FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2023 filing

AAMCO litigation history

What AAMCO disclosed about lawsuits, arbitrations and bankruptcy in the 2023 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: 23; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases: None stated

Bankruptcy (Item 4): Disclosed; Franchisor, parent, predecessor or officer

Filing year: 2023; Disclosures cover the prior ten years

Extracted from the 2023 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 3: litigation

Pending: Chambers v. Montileone Industries & AAMCO (MO, consumer fraud class re: salvaged transmissions); AAMCO v. Silverking Business Corp (JAMS arbitration to recover fees, with franchisee counterclaims). Concluded: Morristown Transmissions v. 2 JOS (settled, $200,000 from AAMCO/affiliates); Reddoch & Saylor arbitrations (Group Resolution settlement); Adeniyi & Jones (dismissed/Group Resolution); regulatory consent orders with Virginia ($10,000 penalty), Washington, Illinois ($2,000), and older multi-state/NY/MN/CA judgments. Franchisor-initiated arbitrations and court actions since 1/1/2022 (Kaur, Moffa, Putnam, Stupar, Bell, Anderson, Mullet arbitrations; Hoang and LJ Automotive collection actions; Up To Parr non-compete action) to recover past-due fees and enforce non-competes.

Item 3 (litigation) · 23 matters disclosed · 2 pending listed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Pending (2)

AAMCO Transmissions, LLC v. Silverking Business Corporation, et al.
pending
Brought by the franchisor · filed 2021-07-12 · JAMS, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania · JAMS Arbitration Ref. #1450007758
“… (JAMS Arbitration Ref. #1450007758, filed July 12, 2021 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania). AAMCO filed”Page 11 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On August 15, 2022, the parties agreed to stay the arbitration after completing written discovery and pending settlement discussions that are still ongoing as of this document’s”
Chambers v. Montileone Industries, Inc. and AAMCO Transmissions, Inc.
pending
Brought by a third party · filed 2019-10-15 · Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, Div. 9 · 16SL-CC03885
“… (Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, Case No. 16SL-CC03885, Div. 9). On October 15, 2019, the”Page 11 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “AAMCO answered the complaint and will continue defending itself in this matter that remains in discovery as of this document’s issuance date. AAMCO Transmissions, LLC v.”

Concluded (11)

Asimiyu Adeniyi and Robert Jones v. AAMCO Transmissions, Inc. et al.
concluded
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2015-09-11 · Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore City · 24-C-15-004704
“… (Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore City, Case No. 24-C-15-004704, filed September 11, 2015). Two”Page 12 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “As part of the Group Resolution, Adeniyi dismissed this action with prejudice on May 31, 2017 and received an undisclosed share of the total group consideration paid to and”
Donald Saylor v. AAMCO Transmissions, Inc. and American Driveline Systems, Inc.
concluded
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2015-04-16 · JAMS · JAMS Arbitration Ref. #1450003620
“… (JAMS Arbitration Ref. #1450003620, filed April 16, 2015). Two former franchisees filed separate”Page 12 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “each of Reddoch and Saylor would have received about $70,000 as a pro-rata share of the total group settlement payment AAMCO made to the group’s counsel for the group’s benefit,”
Thomas Reddoch v. AAMCO Transmissions, Inc. and American Driveline Systems, Inc.
concluded
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2015-04-16 · JAMS · JAMS Arbitration Ref. # 145003619
“… (JAMS Arbitration Ref. # 145003619, filed April 16, 2015); Donald Saylor v. AAMCO”Page 12 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On May 25, 2017, the mediating parties entered into a settlement agreement that resolved all claims, counterclaims, and any other alleged grievances among the parties on or”
Morristown Transmissions, LLC et al. v. 2 JOS, LLC, et al.
concluded
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2013-10-02 · Morris County, NJ, Superior Court; removed to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · MRS-L-2079-12; removed to 2:14-CV-02912-CCC-JBC
“… (Morris County, NJ, Superior Court, No. MRS-L-2079-12; Removed to United States District Court for the District of New”Page 11 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties settled the matter in May 2018 through Court- ordered mediation, including plaintiffs receiving $200,000 from AAMCO and certain of its current or former affiliates,” (page 12)
In the Matter of AAMCO Transmissions, Inc.
concluded
Government or regulatory action · State of Washington Department of Financial Institutions-Securities Division · S-12-0916-12-CO01
“… (Order No. S-12-0916-12-CO01, State of Washington Department of Financial Institutions-Securities Division (“Securities Division”),”Page 13 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “AAMCO waived its right to a hearing and judicial review and voluntarily entered into a Consent Order with the Securities Division dated October 10, 2012. Pursuant to the Order,”
In the matter of the Agreed Case Between the People of the State of California and AAMCO Transmissions, Inc.
concluded
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego · 479197
“… No. 479197, Superior Court of the State of California for the County”Page 13 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “A final judgment pursuant to the statement of the agreed case was entered on December 14, 1981, concerning advertising procedures in the State of California. In the matter of”
In the matter of the Application of the State of New York against AAMCO Transmissions, Inc., et al.
concluded
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens · File No. 9973
“… File No. 9973, issued on December 6, 1967, Supreme Court of the State of New”Page 13 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “final judgment entered by consent; judgment governs the advertising, servicing and repair of transmissions by AAMCO in the State of New York and requires AAMCO to maintain a”
In the matter of the State of Illinois against AAMCO Transmissions, Inc.
concluded
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois · 79-CH-3706
“… (File No. 79-CH-3706) Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois; finding by stipulation that AAMCO failed”Page 13 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “judgment was entered by consent on August 2, 1979; AAMCO agreed to pay a civil penalty of $2,000 and to comply with requirements of the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act. In the”
State of Minnesota against AAMCO Automatic Transmissions, Inc., et al.
concluded
District Court for the Fourth Judicial District, State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin · File No. 638539
“… File No. 638539, issued on October 26, 1967, District Court for the Fourth Judicial District, State of”Page 14 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “permanent order entered by consent without findings; order governs the advertising, servicing and repair of transmissions in the State of Minnesota and requires AAMCO to”
States v. AAMCO Transmissions, Inc.
concluded
courts of the state capitals of Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin
“… In the States of Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas,”Page 13 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Separate judgments with identical substantive terms were entered on February 18, 1987 in courts of each state capital. No findings of any violations of law were entered. In the”
Virginia Corporation Commission v. AAMCO Transmissions, Inc.
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Commonwealth of Virginia Corporation Commission, Division of Securities and Retail Franchising · SEC-2012-00042
“… (Case No. SEC-2012-00042). The Commonwealth of Virginia Corporation Commission, Division of Securities and Retail”Page 13 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “AAMCO voluntarily entered into a Consent Order with the Securities Division on June 11, 2013, under which AAMCO agreed not to violate the Act in the future, and agreed to pay”

Status not stated in the filing (2)

AAMCO Transmissions, LLC v. Jonathan Moffa, et al.
Brought by the franchisor · filed 2022-03-15 · JAMS, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania · JAMS Arbitration Ref. #1450008207
“… JAMS Arbitration Ref. #1450008207, filed on March 15, 2022 before JAMS in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. AAMCO Transmissions,”Page 14 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “AAMCO Arbitrations to Recover Amounts Due from Franchisees: AAMCO Transmissions, LLC v. Kavanjit Kaur, JAMS Arbitration Ref. #1450008127, filed on February 7, 2022 before JAMS”
AAMCO Transmissions, LLC v. Kavanjit Kaur
Brought by the franchisor · filed 2022-02-07 · JAMS, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania · JAMS Arbitration Ref. #1450008127
“… JAMS Arbitration Ref. #1450008127, filed on February 7, 2022 before JAMS in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. AAMCO Transmissions, LLC v.”Page 14 of the 2023 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “AAMCO initiated the following actions below against existing or former franchisees on or after January 1, 2022, typically seeking to recover past-due amounts and damages related”

This list shows 15 of the 23 matters Item 3 discloses; the rest are in the filing.

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.

Disclosed in the 2023 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 4: bankruptcy

In January 2023, affiliate Auto Plus (IEH Auto Parts LLC) and certain related affiliates filed voluntary Chapter 11 petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. No bankruptcy of AAMCO itself disclosed.

Disclosure signals that moved the score

How this shows up in the verdict

Significant litigation history including two pending consumer fraud allegations, concluded franchisee disputes over misrepresentation, and 10 franchisor enforcement actions in 2022-2023 indicate systemic relationship 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 AAMCO verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls