ILNews

More franchisees join revolt over Steak n Shake menu pricing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

More Steak n Shake franchisees are revolting over the company’s policy that prohibits restaurants in the chain from setting their own menu prices.

Three franchise owners filed suit last month against Indianapolis-based Steak n Shake, including two on the same day – April 22 – in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in Indianapolis.

They argue the company continues to force its franchisees to abide by the menu policy even after a federal appeals court sided last year with a fellow franchise owner that first challenged the practice.

“Steak n Shake’s royalties are calculated as a percentage of a franchisee’s revenue, not profits, which explains why Steak n Shake wants to increase customer volume through the sale of lower-priced food without concern as to whether franchisees actually make a reasonable profit,” the franchisees argue in their lawsuits.

Reached by phone, Steak n Shake lawyer Tonya Sallee declined to discuss the suits, citing company policy that prohibits commenting on pending litigation.

The dispute over pricing started in 2010, when Springfield, Ill.-based Stuller Inc. brought its complaint against Steak n Shake in a federal court in Illinois. Stuller operates five Illinois Steak n Shake restaurants under franchise agreements with predecessors that date back to 1939, making it the oldest Steak n Shake franchise in the country.

The court granted Stuller a preliminary injunction to stop Steak n Shake from forcing menu prices on franchisees.

Steak n Shake appealed. But last August, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Illinois federal court’s ruling in Stuller’s favor.

Yet, even after the failed appeal, the three franchisees suing Steak n Shake argue that the company “has held steadfast in its ongoing, and system-wide, breach of those [franchise] agreements by continuing to force its franchisees to abide by the policy.”

They argue in their suits that Steak n Shake’s executive leadership, led by CEO Sardar Biglari, decided that it would set menu prices contrary to existing language in the franchise agreements that says otherwise.

Steak n Shake shareholders elected Biglari CEO in 2008, and the company now is operated by San Antonio-based holding company Biglari Holdings Inc.

The three franchisees who filed suits last month against Steak n Shake are Georgia-based People Sales & Profit Co., Missouri-based Druco Restaurants Inc. and Pennsylvania-based Scott’s S&S Inc. In total, they operate eight Steak n Shake restaurants in the three states.

They’re seeking a permanent injunction to bar Steak n Shake from mandating company-wide menu prices and from terminating their franchise for refusing to comply with the pricing policy. They also are suing for breach of contract and fraud.

One of the lawyers representing them, Richard Shevitz of Indianapolis-based Cohen & Malad LLP, said more lawsuits could be forthcoming.
 
Steak n Shake operates 501 restaurants, including 87 franchised locations.

In its fiscal first quarter ended Dec. 19, Steak n Shake reported revenue of $163.2 million, a 1.7-percent increase from the same time in 2011.
 

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 Indiana Lawyer 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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT