement.
I wonder if the FTC knew how they would be enabling what sure looks like common law fraud when they promulgated The FTC Rule in the late 70’s to protect franchisors from common law fraud charges in the state courts.
Carol
I was advised by our attorneys to stop posting my Victim/Witness Statement on the internet. Therefore, I won’t include the sworn statements from Wolivar, Hahn and Norman after all.
However, any potential franchisee, performing their due diligence, should feel free to contact me.
I understand, Rod. Let’s hope that silence is golden for your attorneys and you, although I was really looking forward to reading those sworn statements from Wolivar, Hahn and Norman.
I admire your guts and fighting spirit that is truly in order from what I have read.
I see where L&W are in the British and American Virgin Islands and the UK Virgin Islands, and Vietnam?? can this be true? L&W advertises that their franchise is “lucrative” on the Internet.
I guess you know what that means! Don’t take any collect calls from any of those prospective franchisees doing their due diligence!
Good Luck to your attorneys and to you!
Carol
What a wonderful inside look at “protected fraud” in the franchise industry —You are one courageous man to share this with us out on the Internet on Franchise Pick. I hope the “powers that be” behind the scene don’t try to put Sean Kelly out of business. Thank you, Rod! for guts and courage and perseverance!
Do I have your permission to use your experience with L&W and your inability to get the attention of any law enforcement people when you tried to make your compaint, when I write my Posts on the Internet.
I can’t believe that law enforcement, especially the FBI, wouldn’t have some obligation to investigate this matter — especially when they were provided with these sworn statements. You would think they, at least, would pick up the telephone and call the FTC or the State Attorney General or the US District Attorneys.
Have you provided your statement to the Congress?
I understand how frustrating this must have been for you –especially since you spent the productive part of your life in the service of the law and order in Las Vegas, Nevada.
As a police officer with 23 years of honorable service, you were horrified that “process” was used against you and that no law enforcement agency would take your complaint. You believe in due process of law and couldn’t believe that this process was perverted to protect the bad guys and that you, the good guy, couldn’t even get anyone to take your complaint.
This attorney no doubt knew that the courts are aware that once a franchise agreement is signed, the franchisor has almost absolute protection against any complaint of common law fraud from citizens of the State. Attorneys are trained in the artful use of law and process to serve their clients —who pay them very well to use law and process to do ugly things.
Thank you so much for trying to expose this to the public, who would not abide the use of our laws to perpetuate the fraud in franchising that is demonstrated in your case, in my opinion, and in much of franchising as it exists today.
This attorney misjudged you! He thought the letter, the restraining order, the threat to sue you and the $10,000.00 would scare the hell out of you, and silence you!
The Internet and free speech will make it harder for franchisors to silence and intimidate their franchisees in the future —thanks to people like you, Rod! We too, who came out of the Regular Army and government service were shocked and appalled that the law could be so perverted in defense of immoral public policy that the IFA and the other special interests have convinced the Congress is necessary to serve the public good.
Rod:
Does your wife know you’re posting here?
;)
Apparently, Ron! the checks and balances intended to protect the people are not working for franchisee prospects, who are just “meat to eat” under the current status quo of the law and the FTC Rule.
The Judiciary Committees in the House and the Senate know what is going on!
Until we, as destroyed franchisees, understand and recognize the “constructive fraud” of a deceiving and ineffective government disclosure document and a binding and adhesory franchise agreement that are packaged together in the sales process, we keep looking for relief in the law. Our sense of justice is outraged when we realize you have been “tricked” by the system.
When the three branches of government cooperate to protect public policy as promulgated by our elected officials, the rule of law is the servant of the public policy that is influenced by the special interests, who gain from the “public policy.”
I think attorneys have tried to use RICO against franchisors but haven’t been successful becasuse apparently the FTC Rule together with the definition of “legal fraud” protects franchisors against RICO charges as well.
I read where the franchisors sometimes tried to use the RICO statutes against franchisees who would organize against them –as a warning and a threat. The franchisors have all of the power and the resources and immediate access to the courts when they want to destroy franchisees. This is by design.
We have thirty years of case law built up that protects the franchisors, and with every year that goes by, they feel more enabled and powerful because they are free to commit common law fraud with immunity under the law. The definition of “legal fraud” is expanded in case law and even our Supreme Court comes down on the side of the franchisors.
The FBI and local law enforcement apparently have no authority under the law to interfer with federal regulatory policy. This policy has been a demonstrated in the thirty years of case law concerning franchising that has been developed since the FTC used its power to take franchisors out from under the common law fraud statutes of the states.
The FTC Rule, in effect, implies that there is no fraudulent inducement to contract or material concealment unless the FTC Rule is violated.
When the FTC Rule is violated, there is no private right of action under a State Statute.
If you use the State Statute, you cannot use the violations of the FTC Rule/State FDD in the prosecution of your claims. You cannot recover your losses, as a franchisee, unless you can prove fraudulent inducement or concealment is proximate to your loss, etc…
Catch 22!
Apparently, franchisors can indulge in malicious use of process and be protected by the FTC Rule and their signed contracts — and the FBI and local law enforcement ignore it because this is the intent of the FTC Rule and public policy.
How disgusting that they could defraud you out of $70,000 and then freely misuse process to get another $11,000 and threaten you with the law that they so freely break in pursuit of their profits.
We have only the Internet and our voices to try to expose this to the public and to our elected officials who so often don’t understand the effect of the regulatory rules that are passed by the Executive.
Remember! Slavery was legal and strike breaking was legal and child labor was legal and employee exploitation was legal under our laws until the consciousness of the people was raised in protest and the laws were changed.
Carol
In your search for justice, you found out that most attorneys have very little respect for the “spirit of the law.” Attorneys use the “law” as product to sell to the highest bidders and are always working for themselves, and their clients, probably in that order, while protecting themselves under the letter of the law.
The lawyer doesn’t commit purjury if he uses sworn statements, affidavits, or depositions that he, of course, doesn’t have to know are purjured when he addresses the court. I’m afraid they do this much of the time knowing that their clients are never going to admit that they purjured themselves.
In my opinion, this was malicious use of process to silence you! He was paid to silence you and he used law and process to achieve his ends. The judge found his request for a restraining order and the sworn statements to be in order and granted the restraining order. The Judge probably never looked at YOUR statement that should be part of the PUBLIC record in his court.
It was so easy to put a lien on your house; and they knew that this would frighten your wife and they knew that you had MS and that this would push you to the wall.
Uncle Sam protects franchisors and has redefined common law fraud on their behalf in the effort to encourage franchisors to start businesses and stimulate the economy. They had to redefine common law fraud in terms of the FTC Rule to do this. You are trying to take on public policy and an ugly status quo.
Most of this bad stuff is hidden because of mandated arbitration in which the franchisor maintains his superior position because of the contract the franchisee has signed. Bob Baber, of Quiznos, who shot himself two years ago, come Nov. 27th, was driven to the wall.
At least, Rod, you are trying to shine some light on this sad state of affairs, and I imagine L&W, even now, are trying to figure out how to silence you. Their ususal tactics haven’t worked. You are still like Rooster —-you have fight left. You have the Internet.
Rod! You are not just fighting L&W. You are fighting the BIG Industry of Franchising that depends on tricking good faith Mom and Pop franchisees into parting with their hard earned savings to finance the franchisor’s venture into the econmy.
I admire you and I hope that your story will save others and perhaps even make law enforcement look at this ugly regulatory policy that permits and/or encourages common law fraud and much pain and suffering in the ranks of the people.
Carol
.
Yes! when some franchisors know they have a license to lie, cheat, and steal with apparent immunity under our laws, this is what they do.
There are always members of the BAR standing by to help them at $350.00 an hour, and up. How obscene!
When the Federal Government decided to redefine the crime of fraud as a special favor to the franchisors, did they know that they would be creating monsters and Sgt. Stainbutts, and encouraging fraud in the industry.
It just galls me that the SBA backs this kind
thievery and that the banks and lenders were not doing any due diligence on the franchisors and making “business” loans on home equities with no investigation of the risk —because the collateral was so good. Sharon’s good credit rating got her into trouble.
Because “the powers that be” determined that franchising couldn’t stand if the truth of the risk was disclosed by the franchisor to a new buyer, and because the “powers that be” determined that franchisees who failed could not be allowed to take down the franchisor and the franchisees who succeeded, the law was perverted, in my opinion, to attain the goal of stimulating the economy and providing “new” job numbers. This was done at the expense of tricking prospective buyers of franchises into signing away their due process rights and sending them into arbitration where federal regulatory policy would be upheld by the arbitrators.
Your story, Rod, demonstrates the process by which franchisors, who are so inclined, do lie, cheat, and steal, knowing that mandated arbitration and blocked franchisee access to the courts and their boilerplate contracts wrapped in multiple pages of government disclosure will protect them.
Happy that Sharon worked through her losses and I’m sure that she told the truth to any franchisee prospects who contacted her.
Did you know, Rod, that in the FTC Guide Book Franchisees, they warned that franchisors sometimes buy good references from franchisees to hook the new buyers but this apparently is not fraud or against the law.
Carol
Ron –You were so convinced because of your police training that you were looking at common law felony fraud —and wanted to get your money back for yourself and the other two franchisees. You just couldn’t believe that they could get away with selling “territories” that had no value through the mispresentation of the value in the sales process, and by using retired FBI agents as shills, and faking investigations through the use of family members.
You couldn’t have known that the Federal Government, the FTC, used its power under the Commerce Act to take the franchisors out from under the jurisdiction of State laws governing common law fraud for the purpose of protecting them from claims of fraudulent inducement to contract from failed franchisees – who would not get true disclosure of the risks involved in the sales process or in the mandated government disclosure document, the UFOC/FDD.
You played “tough cop” in an effort to negotiate a settlement with them, but they knew that they had your signature on the contract, and that they were protected by their airtight contract under federal regulatory policy. They believe that they will win in any arbitration because the arbitrators uphold federal regulatory policy. (Look at the Coffee Beanery Case)
Franchisors have immediate access to the courts to “terminaste” franchisees and are sure of their power in the courts to legally appropriate the assets of their failed franchisees, whenever they are inclined to do so. The franchisors are encouraged by the state of the law to experiment with the money and the cheap labor provided by franchisees to grow their systems and maximize their profits.
Obviously, the two retired FBI agents knew it looked like fraud and wanted to get out from under, but it is hard to understand why the FBI didn’t ask the FTC Investigators to take a look at your case, and the sworn statements of the retired FBI agents. Apparently, when franchisors get “small” amounts like $100,000 from franchisees, this is not big time theft, and rationalized as “serving the public good” if the franchisor can stand up some units in the economy, as has L&W. 50 x $100,000 and royalties as well aint bad! Who says “crime doesn’t pay?”
So much for the rule of law. Hang in there and know that your warning will help others. At least the franchisors can’t appropriate our First Amendment Rights and silence us on the Internet.
Carol
I would like to make this formal apology to L&W Investigations, Inc. Recently there had been a rather large post regarding this company, its practices, and possible fraudulent acts upon franchisees both past and present. This post was created and maintained by a former franchise owner, who, by use of his own one sided methods and opinions, set out to defame L&W Investigations, Inc for his own personal gain. Within this post were a few damaging and unfair statements which were directed towards L&W Investigations, Inc – the company, its staff, and CEO. Statements which were meant to remain between myself and the above mentioned former franchise owner, but were then modified to fit the needs of the poster and his attack on the company. L&W Investigations, Inc is a growing, reputable company providing superior service and practices to the Insurance Fraud industry. They build and cultivate professional relationships with their clients, and stand by their work in the field of fraud investigations.
My sincerest apologies to Neal Lyons, Scott Crowell, Vincent Famador, and Edward Fidler of L&W Investigations, Inc Corporate Office for any damages or decrease in productivity that this post and slanderous, unfair statements contained within, may have caused.
Regards,
DH
And just who are you, DH? And whose fish are you frying? Are you a current and very successful franchisee of L&W or what?
The former franchise owner you are talking about did post comments and offiocial statements on Fanchise Pick to substantiate his free speech rights to complain that he was defrauded and that no official law enforcement agency would take, let alone investigate, his complaint.
This is “especially” a matter of public interest because the former complaining franchisee was an honorable member of law enforcement for over 23 years, until he was forced into retirement by MS. He and former FBI law enforcement officers, who gave statements, believed that there had been incidents that indicated that fraudulent misrepresentations may have been made to by L&W Their sworn statements appeared on this site and then were removed.
L&W had ample opportunity to disprove and to counter the complaints and statements on this free speech site but instead they chose to file a SLAPP suit against this former franchisee to frighten him and silence him and to gain an unfair advantage.
The owner of this site, Sean Kelly, was then in the position of feeling that he had to remove the comments from this site “Franchise Pick” because he couldn’t afford to be involved in a SLAPP lawsuit.
I would suggest that Sean remove your apology that appears to be a sincere effort to smear the franchisee who posted on this site, but I recognize that you have a right to free speech and to apologize to whomever you like on this “free speech” site.
The franchisors are upset that the Internet sites like Franchise Pick, Blue Mau Mau, Franchise Chat, and others are being used to bring a voice to franchisees who feel that they are being defrauded under the status quo of law and the regulation of the industry of franchising and who want to warn others as a public service.
Regards!
Carol
Carol:
I’m inclined to cut DH some slack on this one. The wording “I would like to make this formal apology…” smacks of an apology made under duress and threat of legal action. I read lots of them on the Cuppy’s complaints on rip-off report and it has a familiar ring. Odds are the wording was supplied to DH. My guess is that he’s a former employee who would like nothing more than to ring in the new year with L&W being a distant memory. Let’s hope he’s off the hook with this apology.
The line This post was created and maintained by a former franchise owner, who… set out to defame L&W Investigations, Inc for his own personal gain… is indeed unfortunate as this failed franchisee, IMHO, is far from being in the vicinity of “personal gain.” I don’t think personal gain is in the cards for said franchisee.
As much as it appeared that this franchisee had some valid complaints, and as unfortunate as his situation was, he brought some of this on himself. He posted private emails sent in confidence by DH in public. He did the same to me, except that he changed wording and mischaracterized assertions and opinions with little regard for accuracy. His wife, attorney and blog-host (me) tried to reason with him but he was hellbent on making things easy for his adversaries.
Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor… Hopefully the franchisee has learned that.
And hopefully the franchisor will realize that addressing franchisee concerns early on, honestly and fairly, is more advantageous and cheaper than damage control and $400 an hour attorneys. The next guy might not be such a loose cannon.
Sometimes the loose cannons fire right on target — a bullseye.
And, of course we are always afraid of law suits because we are told that they are “crap shoots” and that your case is only as good as your lawyer —- and that those with the greater financial resources will defeat you through the use of law and process and procedure. I don’t fault DH for trying to duck a lawsuit.
I believe, however, that the L&W franchisee had the courage of his convictions and was angry because the “law” had already been used against him to try to silence him, and because he was a servant of the law for so many years, this was especially repugnant to him. Any time a court puts a lien on your house to get his legal services paid for, this is a declaration of war and the only gun he had with which to fight back was the gun of “free speech.”
You know, I’m sure that the ABA had a special session in their Franchise Law Seminar to discuss the use of SLAPP suits to silence franchisees on the Internet who may be warning off prospective buyers of franchises. They are looking for a way to silence franchisees and not run afoul of the anti-SLAPP legislation passed in states like California.
I know it is necessary for you to retain your neutrality and to allow discussion from both sides of the dispute but of course the franchisors want no discussions at all on the Internet, and prefer to let the Arbitrators settle these matters. These matters, then, more often than not are settled by arbitrators who are perfectly aware of the intent and purpose of the FTC Rule and who probably never find that the franchisor is guilty of fraud. It would be interesting to know whether a franchisor has ever been found guilty of fraudulent inducement/fraudulent cealment by an arbitrator in the almost 30 years since the FTC was promulgated under the guise of protecting the purchasers of franchises and disclosing the risk to them.
The Supreme Court has rulled that the Federal Arbitration Act is supreme and that it is the arbitrators who have the responsibility under the law to determe whether or not there is a fraudulent inducement to contract when arbitration is a mandated term of the binding non-negotiable contract, and the arbitration agreement is constitutional (whatever this means!)
The malicious trap of the franchise agreement is tightened even more in support of federal regulatory policy but the courts can’t keep the class actions and the mass actions from coming into the courts for final disposition because there has to be an appearance that franchisees have an access to justice under the current status quo of regulation and the law surrounding franchising.
Thnk you Sean Kelly from not barring my computer from your site and allowing me to tell my truth to the franchisees who post and read on Franchise Pick.
I’m happy, Sean, that you aren’t an attorney and that I don’t offend you or interfer with your goal which appears to be to try to save prospects from bad franchises and direct them to franchises where there do have an opportunity, perhaps, to get a good job and profits as well. I have faith that you would not market a bad franchisor with high failure rates of first generation franchisees and low profitability or no profitability for a large percentage of the system.
Thank you!
I have faith that you would not market a bad franchisor with high failure rates of first generation franchisees and low profitability or no profitability for a large percentage of the system.
I would not and have not. That’s the good news, Carol. I’ve been able to work in this industry for 20 years and have not had trouble finding plenty of franchisors who were honestly seeking to succeed via win-win relationships.
I’ve written 100+ franchise brochures and have never included illegal earnings claims or promises of success.
That’s why I object to the broad brush with which you paint all franchisors. The rules are definitely one-sided, but many don’t abuse it. The ones who do should be outed and held accountable.
I believe, however, that the L&W franchisee had the courage of his convictions and was angry because the “law” had already been used against him to try to silence him…
I think there’s a difference between “rage” and “courage.” The franchisee violated the trust that others put in him by posting private correspondence without permission. He disregarded his wife’s and attorney’s pleas. In the end, I believe his approach will prove ineffective as well as selfish.
…this is a declaration of war and the only gun he had with which to fight back was the gun of “free speech.”
I sure hope that’s true.
DATELINE: WESTBOROUGH, MA…Neal Lyons, CEO of LWI, Inc. aka Lyons & Wolivar and L & W Investigations, Inc. is facing numerous lawsuits filed in multiple states. Neal Lyons, Anne Lyons, Scott Crowell, Mark Green and Stuart Larimer are named in these suits.
It is currently reported that there are at least three plaintiff’s in California, Two plaintiffs in Nevada and several more in the works across the nation according to sources close to the struggling franchise.
On March 19, 2009, California Plaintiff’s S. Butler, S. Hale, R. Unz and Northern California Investigative Services, LLC.
Filed a Breach of Contract lawsuit.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE. Case number 30-2009-00120252-CU-BC-CJC.
Original filings may be viewed at https://ocapps.occourts.org/CivilPubv2/Login.do
And searched by case number or parties by name.
On March 26, 2009, Nevada Plaintiff’s D. Walker and WN Holdings, LLC. Filed similar charges in the DISTRICT COURT OF CLARK COUNTY NEVADA.
Case number 09-A-583714. Original filings may be viewed at:
http://courtgate.coca.co.clark.nv.us/DistrictCourt/asp/CaseNo.asp
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Neal Lyons, LWI, Inc. (508) 616-9370, neall@lwinvestigations.com
Lyons & Wolivar, Inc. DISSOLVED! LWI, Inc. emerges as Neal Lyons seeks refuge under the Nevada Corporations Code as it is now facing numerous lawsuits from across the nation!
DATELINE: WESTBOROUGH, MA…Neal R. Lyons, CEO of LWI, Inc. aka Lyons & Wolivar and L & W Investigations has dissolved its 2002 parent California Corporation.
On January 21, 2009, Lyons & Wolivar, Inc. was “merged out” as a California Corporation and is now identified as LWI, Inc. a Nevada Corporation.
It is currently reported that there are three plaintiffs in California, Two plaintiffs in Nevada and several more in the works to be filed next week from across the nation according to sources close to the franchise. Neal Lyons, Anne Lyons, Scott Crowell, Mark Green and Stuart Larimer are named in these suits.
On March 19, 2009, California Plaintiff’s S. Butler, S. Hale, R. Unz and Northern California Investigative Services, LLC.
Filed a Breach of Contract lawsuit alleging the following;
1. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE INVESTMENT LAW;
2. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE INVESTMENT LAW;
3. INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION;
4. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION;
5. FALSE PROMISE;
6. FRAUDULENT SUPPRESSION OF FACT;
7. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES;
8. BREACH OF CONTRACT;
9. BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
10. UNJUST ENRICHMENT
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE. Case number 30-2009-00120252-CU-BC-CJC.
Original filings may be viewed at https://ocapps.occourts.org/CivilPubv2/Login.do
And searched by case number or parties by name.
On March 26, 2009, Nevada Plaintiff’s D. Walker and WN Holdings, LLC. Filed similar charges in the DISTRICT COURT OF CLARK COUNTY NEVADA.
Case number 09-A-583714. Original filings may be viewed at:
http://courtgate.coca.co.clark.nv.us/DistrictCourt/asp/CaseNo.asp
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Neal Lyons, LWI, Inc. (508) 616-9370, neall@lwinvestigations.com
L&W Investigations, Lyons & Wolivar, LWI, Inc. SUED by Virginia Franchisee!
Neal Lyons is now facing numerous lawsuits from across the nation!
DATELINE: WESTBOROUGH, MA…Neal R. Lyons, CEO of LWI, Inc. aka Lyons & Wolivar and L&W Investigations is facing another lawsuit from an unhappy Franchisee out of Virginia.
On April 8, 2009, Virginia Plaintiff M. Giere and MCG Enterprises, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF FAIRFAX VIRGINIA.
Case number 2009-05161 citing the following;
1. VIOLATION OF VIRGINIA RETAIL FRANCHISING ACT;
2. FRAUD;
3. FRAUDULENT SUPPRESSION OF FACT;
4. UNLAWFUL OFFERS;
5. FALSE PROMISE;
6. PROHIBITED PRACTICES;
7. BREACH OF CONTRACT;
9. UNJUST ENRICHMENT.
L&W Investigations, Lyons & Wolivar, LWI, Inc. are also facing three plaintiff’s in California, Two plaintiffs in Nevada, One Plaintiff in Utah and several more in the works from across the nation according to sources close to the struggling franchise. Neal Lyons, Anne Lyons, Scott Crowell, Mark Green and Stuart Larimer are named in these suits.
BUYER BEWARE!
“DUE YOUR DUE DILIGENCE”
http://www.lwinvestigations.wordpress.com
We can see that Mr. Lyons is very comfortable in his legal position and it was nice of him to make sure that the lawsuits against him appear on the Franchise Pick Site. He is, of course, innocent until found guilty.
Apparently, because there are 24,000 Search Results under L&W Franchise, and only one or two of them are negative, Mr. Lyons is very comfortable in reporting the lawsuits against him and his recent move to Nevada on Franchise Pick. The law of averages provides that only a few of the investigating prospective franchisees will find the negative comments in their due diligence searches among 23,998 POSITIVE press releases and articles about L&W that are now on the Internet and that are permitted and protected under the FTC Rule.
It can never be said that Mr. Lyons is trying to hide his track record as far as lawsuits are concerned, and I’m sure he intends to use his “transparency” to his advantage in these lawsuits.
People like Mr. Lyons have been what has made franchising so successful these past thirty years!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Neal Lyons, LWI, Inc. (508) 616-9370, neall@lwinvestigations.com
L&W INVESTIGATIONS, LYONS & WOLIVAR, LWI, INC.
DENIED ABILITY TO SELL FRANCHISES IN CALIFORNIA!
DATELINE: WESTBOROUGH, MA…Neal R. Lyons, CEO of LWI, Inc. aka Lyons & Wolivar and L & W Investigations was DENIED the legal authorization to market any franchise offering within the State Of California. California Department of Corporations has DENIED Lyons renewal application indefinitely due to their extremely poor financial condition.
For more information, please contact the California Department of Corporations directly at 866-275-2677.
Lyons is also facing catastrophic lawsuits from victim Franchisee’s across North America. Neal Lyons continues his attempt to Market Franchises to the Trusting and Ill-informed Consumer.
On April 10, 2009, Utah Plaintiff B. Sampson filed a lawsuit in the
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT, WASHINGTON COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH.
Citing the following;
1. BREACH OF CONTRACT;
2. UNJUST ENRICHMENT;
3. BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING;
4. FRAUD.
On April 8, 2009, Virginia Plaintiff M. Giere and MCG Enterprises, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF FAIRFAX VIRGINIA.
Case number 2009-05161 citing the following;
1. VIOLATION OF VIRGINIA RETAIL FRANCHISING ACT;
2. FRAUD;
3. FRAUDULENT SUPPRESSION OF FACT;
4. UNLAWFUL OFFERS;
5. FALSE PROMISE;
6. PROHIBITED PRACTICES;
7. BREACH OF CONTRACT;
9. UNJUST ENRICHMENT.
On March 19, 2009, California Plaintiff’s S. Butler, S. Hale, R. Unz and Northern California Investigative Services, LLC.
Filed a Breach of Contract lawsuit alleging the following;
1. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE INVESTMENT LAW;
2. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE INVESTMENT LAW;
3. INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION;
4. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION;
5. FALSE PROMISE;
6. FRAUDULENT SUPPRESSION OF FACT;
7. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES;
8. BREACH OF CONTRACT;
9. BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
10. UNJUST ENRICHMENT
On March 26, 2009, Nevada Plaintiff’s D. Walker and WN Holdings, LLC. Filed similar charges in the DISTRICT COURT OF CLARK COUNTY NEVADA.
Case number 09-A-583714. Original filings may be viewed at:
http://courtgate.coca.co.clark.nv.us/DistrictCourt/asp/CaseNo.asp
Neal Lyons, President / Treasurer, Anne Lyons, Secretary / Director,
Scott Crowell, Director, Mark Green, Director and Stuart Larimer are named in these suits.
For the most up to date comprehensive information, contact each independent franchise owner directly. BUYER BEWARE! “DUE YOUR DUE DILIGENCE”
Apparently, this June 1st Press Release by NRL (Neil Lyons) is a legal means of protecting the franchisor and permitting him to continue to legally sell franchises in the other States and localities where the sale of this franchise has NOT been barred by the action of the State regulators?
Hopefully, all prospective buyers of this franchise find the negative comments and Press Releases among the thousands of positive Press Releases and Comments about L&W Franchise.
If I remember correctly, this particular franchise opportunity was conceived around a dinner table and two retired FBI officers were original members of its Board of Directors but jumped ship when they “smelled” fraud in the air.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Neal Lyons, LWI, Inc. (508) 616-9370, neall@lwinvestigations.com
L&W INVESTIGATIONS, LYONS & WOLIVAR, LWI, INC. SUED IN FEDERAL COURT BY IT’S OWN INSURANCE COMPANY FOR MISREPRESENTATION!
DATELINE: WESTBOROUGH, MA…Neal R. Lyons, CEO of LWI, Inc. aka Lyons & Wolivar and L & W Investigations was SUED in UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS by its own Errors & Emissions Insurance Company, NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY on June 5, 2009.
For more information, please contact the attorneys for the plaintiff directly:
Katherine L. Kenny, Esquire
BBO#637304
PEABODY & ARNOLD LLP
Federal Reserve Plaza
600 Atlantic Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
(617) 951-2100
(617) 951-2125 (facsimile)
Richard A. Simpson
WILEY REIN LLP
1776 k Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 719-7000
(202) 719-7049 (facsimile)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
__________________________________
NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY INSURANCE )
COMPANY, )
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Case No. 1:09-cv-10958
LYONS & WOLIVAR, INC., LWI, INC., )
NEAL LYONS, R. SCOTT CROWELL, )
STUART LARIMER, ANNE LYONS, )
MARK W. GREEN, STEVEN S. BUTLER, )
STEPHEN D. HALE, RICHARDSON )
BRADSHAW UNZ, NORTHERN )
CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIVE )
SERVICES, LLC, WN HOLDINGS, LLC, )
MICHAEL GIERE, MCG ENTERPRISES, )
INC., and BRETT SAMPSON, )
Defendants. )
______________________________________ )
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND
TO RESCIND CERTAIN INSURANCE POLICY
Navigators Specialty Insurance Company (“Navigators”), for its Complaint for
Declaratory Judgment and to Rescind Certain Insurance Policy, alleges on knowledge, information and belief as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Navigators files this action to obtain a judicial determination and declaration as to the parties’ rights and obligations under Miscellaneous Professional Liability Insurance Policy No. NY08MPL464728NC originally issued by Navigators to Lyons & Wolivar, Inc. (“Lyons & Wolivar” or the “Firm”) for the policy period April 1, 2008 to April 1, 2009 with the policy period later extended by endorsement to May 15, 2009 (the “Policy”). A true and correct copy of the Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2. An actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and now exists relating to the parties’ respective rights, duties and obligations under the Policy.
3. In particular, Navigators seeks a declaratory judgment (i) that Navigators is entitled to rescind the Policy because of material misrepresentations in the application for the Policy submitted by Lyons & Wolivar; (ii) that there is neither coverage for nor a duty to defend any insured against any claims tendered under the Policy, and in particular for claims asserted in connection with the Butler claim, the WN Holdings claim, the Giere claim and the Sampson matter noticed under the Policy as Claim Nos. MPL176456, MPL176740, MPL176965 and MPL177024, respectively; and (iii) that Navigators is entitled to recover amounts paid in settlement and defense costs in connection with claims tendered for coverage under the Policy.
PARTIES
4. Plaintiff Navigators is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York and its principal place of business in New York, New York. Navigators legally transacts insurance business in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and within the geographical jurisdiction of this Court.
5. Defendant Lyons & Wolivar is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of California, with its principal place of business at 112 Turnpike Road, Suite 301, Westborough, Massachusetts 01581. Lyons & Woliver merged into LWI, Inc. (“LWI”) on or about January 21, 2009.
6. Defendant LWI is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Nevada, with its principal place of business at 112 Turnpike Road, Suite 301, Westborough, Massachusetts 01581. (Cont)
Wow, Dodged a bullet there, Thanks
Hey, Sean!
“What goes around, comes around.”
I know you had to remove the comments of the retired Las Vegas Police Officer from Unhappy Franchisee (who was among the first to try to report that he was defrauded by L&W) because L&W filed a SLAPP suit against him) in California to try to silence him on the Internet, and you couldn’t afford to get involved.
But, hopefully, his warnings stayed on long enough for some others to be saved from losing so much, and you did retain my responses, which, hopefully offered some warning to prospective franchisees.
The warning of the retired police officer still remains on The Bad Bureau Rip Off Site because the owner won’t remove them but he does allow the corporation or the government entity to make a public rebuttal and correct the record, and apparently he wins the law suits filed against him because of our First Amendment Rights.
Let’s hope that California Law brings some justice to this matter. But, you know the ABA Forum has been working on how to shut down public comments on the Internet.
I believe California has some good anti-SLAPP laws and I am hoping this will mean good news for our retired police officer