FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing
Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution litigation history
What Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution 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
- 61
- Item 3, as counted in the filing
- Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases
- $703K
- 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
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).
Item 3 (litigation) · 61 matters disclosed · 6 pending listed
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Pending (5)
Francisco J. Marmol v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC
pendingfiled 2024-11-07 · Civil Court of the City of New York, County of Bronx · CV-017373-24/BX
“… 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
pendingBrought by a franchisee · filed 2022-10-28
“… 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
pendingBrought by a franchisee · filed 2022-02-04 · Circuit Court for Montgomery County Maryland · Case #607
“… 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.
pendingBrought by a franchisee · filed 2021-05-13 · Queens County Supreme Court (appeal noticed to the Appellate Division)
“… 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
pendingBrought 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
settledBrought by a franchisee · filed 2025-01-08 · 3rd Judicial Circuit, Wayne County, Michigan
“… 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
settledBrought by a franchisee · filed 2022-08-04 · Saratoga County, NY
“… 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
settledBrought by a franchisee · filed 2021 · Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania · GD-21-1730
“… 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
settledfiled 2019-04-15 · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 5:19-cv-00577-HNJ
“… 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
settledBrought by a franchisee · filed 2018-05-08 · U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire
“… 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
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · filed 2014 · Securities Division of the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland / Maryland Securities Commissioner · Case No. 2014-0348
“… (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, master franchisor and subfranchisor
Pending (1)
Tlaloc Munoz, Miguel Ruiz, and Edgar Corona v. Earthgrains Distribution, LLC and Bimbo Bakeries Inc.
pendingEarthgrains 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
“… 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.
settledBimbo 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
“… 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.
settledBimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., et al. · filed 2023-02-09 · Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington County
“… 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.
settledBrought 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
“… 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.
Disclosure signals that moved the score
How this shows up in the verdict
- Significant litigation involving misclassification, labor law violations, fraud, and deceptive trade practices suggests systemic operational or legal problems
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?