FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

Abra litigation history

What Abra 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: 10; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases: $58K; As stated in Item 3

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 pending actions against franchisor parent Driven Brands Holdings and affiliates: Genesee County (securities class action), Terwilliger, Gaiman, Kalimon, Bushansky (derivative), and PJC Management/Maaco franchisee suit; plus one concluded predecessor arbitration (Anderson Ford-Mazda, settled $57,500). Separately disclosed affiliate regulatory settlements (Arby's, Dunkin' no-poaching/data breach) noted as not impacting Abra.

Item 3 (litigation) · 10 matters disclosed · 6 pending listed

Litigation cases

The franchisor and its predecessor

Concluded (1)

Anderson Ford-Mazda, LLC v. ABRA Automotive Systems, LP
settled
Brought by a franchisee · ABRA Automotive Systems LP ('Our Predecessor', Item 1 p6) · filed 2019-04-24 · American Arbitration Association · 01-19-0001-2666
“The matter relates to the merger between Caliber Collision Centers and Abra Auto Body Repair of America. Claimant alleged that Our Predecessor breached the franchise agreement and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because, after the merger, an existing Caliber auto body repair shop that had been operating for y”Page 22 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Claimant was paid $57,500, and the parties signed a mutual release of all claims arising from or in any way relating to the parties’ relationship. Following the parties’ notification of settlemen”

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Pending (2)

PJC Management Group, LLC et al. v. MAACO Franchisor SPV LLC, Driven Brands, Inc., and Driven Systems LLC
pending
Brought by a franchisee · MAACO Franchisor SPV LLC, Driven Brands, Inc. and Driven Systems LLC · filed 2025-11-05 · Mecklenburg County Superior Court (North Carolina) · 25-CV-059334-590
“On November 5, 2025, 10 current Maaco franchisees filed a complaint against Maaco, Driven Brands, and Driven Systems alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and a violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. 75-1.1 et seq. The Maaco”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Genesee County Employees' Retirement System v. Driven Brands Holdings Inc., et al.
pending
Driven Brands Holdings Inc., with former officers Jonathan Fitzpatrick and Tiffany Mason as co-defendants · filed 2023-12-22 · United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division) · 3:23-cv-00895-MOC-DCK
“On December 22, 2023, Genesee County Employees’ Retirement System filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (the “Court”) against Driven Brands Holdings, as well as former Chief Executive Officer and President of Driven Brands, Jonathan Fitzpatrick, and a former e”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

Concluded (3)

New York v. Dunkin' Brands, Inc.
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Dunkin' Brands, Inc. ('DBI') · filed 2019-09-26 · N.Y. Supreme Court for New York County · 451787/2019
“filed a lawsuit against our affiliate, DBI, related to credential-stuffing cyberattacks during 2015 and 2018. The NYAG alleged that the cyber attackers used individuals’ credentials obtained from elsewhere on the Internet to gain access to certain information for DD Perks customers and others who had registered a Dunkin’ gift ca”Page 23 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Under consent order, DBI agreed to pay $650,000 in penalties and costs, issue certain notices and other types of communications to New York customers, and maintain a comprehensive information security program through September 202”
The People of the State of California v. Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc.
settled
Government or regulatory action · Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc. ('ARG') · filed 2019-03-19 · California Superior Court, Los Angeles County · 19STCV09397
“On March 11, 2019, our affiliate, Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc. (“ARG”), entered into a settlement agreement with the states of California, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Pennsylvania. The Attorneys General in these states sought information from ARG on its us”Page 22 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Under the settlement agreement, ARG paid no money but agreed (a) to remove the disputed provision from its franchise agreements (which it had already done); (b) not to enforce the disputed provision i”
The People of the State of California v. Dunkin' Brands, Inc.
settled
Government or regulatory action · Dunkin' Brands, Inc. ('DBI') · filed 2019-03-19 · California Superior Court, Los Angeles County · 19STCV09597
“On March 14, 2019, our affiliate, Dunkin Brands, Inc. (“DBI”), entered into a settlement agreement with the Attorneys General of 13 states and jurisdictions concerning the inclusion of “no-poaching” provisions in Dunkin’ restaurant franchise agreements. The settling states and jurisdictions included California, Illinois, Iowa, M”Page 22 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “the action was closed after the court approved the parties’ stipulation of judgment. New York v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. (N” (page 23)

Officers and directors (individuals, not the company)

Pending (4)

Bushansky v. Fitzpatrick, et al.
pending
Jonathan Fitzpatrick and other current and former Driven Brands Holdings executive officers and board members, including Chief Executive Officer Daniel Rivera and board member Damien Harmon · filed 2025-11-18 · Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware · 2025-1306-MTZ
“and Bushansky v. Fitzpatrick, et al., Case No. 2025-1306-MTZ, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (November 2025). John Kalimon and Stephen Bushansky each filed on October 7, 2025 and November 18, 2025, respectively, purported derivative complaints against current and former Driven Brands Holdings’ executive office”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Gaiman v. Fitzpatrick, et al.
pending
Jonathan Fitzpatrick, Tiffany Mason, Neal Aronson, Catherine Halligan, Chadwick Hume, Rick Puckett, Karen Stroup, Peter Swinburn, Michael Thompson and Jose Tomas (current and former Driven Brands Hold · filed 2025-04-30 · United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division) · 3:25-cv-00288
“On April 30, 2025, Jonathan Gaiman filed a purported derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against certain current and former Driven Brands Holdings’ executive officers and board members, including Jonathan Fitzpatrick, Tiffany Mason, Neal Aronson, Catherine Halligan,”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Kalimon v. Aronson, et al.
pending
Neal Aronson and other current and former Driven Brands Holdings executive officers and board members, including Chief Executive Officer Daniel Rivera and board member Damien Harmon · filed 2025-10-07 · United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division) · 3:25-cv-00764
“… Case No. 3:25-cv-00764, in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division) (October 2025), and Bushansky v. Fitzpatrick, et al., Case No. 2025-1306-MTZ, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (November 2025). John Kalimon and Stephen Bushansk”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Terwilliger v. Fitzpatrick, et al.
pending
Jonathan Fitzpatrick, Tiffany Mason, Neal Aronson, Catherine Halligan, Chadwick Hume, Rick Puckett, Karen Stroup, Peter Swinburn, Michael Thompson and Jose Tomas (current and former Driven Brands Hold · filed 2025-01-10 · United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division) · 3:25-cv-00019
“On January 10, 2025, Daniel Terwilliger filed a purported derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against certain current and former Driven Brands Holdings’ executive officers and board members, including Jonathan Fitzpatrick, Tiffany Mason, Neal Aronson, Catherine Hall”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

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 securities and class action lawsuits against parent company Driven Brands indicate potential financial instability and management credibility issues
Affiliate litigation involving advertising fund misuse and no-poaching agreements suggests corporate governance problems affecting franchisees
No 'Going Concern' flag indicates potential solvency issues at corporate level, threatening franchise support and brand viability

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 Abra verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls