What the Meritage Chapter 11 Teaches Restaurant Franchisees
One day after Wendy’s cut it loose, the operator of 314 Wendy’s-franchised restaurants filed for bankruptcy to keep its franchises alive.
温迪 (Wendy’s) 停止经营一天后，拥有 314 家温迪 (Wendy’s) 特许经营餐厅的经营者申请破产，以维持其特许经营权。
The case tests a question many distressed franchisees face: Can bankruptcy save a franchise the franchisor says is already gone?
此案考验了许多陷入困境的特许经营商面临的一个问题：破产能否挽救特许人所说已经消失的特许经营权？
Timing and venue are critical.
时间和地点至关重要。
Quality Is Our Recipe, LLC (“QIOR”), a Wendy’s subsidiary, notified Meritage Hospitality Group on Sept.
Wendy’s 子公司 Quality Is Our Recipe, LLC（“QIOR”）于 9 月 11 日通知 Meritage Hospitality Group。
16, 2026, that all its franchise agreements were terminated “effective immediately.” Meritage, which operates 314 franchised restaurants in 15 states, filed chapter 11 the next day in the Western District of Michigan to stay termination.
2026 年 12 月 16 日，其所有特许经营协议均“立即生效”终止。 Meritage 在 15 个州经营着 314 家特许经营餐厅，第二天，该公司向密歇根州西区提交了第 11 章申请，要求暂缓终止合同。
In re Meritage Hospitality Group Inc. , No. 26-02947 (Bankr.
关于 Meritage Hospitality Group Inc.，编号 26-02947（Bankr.
W.D.
W.D.
Mich.).
密歇根州。）。
QIOR claims roughly $146.9 million, including $119.5 million in “continuous operations fees.”
QIOR 索赔约 1.469 亿美元，其中包括 1.195 亿美元的“持续运营费用”。
On October 1, 2026, the debtors sued QIOR and Wendy’s seeking declaratory relief that the termination was ineffective, the franchise agreements are estate property and the automatic stay bars enforcement.
2026 年 10 月 1 日，债务人起诉 QIOR 和 Wendy's，寻求宣告性救济，称终止无效、特许经营协议属于遗产财产以及自动中止执行。
The dispute traces to an October 2025 payment-default notice and three forbearance letters, the last expiring August 18, 2026.
争议可追溯至 2025 年 10 月的一份拖欠付款通知和三封宽限信，最后一封宽限信于 2026 年 8 月 18 日到期。
QIOR’s emailed termination notice demanded more than $146 million by Oct.
截至 10 月 12 日，QIOR 通过电子邮件发出终止通知，要求赔偿超过 1.46 亿美元。
16, 2026, and tendered a short-term license agreement (“STLA”) through year-end.
2026 年 12 月 16 日，并提交了一份截至年底的短期许可协议（“STLA”）。
The debtors allege the termination failed because the agreements required physical (not email) notice; QIOR did not give lenders the required notice and cure opportunity under the consents to collateral assignment; cure periods restarted upon forbearance expiration; and the STLA and QIOR’s reserved purchase option presupposed a continuing relationship.
债务人声称终止失败是因为协议需要物理（而非电子邮件）通知； QIOR 没有在抵押品转让同意下向贷方提供所需的通知和补救机会；宽容期满后恢复期重新开始； STLA 和 QIOR 保留的购买选择权以持续的关系为前提。
The answer turns on timing.
答案在于时机。
A franchise agreement not fully terminated at filing becomes estate property under 11 U.S.C.
根据《美国法典》第 11 条，在提交申请时未完全终止的特许经营协议将成为遗产财产。
§ 541, and the automatic stay (§ 362(a)) bars termination without stay relief.
§ 541 和自动中止 (§ 362(a)) 禁止在没有中止救济的情况下终止。
See In re Welcome Group 2, LLC , 660 B.R.
请参阅有关 Welcome Group 2, LLC , 660 B.R.
874, 879 (Bankr.
874, 879（银行家。
S.D.
标准差
Ohio 2024); In re Mirant Corp.
俄亥俄州 2024）；关于米兰特公司
, 440 F.3d 238, 252–53 (5th Cir.
，440 F.3d 238, 252–53（第 5 环。
2006).
2006）。
Conversely, contracts that have expired or were validly terminated prior to bankruptcy leave the debtor “with nothing to assume or reject.” In re P.I.N.E., Inc. , 52 B.R.
相反，在破产前已过期或有效终止的合同使债务人“无法承担或拒绝任何东西”。关于 P.I.N.E., Inc., 52 B.R.
463, 465 (Bankr.
463、465（银行家。
W.D.
W.D.
Mich.
密歇根州。
1985).
1985）。
QIOR and Wendy’s respond that the agreements “have been terminated” and are not estate property.
QIOR 和 Wendy’s 回应称，这些协议“已终止”，并且不属于房地产。
Meritage argues that even a valid termination leaves residual interests, including the right to seek reinstatement.
Meritage 认为，即使是有效的终止，也会留下剩余利益，包括寻求恢复的权利。
Meritage’s fight turns on whether the Sept.
梅里蒂奇的战斗取决于九月是否。
16 notice completed the job or merely started a process interrupted by the stay.
16 通知已完成工作或仅启动了因停留而中断的流程。
The notice reserved QIOR’s options to buy equipment and take over leases, obligations Meritage calls “diametrically inconsistent” with a completed termination.
该通知保留了 QIOR 购买设备和接管租赁的选择权，Meritage 称这些义务与完全终止“完全不一致”。
The default notice set state-specific cure periods of 90, 60 and 30 days, later deferred by forbearance, inviting arguments that fresh notice was required.
默认通知将针对各州的治愈期设置为 90 天、60 天和 30 天，后来因宽容而推迟，引发了需要重新通知的争论。
The interim license offer arguably belies a clean break.
临时许可提议可以说掩盖了彻底的决裂。
And the lender-notice argument may prove decisive; QIOR admits the consent language but pleads compliance.
贷款人通知的论点可能被证明是决定性的。 QIOR 承认同意语言，但恳求遵守。
Notably, a bare right to terminate may not itself establish “cause” for stay relief under § 362(d)(1).
值得注意的是，单纯的终止权本身并不构成第 362(d)(1) 条规定的中止救济的“理由”。
See Mirant , 440 F.3d at 253.
参见 Mirant，440 F.3d，第 253 页。
Meritage operates as a debtor in possession, with a strategy of closing or selling underperforming stores, resolving the QIOR dispute, potential market sales and a recapitalization.
Meritage 作为占有债务人运营，其策略是关闭或出售业绩不佳的商店、解决 QIOR 纠纷、潜在市场销售和资本重组。
Its chief restructuring officer calls Wendy’s system access “indispensable to any viable restructuring.”
其首席重组官称温迪的系统访问“对于任何可行的重组都是不可或缺的”。
The interim cash collateral order requires closing at least 30 EBITDA-negative stores by Oct.
临时现金抵押订单要求在 10 月份之前关闭至少 30 家 EBITDA 为负值的商店。
16; termination of the Wendy’s agreements, or a finding that they were terminated, is a cash collateral default.
16；终止温迪协议或发现协议已终止，属于现金抵押品违约。
The franchise dispute is a tripwire on liquidity: a loss would simultaneously cost Meritage its brand and use of cash collateral.
特许经营权纠纷是流动性的绊脚石：损失将同时损害 Meritage 的品牌和现金抵押品的使用。
Consent rights.
同意权。
Section 365(f)(1) generally overrides anti-assignment clauses, but § 365(c)(1) bars assumption or assignment where “applicable law,’ which courts have held includes federal trademark law , excuses the counterparty from accepting performance from another.
第 365(f)(1) 条通常优先于反转让条款，但第 365(c)(1) 条禁止在“适用法律”（法院认为包括联邦商标法）免除交易对手接受另一方履行的情况下的假设或转让。
Applying the “hypothetical test,”that may block assumption alone even if there is no intention to assign, see In re Catapult Entm’t, Inc. , 165 F.3d 747 (9th Cir.
应用“假设测试”，即使无意分配，也可能单独阻止假设，请参阅 In re Catapult Entm’t, Inc., 165 F.3d 747 (9th Cir.
1999), the court in Kazi Foods of Mich., Inc. , 473 B.R.
1999），密歇根州 Kazi Foods, Inc. 法院，473 B.R.
887 (Bankr.
887（银行家。
E.D.
教育部
Mich.
密歇根州。
2011) so held for KFC franchisees.
2011）对肯德基特许经营商如此举行。
Welcome Group 2 instead adopted the “actual test” and permitted assumption by a Hilton franchisee.
Welcome Group 2 采用了“实际测试”和希尔顿特许经营商允许的假设。
The Sixth Circuit has not resolved the split.
第六巡回法院尚未解决分裂问题。
Ipso facto clauses.
依事实条款。
Section 365(e)(1) invalidates bankruptcy-triggered terminations but may offer little help where termination rests on payment defaults.
第 365(e)(1) 条使破产引发的终止无效，但在因付款违约而终止的情况下可能提供很少的帮助。
Cure and adequate assurance.
治愈并有足够的保证。
Under § 365(b)(1), assumption requires curing defaults (roughly $27.4 million by QIOR’s count) and adequate assurance of future performance.
根据 § 365(b)(1)，假设需要纠正违约行为（根据 QIOR 的统计，大约为 2,740 万美元）并对未来业绩提供充分保证。
Quality control.
质量控制。
Franchisors leverage system standards and reporting rights and may invoke the Lanham Act as “applicable law” against post-termination operation.
特许人利用系统标准和报告权，可以援引《拉纳姆法案》作为针对终止后运营的“适用法律”。
Penalty-like fees.
类似罚金的费用。
Termination-triggered fees such as continuous operations fees give franchisors incentive to lock in termination which may thwart a debtor’s ability to challenge them as penalties.
终止引发的费用（例如持续运营费）使特许人有动力锁定终止，这可能会阻碍债务人对其作为处罚提出质疑的能力。
Meritage shows that a single day can decide whether a debtor has hundreds of restaurants to reorganize or none at all.
绩效表明，一天之内就可以决定债务人是否有数百家餐厅需要重组，或者根本没有。
Franchisees who plan early keep that day on their side.
尽早计划的特许经营商会保留这一天。
Keith C.
基思·C.
Owens is a partner in the Financial Restructuring & Bankruptcy Department at Fox Rothschild.
欧文斯是福克斯·罗斯柴尔德金融重组与破产部门的合伙人。
He is a strategic ally for clients involved in bankruptcy proceedings, workouts and other insolvency matters, including receiverships and assignments for the benefit of creditors and creditors’ rights litigation.
他是参与破产程序、破产重整和其他破产事务（包括为债权人和债权诉讼而进行的接管和转让）的客户的战略盟友。
Keith can be reached at kowens@foxrothschild.com .
可以通过 kowens@foxrothschild.com 联系 Keith。