Skip to main content
FranchiseVerdict
Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution logo

Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026

Quick-Service RestaurantsPAFranchising since 1996
BAbove averageAbove average69/100Editorial grade from public filings; not investment advice.
Investment
$14K – $607K
Disclosed sales
not disclosed
SBA charge-off
Not SBA-matched

Investment, fees, disclosed sales, units, SBA record and risk, as one PDF. Free; no spam; one click to unsubscribe.

FV-00305FDD 2025Data QualityStandard76%
Manager-run OKYes: Exclusive territory

Data from FDD filing

Analysis by FranchiseVerdict Research · Methodology

Bimbo Foods is a direct-store-delivery distribution franchise for branded baked goods such as Sara Lee and Entenmann's. Franchisees own protected delivery routes, restocking retailer shelves and managing inventory and accounts rather than running a storefront.

FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026

A Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution franchise requires a total initial investment of $14K – $607K, including a $8K – $500K franchise fee. This franchisor makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD. Item 19 is voluntary under the FTC Franchise Rule, and this filing states that it makes none, so no revenue or earnings figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that. FranchiseVerdict grade: B (Above average), an editorial assessment, not investment advice. Run a live ROI scan →

Sources, dates and evidence

FDD issued: · Data extracted: · Last cited check: · Staleness risk: medium - issued 12 to 24 months ago; a newer filing is likely on file

Evidence: strong✓ Investment (Item 7)✓ Item 19 status✓ Units and owners (Item 20)✗ SBA loan coverage✓ Litigation (Item 3)✓ Financial statements (Item 21)✓ Franchisor identityhow this is scored3 of 3 headline figures on this page cite a page of the filing.

Overview

Investment
$14K – $607K
0th pct Service Resta…
Avg gross sales
N/A
Royalty
Not extracted
Units
6,957
96th pct Service Resta…
SBA charge-off
N/A

Quick verdict · Quick-Service Restaurants · color = vs category peers

Total Investment
$14K – $607K
Median $486K
below median ↓, better than category
Franchise Fee
$8K – $500K
Median $35K
above median ↑, worse than category
Liquid Capital Req'd
$2K – $7K
Median $33K
below median ↓, better than category
Avg Revenue
Not disclosed
Franchisor makes none
Royalty Rate
Not extracted
Median 5.5%
Ongoing Fees
19.8% of rev
Median 7.5%
above median ↑, worse than category
SBA Charge-Off Rate
Not SBA-matched
Not matched to SBA 7(a) loans
System Size
6,957 units
Median 18 units
above median ↑, better than category
Turnover Rate
4.6%
Median 0.0%
Territory
Exclusive
No other outlet of the brand may open inside it
Owner-Operator
Optional
Can hire a manager
Litigation
61 cases
Review carefully

Green = favorable by >10% vs Quick-Service Restaurants median · No shading = within ±10% · Red = unfavorable by >10% · Source: FDD filings + SBA 7(a)

Data from public FDD filings and SBA records. Not financial advice. Methodology

Bottom line

  • COSTTotal investment $14K – $607K including a $8K franchise fee.
  • RETURNSThis franchisor makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD. Item 19 is voluntary under the FTC Franchise Rule, and this filing states that it makes none, so no revenue or earnings figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that.
  • RISKVerdict B (Above average), verdict score 69/100 (higher is better).
  • GROWTHPositive: net +73 franchised outlets in the latest year (2,968 opened, 142 closed) (Item 20).
  • LEGAL61 litigation matters disclosed in Item 3, higher than typical. Of the 15 listed on this page, 11 name the franchisor itself, 4 its parent, affiliates or predecessor. Pending claims are allegations, not findings.

Item 1 · who you're contracting with

The Franchisor

Corporate structure & franchisor financials
Legal entity
Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC
Parent company
Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc.
FDD Item 1, page 9 of the 2025 FDD
Ultimate parent
Grupo Bimbo S.A.B. de C.V.
FDD Item 1, page 9 of the 2025 FDD
Predecessor
George Weston Bakeries Distribution, Inc. (formerly Bimbo Bakeries Distribution, Inc.)
Prior franchisor entity
CEO title
President
Tony Gavin
Incorporated in
DE
HQ
355 Business Center Drive, Horsham, Pennsylvania 19044
Auditor
Mancera, S.C. (A Member Practice of Ernst & Young Global Limited)
Audited financials

Independent franchisee associations

  • National Owners Association

Franchisee-led councils or alliances disclosed in Item 20. Indicates operator voice.

Affiliated brands

  • of BBUSA

Other brands the franchisor or its parent operates (Item 1).

Overview

About

CEO
Tony Gavin
Headquarters
PA
Founded
1996
FDD year
2025
States available
48

Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?

Entry cost runs 36% below the typical quick-service restaurants franchise.

Total investment (Item 7)$14K – $607KCited, not corroborated — printed on page 32 of the 2025 FDD (Item 7). Nothing else in our record independently restates or re-derives it.
Franchise fee$8,000Cited, not corroborated — printed on page 32 of the 2025 FDD (Item 7). Nothing else in our record independently restates or re-derives it.
RoyaltyNot extracted
Ad fundNot extracted
Working capital$2K – $7K

Source: FDD 2025 · Items 5–7

Full Item 7 breakdown7 line items

Initial investment breakdown

Item 7 initial investment line items
Line itemLowHigh
Initial Feenot refundable$8K$500K
Additional Funds / Working Capital for General Operationsnot refundable$2K$7K
Opening Inventory$3K$15K
Vehiclenot refundable$0$80K
Hand-held Computer Ordering Systemnot refundable$1K$2K
Initial Insurance Coveragenot refundable$500$1K
Incorporation Services$350$2K
Total initial investment$14K$607K

Line items extracted from FDD Item 7. Ranges reflect the franchisor's stated low and high per line. Total is the sum of line-item lows / highs — actual costs may fall outside this range depending on market and build-out scope.

Item 7 · what it costs to open + operate

The Vitals

Total investment
$14K – $607K
Top 40% of category vs category
Liquid capital req'd
$2K – $7K
Top 40% of category vs category
Franchise fee
$8K – $500K
Top 40% of category vs category
Royalty
No royalty fee; franchisor revenue is derived from the ma…
Ad fund
-n/d
Total fee load
19.8%
vs 9–13% typical

Ongoing fees · Item 6

Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution: Item 6 recurring fees
FeeAmount
Technology fee$19
Transfer fee$2
Inventory (initial)$3K – $15K
Total fee load19.8% of rev
ROI & LBO modelsSingle-unit · 25-unit portfolio · editable
Blue values = direct from FDD (Item 7 investment, Item 19 revenue, Item 6 fees)Not set = no filing supplies it and we will not substitute one. Enter your own

Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD - a voluntary item under the FTC Franchise Rule - so no unit revenue figures are disclosed. The return models need a revenue figure to start from, and the operating costs that turn gross sales into a profit are in no FDD. Enter your own and the calculator runs on your assumptions — nothing here is modelled until you do.

Returns model · single-unit ROIC

What would one Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution unit return on the cash you put in?

From FDDNot set — you supply itYou overrode an FDD value
Revenue · per unit, per yearnot set
Item 19 not disclosed. Enter your own revenue assumption
Franchisor take · royalty + ad fundnot set
typ 6–8%
typ 3–5%
Operating costs · not in any FDDnot set

Illustrative category typicals — not sourced to any filing, survey or sample. Replace them with figures from franchisee validation calls before you rely on the output.

Total invested capital · what you put in to openFDD
FDD Item 7: $14K–$607K (midpoint used)
FDD reports $2K–$7K

Unlevered ROIC · per unit

Your modelled return on total invested capital, before any debt financing.

—

An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for annual revenue, royalty rate, ad fund rate, COGS, labour, rent / occupancy and other operating costs, and will not substitute an assumed one. Enter your own and the model runs on your assumptions.


Store EBITDA · annual
—
EBITDA margin
—
Total invested
$314K
Payback
—
Single-unit only. A multi-unit portfolio gives up roughly 5–15% of this to shared services (corporate G&A) before reaching the ~10-unit break-even point.

These models are for research and scenario planning only. Not investment advice. Actual results depend on your specific location, management, and market conditions. Consult a franchise attorney and accountant before signing any franchise agreement.

Item 19 · Source: 2025 FDD

Financial Performance

No financial performance representation

This franchisor makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD. Item 19 is voluntary under the FTC Franchise Rule, and this filing states that it makes none, so no revenue or earnings figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that.

Item 20 of the FDD lists current and former franchisees; asking them directly is the standard way to fill this gap.

Showing the headline figures — all 121 extracted fields are in the Full FDD Report · $19 →

Operator outlook

What the numbers say

Data-driven interpretation of this brand's financial disclosures, fee structure, and system trajectory.

Fee burden

Total ongoing fee load of 19.8% — above the Quick-Service Restaurants median of 7.5%.

Disclosure

This franchisor makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD. Item 19 is voluntary under the FTC Franchise Rule, and this filing states that it makes none, so no revenue or earnings figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that. Item 20 of the FDD lists current and former franchisees; asking them directly is the standard way to fill this gap.

Operator retention

System roughly stable (+4.2% 3-year CAGR) with 6,957 units.

Source: FDD Item 19 financial performance representations and publicly filed FDD data. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Verify all figures with the franchisor and current franchisees before making any investment decision.

vs Quick-Service Restaurants medians

How Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution Compares

Metric
Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution
Category median
vs median
Investment
$310K
$486Kmiddle half $342K–$748K · n=780
Below median, better than category
Revenue
N/A
$975Kmiddle half $664K–$1.4M · n=284
N/A
Unit Count
6,957
18middle half 5–79 · n=755
Above median, better than category

Category median of published Quick-Service Restaurants brands that report the figure; the middle half spans the 25th to 75th percentile and n counts the brands behind it. Medians are used because a few very large systems pull an average far from the typical brand. Revenue is disclosed gross sales, not profit.

Is the system healthy?

Total units6,957Verified — printed on page 72 of the 2025 FDD (Item 20), and the table's own arithmetic closes on it three ways.
3-yr growth+4.2% (favorable vs category)
Turnover rate4.6% (favorable vs category)

Source: FDD 2025 · Item 20

Unit growth

Item 20 · unit dynamics

The Growth Chart

Total units
6,957
Opened
2,968
Last reporting year
Closed
142
Terminated
152
Franchisor ended the franchise (per Item 20)
Non-renewed
2
Term expired, not renewed (per Item 20)
Turnover rate
4.6%
Company-owned
503
Corporate units in the system
% franchised
93%
vs corporate-owned
Net growth (3-yr)
+4.2%
Net unit change over 3 years
3-yr CAGR
+4.2%
Compounded over last 3 years

Last fiscal year · Item 20 exits and transfers

Terminated
152
Not renewed
2
Transferred
352
Reacquired
2,753
Franchisor bought back
Signed, not yet open
0
0.00 per open outlet · Item 20 Table 5
Projected new
0
Franchisor's next-year forecast
2022
6,194
Franchised units
2023
6,381+187
Franchised units
2024
6,454+73
Franchised units

Year-over-year franchised unit counts and net change. Source: FDD Item 20.

Item 20 · 49 states with active franchisees

The Territory Map

Derived from franchisee contact records. Shows states with at least one current operator. Not where the franchisor is registered to sell new units (that data is re-extracting in a future refresh).

AK
ME
VT
NH
MA
RI
CT
NY
NJ
PA
DE
MD
DC
WA
OR
CA
NV
ID
MT
WY
UT
CO
AZ
NM
ND
SD
NE
KS
OK
TX
MN
IA
MO
AR
LA
WI
IL
MS
TN
MI
IN
KY
AL
OH
WV
GA
VA
NC
SC
FL
HI
Active operators · 49 states
No contacts on file

States derived from franchisee contact records (FDD Item 20). Shows states with at least one current operator on file. Full state registration data (Item 12) will appear on a future FDD refresh.

Where the owners are · Item 20 owner list

6,533 current owners across 49 states.

  • TX 1,175
  • FL 743
  • NC 403
  • GA 402
  • NY 382
  • AZ 314
  • CA 223
  • SC 217
  • PA 187
  • TN 180
  • AL 171
  • VA 162
  • +37 more states

Counts only, from the list the franchisor prints in Item 20. Names and phone numbers are for your own due diligence and are not shown here.

SBA loan performance

Government records

SBA Loan Data

Aggregated from SBA 7(a) and 504 loan disclosures, public data unique to FranchiseVerdict.

No SBA loan data available for this brand.

What could kill this investment?

SBA charge-offNot SBA-matched
Verdict score69/100 (higher is better)
Litigation61 cases
Auditor going-concern doubtNo (favorable vs category)

Source: SBA 7(a) FOIA · FDD Items 3, 21

Risk analysis

FranchiseVerdict rating + FDD Items 3, 4, 8, 16, 21

Risk & Legal

BAbove average69Verdict score 69/100

This is a high-risk opportunity with a franchisor in potential financial distress, substantial unresolved litigation, undisclosed financial metrics, and stagnant unit growth — avoid unless extensive independent validation is conducted.

Why this reads harsher than the B grade: the grade weighs financial health, unit economics, unit growth, scale, legal, and transparency across the whole filing, while this summary lists individual flags without that weighting. The flags are worth checking with current owners; neither is investment advice.

Low confidence±15 pts
5484

Litigation (Item 3)

Subject: the franchisor is a named party (defendant).

57 total disclosed cases including misclassification class actions, breach of contract disputes, route valuation disputes, and regulatory enforcement (Maryland Consent Order). 6 cases pending as of April 2025; 51 concluded. Largest settlements include $14.5M class settlement (Kaewsawang CA IBPs). BFBD was defendant in substantially all cases; BFBD was plaintiff in case 15 (R.J. Wajert right-of-first-refusal enforcement).

Largest disclosed settlement: $14,500,000

Bankruptcy (Item 4)

None disclosed

Audited financials (Item 21)

Yes · Mancera, S.C. (A Member Practice of Ernst & Young Global Limited)

Franchisor revenue (Item 21)

Total: $3633.0M

Franchisor entity revenue (not unit-level)

Item 21 attaches the audited consolidated financial statements of the parent, Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V. and subsidiaries, stated in MILLIONS OF MEXICAN PESOS (2024 net sales Ps. 408,335 million; 2023 Ps. 399,879 million). No US-dollar figures are stored from them (owner ruling R30, 12 Sept 2026: no cross-currency number is presented as dollars). The $3.633 billion shown as total revenue is Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution's own Item 8 statement of its most recent fiscal-year revenue, 100% from required product purchases by Distributors.

ⓘ These are the parent company's consolidated financials (the parent guarantees the franchisor), not this brand's standalone results — the figure reflects the whole corporate group, not this brand alone.

Supplier relationship · Items 8 & 16

  • Franchisor sells you products: Yes
  • Kickbacks from required suppliers: No
  • Must buy proprietary products: Yes
  • Restricted to system-approved products: Yes
  • Can negotiate own supplier terms: No

Score breakdown · what drove the 69 / 100 verdict

  1. 01HIGHSignificant litigation involving misclassification, labor law violations, fraud, and deceptive trade practices suggests systemic operational or legal problems
  2. 02MEDExtreme investment range ($14K-$606K) with no disclosed average revenue or net income makes ROI assessment impossible
  3. 03MINORRoyalty fee structure unknown — hidden or variable fees could dramatically impact profitability
  4. 04MINORStagnant unit growth (1.1% YoY on 6,957 units) indicates system is barely expanding and may be declining when accounting for closures
  5. 05MINORNo Item 19 financial performance disclosure prevents validation of franchisee earnings claims

Severity inferred from the FDD text · not a regulatory classification

Showing the headline figures — all 121 extracted fields are in the Full FDD Report · $19 →

Full litigation history from the FDD (Items 3 and 4) →

Litigation case detail61 matters · Item 3

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Pending (5)

  • Francisco J. Marmol v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC

    pending

    Third-party plaintiff · filed 2024-11-07 · Civil Court of the City of New York, County of Bronx · CV-017373-24/BX

    “Francisco J. Marmol v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC. On November 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of Bronx, Case CV-017373- 24/BX. Plaintiff alleges monies due from BFBD for $30,000 with interest for BFBD allegedly failing to comply with a payment arrangement Plaintiff alleges was verbally agreed to.”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
  • Provencher, McGuire, and Martel vs. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. and Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC

    pending

    Brought by a franchisee · filed 2022-10-28

    “Provencher, McGuire, and Martel vs. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. and Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC. On October 28, 2022, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed a class and collective action against BBUSA and BFBD alleging violations of federal and Vermont labor and employment laws.”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“In June 2024, the Court granted BFBD's request for an interlocutory appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to address the lower Court's ruling that it also held personal jurisdiction over IBPs in NY and CT.”

  • Walter R. Davis v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC

    pending

    Brought by a franchisee · filed 2022-02-04 · Circuit Court for Montgomery County Maryland · Case #607

    “Walter R. Davis v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC. On February 4, 2022, Plaintiff Walter Davis filed suit in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County Maryland, Case #607. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges Breach of Contract and Anticipatory Breach of Contract.”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“A ruling was issued on June 25, 2024 declaring the Kroger to be an outlet under the distribution agreement. However, the court declined to force BFBD to allow Davis to service the outlet and instead awarded Davis damages in the amount of $452,343.41. BFBD is currently appealing the ruling.”

  • Kharchyna and Ktomaluy, Inc. vs. Kuvshynova, et. al.

    pending

    Brought by a franchisee · filed 2021-05-13 · Queens County Supreme Court (appeal noticed to the Appellate Division)

    “Kharchyna and Ktomaluy, Inc. vs. Kuvshynova, et. al. On May 13, 2021, Taras Kharchyna, President and sole shareholder of former IBP Ktomaluy, Inc., filed suit against several parties, including Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC (“BFBD”) in Queens County Supreme Court.”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“On December 12, 2024, the court granted BFBD’s Motion to Dismiss. On January 9, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court.”

  • SWLLCBreadMe, LLC v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC and Joseph Janssen, Inc. v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC

    pending

    Brought by a franchisee · American Arbitration Association (one consolidated hearing, Atlanta, GA) · 01-24-0009-2983 and 01-24-0009-2978

    “These two arbitration cases (01-24-0009-2983 and 01-24-0009- 2978) were filed with the American Arbitration Association and consolidated to the same Arbitrator for one hearing in Atlanta, GA. Plaintiffs in both cases allege that Defendant improperly calculated the fair market value of their distribution rights when Defendant was purchasing same.”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

Concluded (6)

  • San Rojas, Inc. and Rogelio Lupercio vs. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC

    settled

    Brought by a franchisee · filed 2025-01-08 · 3rd Judicial Circuit, Wayne County, Michigan

    “San Rojas, Inc. and Rogelio Lupercio vs. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC. On January 8, 2025, San Rojas, Inc. and Rogelio Lupercio, president and sole shareholder of San Rojas, Inc., filed suit against Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC (“BFBD”) in the 3rd Judicial Circuit, Wayne County, Michigan.”Page 29 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“On March 4, 2025, the parties agreed to a settlement, resulting in BFBD purchasing Plaintiff’s distributorship for $260,000.”

  • Turmel vs. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC

    settled

    Brought by a franchisee · filed 2022-08-04 · Saratoga County, NY

    “Turmel vs. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC. On August 4, 2022, former IBP David Turmel filed suit against BFBD in Saratoga County, NY. Mr. Turmel has asserted claims for Breach of Contract, Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and also for Conversion”Page 28 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“In May 2023, the parties reached a settlement whereby defendants, without admitting liability, agreed to pay Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney a total of $75,000”

  • Charles Sims v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC

    settled

    Brought by a franchisee · filed 2021 · Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania · GD-21-1730

    “Charles Sims v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC. On or about March 8, 2021, Plaintiff Charles Sims filed suit in Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, Case # GD-21- 1730.”Page 28 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“In June 2021, Plaintiff and Defendants reach a settlement whereby BFBD, without admitting liability, agreed to pay Plaintiff a total of $375,000”

  • Cox v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. and Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC

    settled

    Third-party plaintiff · filed 2019-04-15 · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 5:19-cv-00577-HNJ

    “Cox v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. and Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Case No. 5:19-cv-00577-HNJ. On April 15, 2019, Kenneth Cox filed an action against Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. and Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC on behalf of himself and others similarly situated nationwide”Page 27 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“On May 5, 2020, the parties reached an agreement to settle the case for a total payment of $703,000 payable to the five named Plaintiffs and 82 opt-ins.”

  • David Camp and Keith Hadmack v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. and Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC

    settled

    Brought by a franchisee · filed 2018-05-08 · U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire

    “David Camp and Keith Hadmack v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. and Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC. On May 8, 2018, David Camp and Keith Hadmack (“Plaintiffs”), independent operators, filed a purported class and collective action Complaint”Page 26 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“By a Global Settlement Agreement dated November 13, 2020, the parties agreed to settle all claims in this action, while simultaneously settling the claims, in both Burke actions, one in the Southern District of New York, one in the Northern District of New York, aa well dozens of individual arbitrations for the individuals listed below.”

  • In the Matter of BFBD

    concluded

    Government or regulatory action · filed 2014 · Securities Division of the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland / Maryland Securities Commissioner · Case No. 2014-0348

    “In the Matter of BFBD (Case No. 2014-0348) – The Securities Division of the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland (the “Securities Division”) initiated an inquiry on September 8, 2014 regarding BFBD’s franchise-related activities in Maryland.”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“to pay the Office of the Attorney General a civil monetary penalty of $50,000. The inquiry was settled pursuant to the Consent Order, and concluded as of November 4, 2015.” (page 16)

Parent, affiliates and predecessor

Pending (1)

  • Tlaloc Munoz, Miguel Ruiz, and Edgar Corona v. Earthgrains Distribution, LLC and Bimbo Bakeries Inc.

    pending

    Third-party plaintiff · Earthgrains Distribution, LLC and Bimbo Bakeries Inc. ('Earthgrains'; the filing also refers to BBUSA) · filed 2022 · California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (PAGA notice); Superior Court of California, County of San Diego; removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California; 9th Circuit appeal

    “Tlaloc Munoz, Miguel Ruiz, and Edgar Corona v. Earthgrains Distribution, LLC and Bimbo Bakeries Inc., California Labor and Workforce Development Agency. On May 23, 2022, Earthgrains Distribution, LLC and Bimbo Bakeries Inc. (“Earthgrains”) were served notice that the above captioned individuals would be seeking PAGA penalties related to alleged violations of California Labor Code Section 2699.3.”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“As a result, the case will be scheduled for trial in federal court.”

Concluded (3)

  • Gonzalez vs. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., et. al.

    settled

    Third-party plaintiff · Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., et al. · filed 2023-02-24 · Superior Court of California, County of Riverside; removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California

    “Gonzalez vs. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., et. al. On February 24, 2023, plaintiff, , on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, in the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside. The case was later removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Plaintiff is seeking PAGA penalties related to alleged violations of California Labor Code.”Page 29 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“On April 3, 2024, the parties settled this action for a total of $47,750 and the action was dismissed.”

  • Reid vs. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., et. al.

    settled

    Third-party plaintiff · Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., et al. · filed 2023-02-09 · Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington County

    “Reid vs. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., et. al. On February 9, 2023, plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington County. The complaint alleges violations of the New Jersey Wage and Payment Law under N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.2, 34:11-4.4, and 34:11-56a(4).”Page 28 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“In September 2023, the parties reached a settlement whereby defendants, without admitting liability, agreed to pay Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney a total of $115,000”

  • Phairoj Kaewsawang, et al. v. Sara Lee Fresh, Inc., Sara Lee Corporation, et. al.

    settled

    Brought by a franchisee · Sara Lee Fresh, Inc., Sara Lee Corporation, et al. (later added: Earthgrains Distribution LLC, Grupo Bimbo S.A.B. de C.V., Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc.) · filed 2006-10-23 · Los Angeles County, Superior Court of the State of California · BC 360-109

    “Phairoj Kaewsawang, et al. v. Sara Lee Fresh, Inc., Sara Lee Corporation, et. al., Los Angeles County, Superior Court of the State of California, Case No. BC 360-109, filed October 23, 2006. A former Sara Lee independent distributor, Phairoj Kaewsawang, filed a class action lawsuit and claimed to represent all others similarly situated.”Page 22 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“Per the settlement agreement, the Defendants collectively agreed to make a maximum payment of $14,500,000,”

This list shows 15 of the 61 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.

What are you signing up for?

Ongoing fees run about 19.8% of sales (royalty + ad fund), before rent and labor.

Initial term10 yrs
Renewal term10 yrs
TerritoryExclusive (favorable vs category)
Initial trainingNot extracted

Source: FDD 2025 · Items 11, 12, 17

FDD Items 12, 15, 17 · continued from Risk & Legal

Contract & Territory Detail

Initial term10 years
Renewal term10 years
Territory typeExclusive territory
Protected territoryYes
Exclusive territoryℹYes
Online sales rightsℹRestricted
Franchisor can competeYes
Hire a manager?Allowed
Owner-operatorOptional
Right of first refusalℹYes
RoFR response window14 days
Transfer requires consentYes
Termination notice3 days
Mandatory arbitrationYes
Arbitration locationIn or near the county in which the Distributor operates (or mutually agreed-upon location)
Jury trial waiverYes
Governing lawPA
Litigation count61
View Item 3 litigation summary

57 total disclosed cases including misclassification class actions, breach of contract disputes, route valuation disputes, and regulatory enforcement (Maryland Consent Order). 6 cases pending as of April 2025; 51 concluded. Largest settlements include $14.5M class settlement (Kaewsawang CA IBPs). BFBD was defendant in substantially all cases; BFBD was plaintiff in case 15 (R.J. Wajert right-of-first-refusal enforcement).

Items 10, 11

Training & Operations

Classroom training
0 hrs
On-the-job training
0 hrs
Training location
No mandatory training; optional orientation sessions may be offered at various times.
Ongoing training
Optional
Site selection
Franchisor
Franchisor financing
Offered
Item 10
POS system
Hand-held computer ordering system (handheld + printer)
Operating tech stack

Items 5 & 11

Franchisor Support

✓Site selection assistance
✗Grand opening support
✗Lease negotiation help

Technology: Hand-held computer ordering system (handheld + printer)

Item 20 · call current owners

Franchisee Contacts

6,533 owners to call

Name · phone · city · state. Extracted from FDD Item 20

Unlock 6,533 contacts · $49
Free preview
240-217-••••MD
Unlock all 6,533 contacts
901-499-••••TN
603-662-••••ME
214-499-••••TX
845-750-••••NY

Frequently asked questions

Frequently Asked Questions

How much does it cost to open a Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution franchise?

The total investment to open a Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution franchise ranges from $14K – $607K, with an initial franchise fee of $8K. This includes real estate, equipment, inventory, and working capital as disclosed in their Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD).

What do Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution franchise owners earn?

Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD - a voluntary item under the FTC Franchise Rule - so no unit revenue figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that. Item 20 of the FDD lists current and former franchisees; asking them directly is the standard way to fill this gap.

Who owns Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution?

Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution is franchised by Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC. Its parent company is Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc.. The ultimate parent named in the FDD is Grupo Bimbo S.A.B. de C.V.. Source: FDD Item 1, 2025 filing.

What is Item 19 in the Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution FDD?

The FDD section where a franchisor may disclose financial performance of its outlets. Disclosure is optional and formats vary; figures are typically gross sales, which is revenue before expenses, not profit. FranchiseVerdict extracts these figures directly from the Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.

What is Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution's franchise failure rate?

SBA 7(a) loan charge-off data is not available for Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution (fewer than 10 loans on file). Charge-off rates are one way to gauge franchise risk, but not all franchise loans go through the SBA program. We recommend reviewing turnover and closure data in the FDD and speaking with current franchisees.

How many Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution franchise locations are there?

As of their most recent FDD filing, Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution has 6,957 total units in the United States, including 6,454 franchised units and 503 company-owned units. 2,968 new units were opened in the latest reporting year.

Is Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution a good franchise to buy?

FranchiseVerdict rates Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution as a B-grade franchise with a verdict score of 69 out of 100 (higher is better). The grade is a deterministic score built from six weighted dimensions — financial health, unit economics, unit growth, scale, legal, and transparency — then calibrated against SBA loan charge-off rates and FDD age. Transparency is one of the six, so a filing that discloses less scores lower on that dimension than one that discloses more. Our rating is based solely on publicly available FDD and government data; we recommend speaking with current franchisees before making any investment decision. This is not investment advice.

Data sourced from public FDD filings and SBA 7(a) FOIA records. Not financial advice.

For franchisors

Are you the franchisor?

If you represent Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, you can request corrections or provide updated information.

Other Quick-Service Restaurants franchises

Compare similar franchise opportunities in the Quick-Service Restaurants category

Data extracted from public FDD filings and SBA 7(a) loan disclosures (FOIA). This information is provided for research purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or investment advice. Verify all figures with the franchisor's current Franchise Disclosure Document before making any investment decision.