3 ms·

Surely you understand the difference in burden of proof is different between a compelling news article and a court of law. It’s entirely plausible that he acte

• MrBuddyCasino 7y ago
  He acquired restaurants personally of owners that were on his target list. This alone is a clear conflict of interest and if not legally, at least ethically very questionable. There is a source saying she was his "hit man". I'm sorry but this does not leave a lot of room for interpretation.
  • prostoalex 7y ago
    I, too, think there's a massive conflict in allowing the development agents and their inspectors to be simultaneously franchisees, but if this were to hit court, here's how his defense might play it out: 1) One man's "hit man" is another's "demand for rigorous quality standards". 2) Through years (decades?) of ownership, Mr. Patel has developed a keen sense of what constitutes a high-quality operation and a shop that's cutting corners on quality. His comments were just "suggestions" and "gut feeling" based on his experience being an operator. 3) While he ended up acquiring some of the restaurants, he didn't acquire all of the restaurants closing under his watch. Through his tremendous experience (see above), supplier connections and economies of scale peculiar to a large franchisee, he saw a potential to "clean up the act" under new management and keep the jobs in the community (insert a tear jerker story of some employee extremely happy about such outcome).