IBJNews

Federal court to hear Steak n Shake franchisee appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal appeals court on Wednesday is set to hear oral arguments in a case involving an Illinois franchisee of Steak n Shake that successfully sued the restaurant chain over its mandatory menu and pricing policies.

Stuller Inc. filed its lawsuit in November 2010 against the Indianapolis-based chain after it said the company and its parent, Biglari Holdings Inc., adopted a policy forcing franchisees to follow set menu and pricing options.

Steak n Shake sent default notices to several restaurant owners—including the chain’s original franchisee, Springfield-based Stuller, which opened its first restaurant in 1939.

Stuller, which operates five Steak n Shake restaurants in central Illinois, argued to a federal court that the new policy violated long-standing company practices allowing franchisees to set their own prices.

The federal court agreed, saying Steak n Shake cannot force Stuller to use its pricing policy nor take action against the franchise for setting its own prices.

Steak n Shake appealed the decision, which will be considered by the federal appeals court in Chicago.

In its argument, Stuller said that in 2008, after the franchise adopted Steak n Shake's pricing policy, it lost $538,446 due to the new pricing, and higher fuel and food costs.

The franchisee increased prices 10 percent to make up for the shortfall, despite Steak n Shake’s recommendation not to do so, according to court documents.

Steak n Shake argued that the 48 franchised restaurants that adopted the policy in 2009 increased sales an average of 7 percent and customers an average of nearly 10 percent.

The company maintained that no franchise went out of business because of the policy.

The pricing policy coincided with Sardar Biglari’s arrival as Steak n Shake CEO. He began buying company shares in 2007 and took over just a year later.

He slammed the brakes on new store construction, arguing that the chain’s restaurant prototype cost too much to build and that the expansion was hurting shareholder value.

He also revamped store operations and the menu, halting a 14-quarter streak of declining same-store sales. Since then, the chain has posted 17 straight quarterly increases in same-store sales.

Steak n Shake parent Biglari reported fiscal second-quarter earnings on Friday and posted a smaller profit of $4.5 million for the quarter ended April 13, compared with $5.6 million in the year-ago period.

Quarterly revenue grew 5 percent, to $221.7 million.

Steak n Shake’s same-store sales increased 4.8 percent on higher customer traffic. Profit for the Biglari subsidiary increased to $13 million from $9.5 million during the same period last year while revenue grew 5.2 percent, to $217.9 million.

Steak n Shake operates 493 restaurants, including 79 that are franchised.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT