FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

Body20 litigation history

What Body20 disclosed about lawsuits, arbitrations and bankruptcy in the 2026 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: 5; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases: None stated

Bankruptcy (Item 4): None; Franchisor, parent, predecessor or officer

Filing year: 2026; Disclosures cover the prior ten years

Extracted from the 2026 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 3: litigation

Item 3 discloses no litigation against BODY20 itself, its parents, predecessors, or affiliates, but its CEO and other officers (who previously held roles at Xponential Fitness and its brands) are named as individual defendants in five pending matters: the AKT Lawsuit (former AKT franchisees), the Y6 Lawsuit (former Yoga Six franchisees), the Nickle Lawsuit (CycleBar/BFT franchisee), the consolidated Xponential Securities Litigation, and the consolidated Xponential Derivative Litigation.

Item 3 (litigation) · 5 matters disclosed · 4 pending listed

Litigation cases

Officers and directors (individuals, not the company)

Pending (4)

In re Xponential Fitness Securities Litigation (the "Securities Litigation")
pending
Anthony Geisler (CEO of Sequel Brands; named as a former XFI officer) · filed 2024-02-09 · United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division · 8:24-cv-00285
“In re Xponential Fitness Securities Litigation, filed February 9, 2024, United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, Case No. 8:24-cv-00285.”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The Securities Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss that was argued on December 3, 2025 and is still pending.” (page 18)
Within this matter, as the filing narrates it · 2 proceedings
- City of Taylor General Employees Retirement System v. Xponential Fitness, Inc., Anthony Geisler, and John Meloun
  pending
  names an officer, not the company · Anthony Geisler · filed 2024-02-09 · United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division · 8:24-cv-00285
  “Two actions (1) City of Taylor General Employees Retirement System v. Xponential Fitness, Inc., Anthony Geisler, and John Meloun, filed February 9, 2024, United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, Case No. 8:24-cv- 00285;”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
- City of West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. Xponential Fitness, Inc., Anthony Geisler, John Meloun, Mark Grabowski, Brenda Morris, Chelsea Grayson, BofA Securities, Inc., Jefferies LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Roth Capital Partners, LLC, and R. Seelaus & Co.,
  pending
  names an officer, not the company · Anthony Geisler · filed 2024-06-18 · United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division · 8:24-cv-01333
  “(2) City of West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. Xponential Fitness, Inc., Anthony Geisler, John Meloun, Mark Grabowski, Brenda Morris, Chelsea Grayson, BofA Securities, Inc., Jefferies LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Roth Capital Partners, LLC, and R. Seelaus & Co., LLC, filed June 18, 2024,”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Counted as one matter, the way Item 3 groups it.
In re Xponential Fitness, Inc. Derivative Litigation (the "Derivative Litigation")
pending
Anthony Geisler · filed 2024-03-10 · United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division · 2:24-cv-01928-JWH-KES
“In re Xponential Fitness, Inc. Derivative Litigation, filed March 10, 2024, United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, Case No. 2:24-cv- 01928-JWH-KES.”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On April 3, 2024, the court stayed the proceedings pending resolution of the Securities Litigation.”
Within this matter, as the filing narrates it · 3 proceedings
- Stefanie Nelson, derivatively on behalf of Xponential Fitness, Inc., v. Anthony Geisler, Jair Clarke, Mark Grabowski, Chelsea A. Grayson, John Meloun, and Brenda Morris
  pending
  Brought by a third party · names an officer, not the company · Anthony Geisler · filed 2025-02-10 · United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division · 8:25cv258
  “(3) Stefanie Nelson, derivatively on behalf of Xponential Fitness, Inc., v. Anthony Geisler, Jair Clarke, Mark Grabowski, Chelsea A. Grayson, John Meloun, and Brenda Morris, filed February 10, 2025, United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, Case No. 8:25cv258”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
- Gideon Akande v. Anthony Geisler, John Meloun, Jair Clarke, Mark Grabowski, Chelsea A. Grayson, Brenda Morris, and, nominally, Xponential Fitness, Inc.
  pending
  names an officer, not the company · Anthony Geisler · filed 2024-03-10 · United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division · 2:24-cv-01928
  “(1) Gideon Akande v. Anthony Geisler, John Meloun, Jair Clarke, Mark Grabowski, Chelsea A. Grayson, Brenda Morris, and, nominally, Xponential Fitness, Inc., filed March 10, 2024, United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, Case No. 2:24-cv-01928;”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
- Patrick Ayers, derivatively on behalf of Xponential Fitness, Inc, v. Anthony Geisler, Jair Clarke, Mark Grabowski, Chelsea A. Grayson, Brenda Morris, and John Melhoun
  pending
  Brought by a third party · names an officer, not the company · Anthony Geisler · filed 2024-05-10 · United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division · 2:24-cv-3937
  “(2) Patrick Ayers, derivatively on behalf of Xponential Fitness, Inc, v. Anthony Geisler, Jair Clarke, Mark Grabowski, Chelsea A. Grayson, Brenda Morris, and John Melhoun, filed May 10, 2024, United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, Case No. 2:24-cv-3937,”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Counted as one matter, the way Item 3 groups it.
Dance Fitness Michigan LLC, et al. v. AKT Franchise, LLC, et al. (the "AKT Lawsuit")
pending
Brought by a franchisee · Anthony Geisler (Chief Executive Officer of Sequel Brands; formerly CEO of Xponential) · filed 2023-08-30 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange · 30-2023-01345433-CU-AT-CXC
“Dance Fitness Michigan LLC, et al. v. AKT Franchise, LLC, et al., filed August 30, 2023, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2023-01345433- CU-AT-CXC (the “AKT Lawsuit”). This action was filed by certain former AKT® franchisees and their owners,”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “In April 2026, defendants Anthony Geisler and LAG Fit, Inc. filed a demurrer to the Fourth Amended Complaint and all other defendants filed an answer.”
Enlightened Armadillo, Inc., et al. v. Yoga Six Franchise, LLC, et al.
pending
Brought by a franchisee · Lindsay Junk (our Chief Executive Officer), Anthony Geisler (CEO of Sequel Brands), Nate Chang (Sequel Brands' Chief Marketing Officer) · filed 2023-11-22 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange · 30-2023-01367265-CU-AT-CXC
“… filed November 22, 2023, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2023- 01367265-CU-AT-CXC. This action was filed by two Yoga Six® franchisees and their owners,”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The Y6 Defendants’ demurrers were overruled and the Y6 Defendants filed answers in May 2025. The case is scheduled for trial in October 2026.”

Concluded (1)

Nickle Acquisition, LLC, et al v. Xponential Fitness, Inc., et al.
settled
Brought by a franchisee · Anthony Geisler (CEO of Sequel Brands) and Trevor Lucas (our Chief Financial Officer) · filed 2025-02-03 · Superior Court for the State of California, County of Orange · 30-2025-01459041-CU-AT-CXC
“… filed February 3, 2025, Superior Court for the State of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2025-01459041- CU-AT-CXC. This action was filed by a CycleBar® and BFT® franchisee and its owners,”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “In April 2026, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in which (A) XFI agreed to pay the Nickle Plaintiffs $200,000, (B) the parties agreed to dismiss the action with prejudice,” (page 17)

5 of the proceedings above are indented under the matter they belong to because the filing narrates them inside it — an appeal, a consolidated case, a related arbitration. Each carries its own quote and page. They are counted with their matter, not as extra matters, so this list and the 5 Item 3 discloses agree.

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

Parent company (Xponential Fitness) under active securities litigation for fraud and pre-sale disclosure violations involving named executives Lindsay Junk and Anthony Geisler
Litigation directly involves corporate officers responsible for franchise disclosures and marketing claims

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 Body20 verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls