I have a factual concern about the article: the article identifies the owners of the franchisor as “private equity firms.” If you understand the industry and study their websites, it appears that these three groups are more like family investment partnerships. They have not raised traditional private equity funds, apparently.  They are businesspeople.  Not private equity fund managers.  This looks more like a dispute between one set of business owners, and another set of business owners. Attaching the label “private equity” to this will surely generate some clicks, but doesn’t accurately describe this situation.

I have a factual concern about the article: the article identifies the owners of the franchisor as “private equity firms.” If you understand the industry and study their websites, it appears that these three groups are more like family investment partnerships. They have not raised traditional private equity funds, apparently.  They are businesspeople.  Not private equity fund managers.  This looks more like a dispute between one set of business owners, and another set of business owners. Attaching the label “private equity” to this will surely generate some clicks, but doesn’t accurately describe this situation.

user
no
assistant