FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

911 Restoration litigation history

What 911 Restoration disclosed about lawsuits, arbitrations and bankruptcy in the 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document. Item 3 lists the material legal actions a franchisor must report; Item 4 covers bankruptcy. This is the franchisor's own disclosure, not a court record, and not legal advice.

Items 3 (litigation) & 4 (bankruptcy) at a glance

What the filing discloses

Cases disclosed: 11; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases: None stated

Bankruptcy (Item 4): None; Franchisor, parent, predecessor or officer

Filing year: 2025; Disclosures cover the prior ten years

Extracted from the 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 3: litigation

Item 3 discloses 1 pending action (911 Restoration Enterprises v. Bresette, RI, franchisor-plaintiff trademark/breach), 3 prior court/arbitration matters (v. Burrell/Baltimore CA trademark won injunction + fees; v. Cohen CA breach/fraud settled $200k-$400k; Burrell AAA arbitration against franchisor terminated for non-payment of deposits), and 7 state regulatory/administrative orders for selling unregistered franchises (CA, IL, MD 2014, MD 2016, WA 2015, WA 2020, VA) with consent orders/penalties. No bankruptcy required to be disclosed.

Item 3 (litigation) · 11 matters disclosed · 1 pending listed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Concluded (10)

911 Restoration Franchise, Inc. vs. Donald Burrell, April Burrell and 911 Restoration of Baltimore.
concluded
Brought by the franchisor · filed 2020-12-18 · Cal. Super. · 20VECV01505
“… No. 20VECV01505 (Cal. Super. Filed December 18, 2020) We filed suit against”Page 10 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On November 2, 2021, the Court (i) permanently enjoined the Defendants from advertising, marketing, promoting, supplying, offering for sale or selling any products or services”
911 Restoration Franchise, Inc. vs. Itzhak Cohen, Igal Cohen, Tomer Feldman and Does 1-25.
concluded
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2020-08-28 · Cal. Super. · 20ST-CV-33091
“… (No. 20ST-CV-33091 (Cal. Super. Filed August 28, 2020). We filed suit against our”Page 10 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On December 9, 2020, the matter was settled out of court”
Donald Burrell, April Burrell and 911 Restoration of Baltimore, Inc. vs. 911 Restoration Franchise, Inc., Idan Shpizear, Peleg Lindenberg and Shay Kalmanovich.
concluded
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2020-02-06 · American Arbitration Association · AAA Case No. 01-20-0000-4384
“Donald Burrell, April Burrell and 911 Restoration of Baltimore, Inc. vs. 911 Restoration Franchise, Inc., Idan Shpizear, Peleg Lindenberg and Shay Kalmanovich. (AAA Case No.”Page 11 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On October 15, 2020, the American Arbitration Association terminated the proceedings in this matter because neither Claimant nor Respondent had made the required deposits. State”
State of California.
concluded
California Department of Business Oversight
“… On September 17, 2014, the Company filed a franchise registration application with the California Department of Business Oversight (“DBO”) in which the”Page 11 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The DBO approved the Notice of Violation on May 13, 2015 and the Notices of Violation were sent to the California franchisees. None of the California franchisees requested”
State of Illinois.
concluded
Illinois Office of Attorney General
“… On June 20, 2014, the Company filed a franchise registration application with the Illinois Office of Attorney General (“OAG”). On July 18, 2014, the Company”Page 11 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The Notice of Violation was sent to the Illinois franchisee. The Illinois franchisee did not request rescission of its Franchise Agreement or file an action against the Company”
State of Maryland Determination
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Maryland Office of the Attorney General · 2014-0354
“… Case Number 2014-0354. Following the Company’s filing of a franchise registration application with the Maryland Office of the Attorney General”Page 11 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On October 27, 2014, the Company voluntarily entered into a Consent Order with the Attorney General (the “2014 Maryland Consent Order”) and agreed (i) to cease and desist from”
State of Maryland Determination (No. 2016-0330)
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Maryland Office of the Attorney General · 2016-0330
“State of Maryland Determination, Case Number 2016-0330. In July 2016, the Maryland Office of the Attorney General alleged that we failed to comply with the 2014 Maryland Consent”Page 12 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On February 10, 2017, the Company voluntarily entered into a Consent Order with the Attorney General (the “2016 Maryland Consent Order”) and agreed (i) to cease and desist from”
State of Washington Determination
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Washington Department of Financial Institutions, Securities Division · S-14-1576-15-CO01
“… Order Number S-14-1576-15-CO01. Following the filing of a franchise registration application with the Washington Department of Financial”Page 12 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On February 25, 2015, the Company voluntarily entered into a Consent Order with the Department of Financial Institutions, without admitting or denying the Department’s”
State of Washington Determination (No. S-20-2971-CO01)
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Washington Department of Financial Institutions, Securities Division · S-20-2971-CO01
“State of Washington Determination, Order Number S-20-2971-CO01. Following the renewal of a franchise registration application with the Washington Department of Financial”Page 12 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On October 21, 2020, Franchisor voluntarily entered into a Consent Order with the Department of Financial Institutions and agreed to cease and desist from offering or selling”
Virginia Investigation
concluded
Virginia State Corporation Commission, Division of Securities and Retail Franchising · SEC-2015-00043
“… Case No. SEC-2015-00043. On March 10, 2015, the Company received a letter from the Virginia State Corporation Commission, Division of Securities and”Page 12 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Virginia State Corporation Commission and agreed (i) to pay the Treasurer of Virginia $5,000 in monetary penalties; (ii) to pay the Treasurer of Virginia $2,000 to defray the” (page 13)

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Pending (1)

911 Restoration Enterprises, Inc. v. Bresette, et al.
pending
Brought by the franchisor · 911 Restoration Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2021-08-18 · Superior Court Rhode Island · PC-2021-05425
“… No PC-2021-05425 (Superior Court Rhode Island. Filed August 18, 2021) We filed suit against our former franchisee alleging”Page 10 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “As of the issuance date of this Disclosure Document, the case is in the discovery phase. Prior Actions: 911 Restoration Franchise, Inc. vs. Donald Burrell,”

Item 3 lists the litigation the franchisor must disclose; a matter against a parent, an affiliate or a named officer is not a matter against the franchisor, and pending claims are allegations, not findings.

Disclosure signals that moved the score

How this shows up in the verdict

Multiple pending litigations across 5+ states involving breach of contract, fraud, and trademark infringement suggest systemic operational or compliance issues

The verdict grade is FranchiseVerdict's editorial assessment across SBA loan performance, unit growth, revenue and disclosure signals. It is not investment advice.

Before you weigh a lawsuit

How to read Item 3

A franchisor must disclose pending actions and any material civil action involving the franchise relationship, plus convictions or civil judgments for fraud, unfair or deceptive practices, or franchise-law violations, going back ten years. A case the franchisor brought against a franchisee counts too. Item 3 does not include every dispute: settled claims below the materiality line and matters resolved in private arbitration can be absent.

Questions worth asking current and former franchisees, using the contact list in Item 20:

Were you, or anyone you know in the system, party to a dispute with the franchisor?
Was it resolved by settlement, arbitration or a court, and on what terms?
Has the number of disputes gone up or down since you signed?

Back to the 911 Restoration verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls