Skip to main content
FranchiseVerdict
Amorino logo
CAverage46/100FDD 2025

Amorino: Litigation & Risk

Quick-Service Restaurants · FDD Items 3, 4 & 5

Back to overview

Moderate: Review

1 case disclosed in FDD Items 3 and 4.

Source: FDD Items 3–5

FDD Items 3 & 4

Litigation Metrics

Cases disclosed
1
Total from FDD Items 3 and 4
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
None
Franchisor or officer bankruptcy
Verdict score
46 / 100
FranchiseVerdict composite · higher is better
Rating
C
A / B / C / D / F verdict grade

7(a) FOIA data · FY2020–present

SBA Loan Performance

Aggregated from public SBA 7(a) loan disclosures. Charge-off rate is the share of loans that were charged off or settled for less than the full balance.

Total 7(a) loans
9
Government-backed loans issued
Charge-off rate
N/A
vs 16% franchise average
5-yr charge-off rate
N/A
Defaults
N/A
Loans charged off or defaulted
Total loan volume
$3.5M
Avg loan size
$386K
Participating lenders
6

FDD Items 5, 6 & 17: What You Give Up

Contract Risk Indicators

Mandatory arbitration
Required
Disputes resolved outside court, limits your legal options
Jury trial waiver
Waived
You give up the right to a jury trial
Non-compete
2 yrs
Post-termination restriction on similar businesses
Franchisor can compete
Yes
Franchisor can open competing locations in or near your territory
Right of first refusal
Yes
Franchisor can match any purchase offer when you try to sell
Governing law
Delaware
State whose law governs disputes. Relevant if you're not based there

Extracted from FDD Item 3

Litigation Detail

One case: Capernaum Capital LLC v. Minus Zero4 F LLC et al. (USDC E.D. La., Case No. 22-5271, filed Dec 13 2022). Franchisee alleged rescission, fraud, breach of contract. Settled Feb 2023 — franchisee paid Amorino Trading $16,906.06, parties exchanged mutual releases, franchise agreement terminated.

What drove the 46/100 verdict

Risk Score Breakdown

  1. 01HIGHLitigation history: December 2022 lawsuit alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract, settled with franchisee paying $16,906 and terminating agreement — suggests potential disclosure or operational issues
  2. 02MINORHigh investment ceiling ($980,500) combined with modest average net income ($127,849) yields concerning 7.6-year payback period at upper range, increasing financial risk exposure
  3. 03MEDModest unit growth (22.2% YoY) on small base (22 units) indicates early-stage franchise system with limited operating history and scale; growth rate may not be sustainable
  4. 04MINORNo royalty model creates unclear franchisor revenue stream and potential incentive misalignment between franchisor support and franchisee success
  5. 05MINORItem 19 (financial performance representation) absence prevents verification of claimed average revenue/net income figures across entire franchisee population

Severity inferred from FDD text. Not a regulatory or legal classification

Litigation data from FDD Items 3, 4, and 5. SBA data from public 7(a) FOIA records (FY2020–present). Not legal advice. Consult a franchise attorney before signing any franchise agreement.